We love some good satire at here Gender Relations, which is why the other nights Daily Show had a great segment about men losing their status and power here in America. Samantha Bee goes head to head with sociologist, Dr. Warren Farrell, and I think she does a great job. Her expression of traditional masculinity (the hunting at the end being the best example) against the men’s expression (which seems very unmasculine) shows a very interesting dynamic of men losing power, and how they choose to act..

The men explain the problems they face (although they have a hard time really coming up with answers) in a way that is very sensitive through talking circles. So, there is a irony between the fact that they are losing their traditional senses of power and the fact that they are acting more ‘effeminate’. At the end, Bee even suggests that they are turning her into a lesbian and that they are ‘vaginamen’, which illustrates perfectly that the worst they have to lose is the traditional sense of masculinity (which is very aggressive at times), and that the images of men can be something different. There is a thin line with satire, because by calling them vaginamen, she could be emasculating them even further. There is also an irony that men are upset about WOMEN taking over their positions, yet they are “acting like women”. Maybe the gender struggle is more about power than anything else. When you feel like you are at the bottom (even if it is an illusion), then you become more sensitive, open, communicable, etc. An interesting theory to mull over.

Samantha also cracks a joke about reclaiming their manhood (after making a joke about masturbating in a circle) in relation to their sexuality, which is hard to tell if the joke is clumping sexuality and gender together or not, but something to consider.

On a more serious note, the ominous news clips at the beginning of the segment are not unlike the feelings these men are expressing in these groups. I don’t find the groups themselves to be hurting anyone, inherently, but you must look at why they are there. They seem like relatively sensitive men (talking sticks?) who are hurting about a loss of power, yet reacting unlike a man of power would react in the situation. Maybe because they are large cultural changes that are happening allowing females to take positions of power, education, and presence in the media, men cannot directly do anything about it.

This feeling of defeat that the men are feeling should be used as a reflective one to both :

Empathize women’s past struggles // There is a huge increase of women coming into power, but have they not earned it? In the past more women have sought out higher education (which makes them more qualified for a large amount of the jobs in our country). Although, matriarchy is not a better model than patriarchy (and I certainly do not see it coming to that, as men are STILL in power), I think this gives men a unique opportunity to try to fit into the ‘high heels’ of women’s historic disadvantage.

Focus on creating better relationships with women // Men and women are not that different. There does not have to be large power differences (shouldn’t the best person get the job?). When men and women work together, really the only loss that can occur is one of traditional power structures. Focusing on how everyone can work better as human beings and not men or women can be beneficial.

I have seen a lot of these men’s groups popping up lately. Magazines dedicated to the proposition, entire organizations functioning on the sole thought that men are losing their grips of power, but when you look at the statistics (which I believe Samantha and The Daily Show point out quite eloquently), it becomes easy to see that men have nothing to fear with their hands grasped tightly to the major corporations in our country. I can see how women becoming equal could threaten a man’s position, but it has been a position that fits wrongly in the place of decency. We are equal people, and before this gets too corny, I would like to end by saying that these groups could help awaken men to be more sensitive and open (but without the banter of losing power).

Feministing (where I found this clip), really positions themselves in the area that the segment was unsuccessful and that it seemed to be making fun of men who weren’t meeting the traditions of masculinity anyways. I would agree with this (which was addressed in some of my comments above), but at the same time, it is important to realize why the men are there. I think the groups are great because men are expressing themselves in non-traditional ways, but it is as a backlash to women becoming more equal. Even though they do break out of traditional dominance of masculinity, they aren’t doing it for the reasons of safety or progressive attitudes, but because they feel like they are losing something (that does not inherently even belong to them) If men becoming more sensitive and women becoming more equal is the end of the formula, then why not? I do understand the point of the target, and I feel like the nature of TDS is to draw attention to a group like this (to get an alternative view – agreed they could have done it a little better), but I think Bee’s behavior in the segment is really reflective of trying to reject traditional masculinity that those men feel like they have lost (which I think the origin of why the group is formed is very integral to understanding why they are breaking out of the traditional format of masculinity). It’s a touchy line, and hard to discern one way or the other, but her gross representation of masculinity was one I felt paired interestingly with the gross behavior of the men.

A tip of the hat to Feministing, where I found this story.

What is your take on the segment?

REMEMBER TO VOTE TOMORROW NOV. 4th!

This election has very apparently been one that has been shrouded with gender opinions across the board. From Hillary’s crying game to Palin’s moose shooting tactics, the battles of gender have been brought into the spotlight of politics more than ever (at least at the presidential level).

In a recent article on Galesburg.com, it was suggested that gender does play a role in this current election. One older woman in the article suggests that Palin has murky views on the role of women, thinking they should just sit in their homes all day. This, too, is what bothers me about Sarah Palin. Going back to the idea that she believes that women should have to pay for rape kits, her views on femininity feel overflowed with contradiction. On one hand she lives the very stereotypical ‘beauty’ role of women in society (pagent, etc.), but then on the other hand is a women who ‘could be’ a strong politician (with more experience), and is very pro-gun (a typical male recreation). The point is that even though she sits back and defies some gender roles, she is quick to throw other women even further in the bucket of their ‘place in society’.

Not A Kiss I Want

One point of take-off that I find very interesting is that men and women are voting rather equally in this election. 52% of women projected for Obama and 49% of men for McCain. Although my tendencies would be to lean that women are more liberal (historically more oppressed groups are more liberal), but it seems pretty even. I just find it very hard to believe that women could vote for an administration that would make them pay for a rape kit. The very notion of such a law is a slap in the face to victims, which surprises me the % of women is not higher as women statistically care more about health care in this election. Even though I feel like the divides should be bigger, it is kind of nice to see women and men equally thinking the same about the issues.

I also read a recent article about women in politics and how they may need a little extra than a good platform to win over the people (i.e. a good looking face or body). A study done by Northwestern University found :

• Voters perceived the faces of male politicians as more competent and dominant relative to female politicians.
• Female politicians were perceived as more attractive and approachable relative to males.
• Candidates who were perceived as more attractive by men were more likely to win votes in the actual Congressional election.
• Gender stereotypes may bias voters to value male politicians over female politicians because they possess facial features associated with effective leaders.

Although, I take a very sociological stance on just about everything I read, watch, or observe, the last point sends out an interesting psychological message as well as one that could be contradictory. It may be true that we associate male facial features with success, which may aide to some of the discrimination that Obama has faced. We have to wake up to our biases because they are holding down people who can create change for us. Just because Sarah Palin has a pretty face does not mean she has any competence. I would argue the contrary — That women who meet the standards of beauty for our society are less percieved to do a good job because women in this setting are percieved to have lower intelligence. Even though this is not true, it seems to be antithetical to the logic behind the facial arguement.

Although I am sure Sarah Palin being VP would raise some interesting gender issues for politics, I can only hope that she does not make it to that seat because this would mean setting the thoughts of feminism back moreso than the counter-party.