Gender Relations

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?

I have been reading “The Body Adornment Encyclopedia”, and there is just a load of great information in it (I suggest reading it to anyone – even if you aren’t overly interested in the topic of body modification), and like with any subject there are gender implications to some of the information. I haven’t read the entire thing yet, but I will post some more gender related comments as I go through! For now, I have two main comments!

• In the book it was talking about “Beauty” (B) – and how the standards for women are much higher for men and much more unobtainable and a lot of the things I think a lot of people would agree with. Then they went on to talk about how a common feminist philosophy is that women are supposed to be thin for a very literal and figurative reason – to take up less space. I had never thought about beauty standards being so literal before – that the skinner women are the less room they take up on earth (and on the other side that men are bulkier because they can / should take up more room). Whether it is a stretch of a metaphor or not, there is a valid passing thought to be considered that asks what other reasons is skinny so popular. I mean obesity could just as easily be considered the standard under different social perceptions? Regardless, interesting metaphor to think about.

_

• The other point I thought was just flatout disgusting was under Australia (A). Talking about native tribes and traditions (in relation to rites of passage) the author describes the male maturity process. The male (usually 12 years of age) goes into the forest alone (separated in a very direct way from his mother), and must find his way back to the tribe. Waiting there will be his male blood relatives as well as his future ‘in-laws’ (as the bride will be picked for him – also around the age of 12). From there, they circumcise the boy and make him eat his own flesh. The circumcision is a very direct metaphor for bleeding out any signs of femininity that the boy may have left (and at times later on they will make an incision under the shaft of the penis in order to make sure the boy has drenched out all femininity). Thinking about cross-cultural perspectives of gender always opens a whole new bag of worms because there are different customs all over the world. In America we go about gendering in such an overt way (comparatively). I just find it rather depressing that some cultures find that having qualities of other genders / sex to be such a demoralizing stance, that they must cut it out of themselves. I wonder where that intense segregation comes (in other cultures). It is different from country to country and even tribe to tribe. I do get glimmers of hope when I hear about a lot of Native America tribes and how they treat their women. For example, when women are on their “moon” (period), it is a time for them to relax, and men see it as a cycle of wisdom. Now, that is a much different interpretation than this Australian tribe. (There is a great article called “If Men Could Menstruate” – but i’ll save that for another time!)

Those were two pieces of the book that really shouted out “GENDER ALERT” to me. There is some great info about Betty Broadbent in the book too (the first women to be fully tattooed). She was a pioneer for the tattoo culture bad in the day (she had 365 – one for each day). It was nice to read about a woman from a long time ago becoming part of a culture that was mostly started by sailors, then advanced by bikers (and carnival folk).

Well, hopefully you found those points of focus interesting as well, if I see anything else of relation in the book, i’ll be sure to post!

http://hellonhairylegs.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/high-school-is-depressing/

RESPONSE TO ABOVE POSTING : I found this interesting blog post by a high school feminist about her typical day at school. I thought it was amusing and sad at the same time because we obviously still have tons of work to do.

High School is a really hard time and students are learning how they should and and who they should be. There is a lot of blame placed on how men act and who men are (not specifically from this blog, but in my searching I came across a blog called “blame it all on the patriarchy”, which aims and places a lot of blame at men for what we should be blaming societal pressures for), but I think we need to take an anti-agressive feminist attitude and proceede with education and gender deconstruction (along with feminist education). I find it to be quite the paradox if we are blaming men and expect them to change. If you are going to adopt an attitude where you want change through blame, then you will be waiting for eternity. Blame and change just do not mix well. Education and integration (of gender deconstruction) seem like the best appraoches to me personally.

The blog post does have some very valid points and some that are horribly sad to realize when talking about high school education. So many schools are underfunded which lead to a lack in ability to advance in critical thinking about things like gender and social perceptions. I find it refreshing that there are critically thinking students around the world.