greenie_breizh | Entries tagged with gender & co

shiraz_wine directed me to a fascinating analysis of the Twilight crazy. I agree with a lot of the points that the poster makes and in particular, that it's important to remember that a text is polysemic and that different people are going to take different things from the same material. Thank fuck, it's entirely possible for a girl to read Twilight and not to integrate the creepy messages about submissiveness, rather choose to see agency in the story, though I do think it's interesting that messages that are undoubtedly conservative resonate - at least partly - with female teen audiences right now. All in all, Twilight has seemed from the start as rather non-worthy of interest to me - yes, it's fucking creepy, and that assault thing I posted about yesterday made me truly angry, because the father's reaction was unacceptable - but to be honest, there's a lot of really bad literature out there that people get obsessed with. And we all read stupid things when we're teenagers. (I'm pretty sure The Famous Five were not the most progressive feminist series ever written.) The level of intensity from Twilight fans is a little creepy, but again, not going to throw the first stone here.

Point is - I don't like these books, regardless of different readings, I think they're problematic, but then I think Disney is highly problematic. I don't think it's a coincidence that books with a central message of abstinence are huge right now, and I think it's particularly worrying that mothers are upholding these books as perfect material for their daughters. But I also don't think they're going to end the world, and the problem is not if the girls read these books, but if that's all they read, and how they read them, and whether or not they're going to grow into reading different things later.

But something that I'm really interested in - especially after reading more detailed summaries yesterday - is the fact that Bella is apparantly portrayed as having a rather insistent sex drive, and that Edward always have to remind her they can't have sex, because she really wants to. Girls are not usually portrayed as the one wanting sex, we're usually more concerned with telling them they should learn how to say no and how to protect themselves against boys who will, naturally, want it. For once, the boy is the one who has to be the gatekeeper... of course, the ironic part is that it means that it's still the boy deciding the terms of the relationship, but hey. There's an interesting twist there. And admitting that teenage girls do have sexual desire is pretty crucial.

--

Speaking of reading against the grain, Judy Dushku, Eliza's mom, is an active member of the Mormon Church, but also a progressive, feminist-oriented strong woman by Eliza's account. I've always been curious about what seems - to me - like a slight contradiction in terms, so I found this quote from the Boston Globe interesting:

Judith Dushku isn't just disappointed, she's embarrassed. "This ugly conflict between my church and those who advocate for legal gay marriage troubles me terribly," says Dushku, an associate professor at Suffolk University and the mother of "Dollhouse" actress Eliza Dushku. She's referring to the Mormon church's support for Proposition 8, the ballot measure banning same-sex marriage that passed in California. (Local Mormons who helped finance the initiative include Michelle Ainge, wife of Celts exec Danny Ainge, and members of Mitt Romney's family.) A lifelong member of the Mormon church - her ancestors pushed handcarts to Utah to establish a place of worship - Dushku says she was "deeply ashamed" by the behavior of Mormon leaders in the days leading up to the vote. (The church sent letters, held video conferences, and from the pulpit urged members to donate money and time to the pro-Prop 8 cause.) "This is completely counter to my whole life of experience with Mormons. These are not a people that are narrow and parochial," she said. "This is not what I expect." An active member of the Mormon church in Weston, Dushku risks excommunication by speaking out. But she says others feel the same way. "Many Mormons feel deeply disappointed in what our church has done with its wealth and influence," she said. "The idea that Mormons are unified around this issue is not my experience... Many people are embarrassed."

Current Mood: grumpy
Current Music: Le Mouv'

Okay. So for some reason instead of jotting down the beginning of some notes for my Buffy paper I've been read these excellent (because funny) summaries of Twilight, with actual quotes! (As seen on TV.)

Well. Twilight has just turned into more than an idiotic, backwards book series. I'm officially terrified. This is an excerpt from the book. For real. (For those of you who are lucky enough to not know, the books are narrated in the first person by the female protagonist, Bella.)

( Assault and all that good stuff. )

On a nicer note, ( I went to see Madagscar 2 tonight )

This reminds me, I can't remember if I said, but man, how much do I wish the people who made Wall-E had not felt the need to give Wall-E and Eve gendered voices. It would have been so awesome, had both their voices been neutral. They wouldn't be coded male, female, gay, straight. They would just be robots in love and we would have no words to talk about that story. I love the thought.

Current Mood: lazy
Current Music: Hot Hot Heat - Bandages

In more serious news:

- Judge overturns Florida ban on adoption by gays and lesbians.
This decision is going to be appealed, so it really doesn't mean much yet, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

- In Prop 8 news, the California Supreme Court will hear appeal of same-sex marriage ballot measure. While the court will not interfere with the enforcement of the law in the meanwhile (meaning: same-sex couples cannot get married right now), there is a chance that it will rule that the ballot measure itself was "improperly used" to take away rights. I find it weird that it's even legal to use these ballot measures to have the majority vote on a minority right, but I'm not sure if the legal apparatus in the U.S. has anything about that.

- And finally, in French, an article about a school in Sweden that's purposefully separating boys and girls on some occasions so that they have a chance to take part in play that's traditionally reserved to the other gender.

Current Mood: procrastinating

A couple of serious links for tonight:

Jean Kilbourne's Killing Us Softly 3 about images of women in advertising - it's worth watching even if there are no groundbreaking points that are being made in there, and there's some funny. :)

The one quote I really liked was one when Jean was talking about the fact there's been a rise recently in images that objectify men, as well. And how sometimes that's used to say, look, men are treated just as badly as women.

The problem? Apart from the fact it doesn't happen with as much frequency, it is that the structure doesn't work the same for men and women. "There are no consequences to men for being objectified." The images that we circulate that perpetuate an image of masculinity as necessarily violent and unemotional have much more power, and are much more dangerous.

--

An interesting post, An exegesis on same-sex marriage, in particularly because it goes over the history of marriage as an institution.

--

And I'll throw a lighter link in there, Nathan Fillion and Joss Whedon being adorable together. RL bromance FTW. :D

Current Mood: busy
Current Music: Zazie - FM Air

Before I get started on this little rant, something I did in preparation for my lecture:

Really, heterosexuality manifests itself at school? No. Never, ever.

--

UBC FilmSoc is showing the movie this week and I've been hearing about it so we (me + a bunch of friends) went it to see it last night. Three things that I found particularly interesting about the movie (which is about, well, young people - four couples and a threesome - fucking), but I'm going to put that under a cut in case some of you don't want to be "spoiled" for the movie.

( Hétéronormativité, quand tu nous tiens... )

It's 'funny' because I'm pretty sure I'm coming across as very critical; I actually enjoyed the movie a lot and I would absolutely recommend it. But especially since it's so much about sex, sexuality and relationships, it's just impossible for me to sit there and not reflect on the messages that the movie was perpetuating and the way in which the audience through its reactins was reifying very problematic messages about sexuality. What's acceptable, what's "normal", and in contrast, what is funny because it's unexpected/abnormal/unusual.

Pretty much I was sitting there and feeling like I was watching hegemony at work. Our messages change, evolve, but some dominant beliefs don't.

Real guys don't get fucked, y'know?

Current Mood: contemplative
Current Music: CSS - Left Behind

This whole preparing a lecture thing is so much fun :D

I'm going to start working on the powerpoint and so I'm shopping around for illustrations, and realized that High School Musical is like, perfect. It's school and family entertainment and it's all about heterosexuality. Actually I'm just wondering now if I shouldn't try and show THAT in class. Because seriously. It would be so funny.

(As a sidenote: Oh, baby Simon. You're so cute going for the dark and broody look. The sad thing is I do actually find him really pretty hot, especially with the longish hair. I fail. ^^)

I just wish I could find a high quality image of Troy (Efron) and Gabriella (Hudgens) with a school backdrop, but barring that, still so many to choose from. Oh, High School Musical. You will never cease to amaze me.

...I almost want to rewatch those movies now. Except I know they really won't be half as funny without you,

fan_elune. Get yourself over here, will you? ^^

...why isn't Sean Maher doing these photoshoots? Damn, Efron.

Current Mood: amused
Current Music: Le Mouv'

I take liberal feminist education to share some core features of mainstream liberal education, with a central emphasis on a broad education that fosters freedom by developing autonomy. In doing so, the feminist variant would pay particular attention to encouraging the growth of autonomy among girls, and their capacity to choose roles and lifestyles rather than being forced to accept traditionally defined ones. (p.73)

Extract from Enslin, Penny (2003)."Liberal feminism, diversity and education", in Theory and Research in Education 1 (1): pp.73-87.

On Tuesday Karen Bradley, from Western Washington University came to do a talk entitled “Cultural and Structural Factors Affecting the Incorporation of Women into Systems of Higher Education”.

One of the things she was looking at is vertical and horizontal segregation: vertical segregation refers to the fact that women are confined to low-paying jobs, and horizontal segregation refers to the fact that they're limited to certain fields of work. One of the things that's fascinating about these two aspects of gender segregation is that the rationale of gender equality seems to have helped reduce vertical segregation, but not horizontal segregation, so that the male/female ratio at university for example is very unequal in fields of study that are traditionally gendered: engineeing, computer science (in favor of males), education, nursing (in favor of females).

One of the explanations she mentioned for this phenomenon is that our belief in gender egalitarianism has not been accompanied with a real challenge to gender essentialism: that is, the belief that men are 'naturally' one way and women 'naturally' another way. One reason for the fact that increase in gender egalitarianism in the general population doesn't mean an increase in gender essentialism is that legislating equality affects vertical rather than horizontal segregation.

Her main thesis was interesting - and provocative. She argued that norms of self-expression and the rationale of choice that are so popular (especially in North American cultures) legitimize our indulgence in gender-stereotyping.

So for example, our focus on the individual means that if a girl decides she wants to be a nurse and doesn't like math, rather than challenging that, we focus on the idea that she's making that choice for herself and that as an individual, she has the right to do that. Consequently we tend to disregard economic outcomes and the influence of gendered cultural ideas... Bradley argued this is all the more true since we allow teens to make choices for themselves at school at a moment in their life where they are the most sensitive to pressures of gendered expectations and most likely to make choices based on deeply-held cultural beliefs of gender essentialism.

In short, the valuation of choice and individualism in our society would be the very tool that allows for the perpetuation of gender essentialist beliefs, as they become concealed behind arguments of self-expression.

Now, I don't know if I agree completely with this idea, but it certainly resonates with what I know and what we have witnessed over the past few decades. It certainly makes sense in the context of heterosexism resonating so easily with a large percentage of the population, because heterosexist is rooted in gender essentialism. Anyway. I just wanted to relate the argument (not as well as she made it but hopefully fairly clearly) as food for thought.

It also really challenges liberal feminism as defined by that quote at the beginning of the post, since then emphasis on autonomy, unless it is actively accompanied by challenges to gender essentialist beliefs, would simply work to reinforce gender stereotypes in the framework of our society, rather than help liberate women.

Oh, and before I forget again: the grad advisor for our department, Gerry, is a browncoat! :D I was so happy to find out. On Thursday he briefly sat down next to me during the UGF and at one point turned to me and said "shiny!" with a knowing grin on his face. Just awesome.

Current Mood: busy

Reading about heterosex and feeling a little down at how male hegemony is just so closely intertwined with the way we see sex - it's like even when we think we're in an egalitarian relationship where the woman is treated the same as the man, our accounts of sex reveal systemic inequalities. :/ I find myself wondering if it's possible to have non-hegemonic heterosex and the thought that maybe it's not is incredibly depressing.

"The way these activities were described, as in these two extracts, often represented her orgasm as something that she had as a result of what he did or gave her. In contrast, his orgasm, achieved through intercourse, was not typically framed as her giving – instead, it was something ‘we’ did together, or about where his orgasm took place. In these accounts, the man is represented as more active in the production of orgasm – both hers and his own – than is the woman. In this way, it is a subtle account of the relative passivity traditionally expected of women in heterosex (e.g. see Gavey and McPhillips, 1999; Gilfoyle et al., 1992)."

[...] "Numerous studies have pointed to the links between male sexuality and performance/competence (e.g. Gilfoyle et al., 1992; Kilmartin, 1999). It also points to how ‘saturated’ heterosexual reciprocity is with unequal status. If a woman’s orgasm is ‘given’ by a man, as it is in the discourse of reciprocity, men stand to gain positive identity positions (sensitive and unselfish) through this discourse. Furthermore, the caring, sensitive man partaking in reciprocal heterosex is also imbued with ‘sexpertise’ (Potts, 1998, 2002) – the competence to know how to meet the complex challenge of producing orgasm in the female body, as well as the more straightforward task of his own orgasm. Women’s ‘gift’, on the other hand, is recognized less as an active gift than as a taken-for-granted expectation. As such, the positive identities to be gained by women through the discourse are less clear (although the negative implications of not participating are clear)."

[...] "It is ironic . . . that the ‘enlightened’ male discourse, in which men take some responsibility for their partner’s pleasure, is yet another example of men abrogating power to themselves, as they take away women’s ability to be an independent sexual agent. (Gilfoyle et al., 1992: 224)"

(Extracted from Virginia Braun, Nicola Gavey and Katrhyn McPhilips, “The ‘Fair Deal’? Unpacking Accounts of Reciprocity in Heterosex,’ Sexualities 6:2 (2003): 237-261.)

Current Mood: contemplative

From "Buffy the Vampire Dater", yet another article to be found in The Psychology of Joss Whedon:

"The point, ladies and gentlemen, is this: Men and women selectively navigate through the noisy buzz of cues, indices, and signals to find members of the opposite sex depending on their own gender-specific needs. Men gather clues to sexual possibilities and women hunt for signs of commitment."

*HEADDESK*

Heterosexism. Broad generalizations. Sexism. Essentialism.

OMG. This book is going to kill me.

(I find solace in the - unconscious? - gender reversal in the verbs of that last sentence: traditionally men hunt and women gather...)

Current Mood: irritated
Current Music: France Info

I'm reading The Psychology of Joss Whedon; some articles are interesting but I'm finding most of them pretty weak, theoritically speaking - just full of shortcuts and assumptions. I think some of that at least has got to do with limited article length, it's really too bad. Anyway, a bit that really stopped me last night:

"Through Buffy, Joss Whedon forges an entire anti-patriarchal universe from one creative act - giving a girl physical power beyond any living man." (p. 106, in "Existentialism Meets Feminism in Buffy the Vampire Slayer")

Now, I'm as convinced as the next fan that Buffy has a lot of feminist potential, for all that it's co-opted by being a product of popular culture (which means for example all the girls have to be thin and pretty and sexy). But you don't forge an anti-patriarchal universe by having one girl being stronger than every single man. That's preposterous.

First, a patriarchal system works on the domination of women, plural, and weak women in particular. Just because men can show respect for a strong woman doesn't mean they're not sexist . Just like having one Black CEO (or President...) doesn't mean a firm or the society that firm is part of is not racism. Patriarchy - just like racism, just like heterosexism - is first and foremost a system of domination of one group over another. Thus individualities, while they can be part of working towards change, can't be taken as proof that the whole system has changed. It's relationships between men and women that need to be revised, not the relationship of men to one particular woman. (Now, I believe that's what Joss tries to do in Buffy, that's not where my problem is.)

Second, suggesting that giving a woman physical power beyond that of men is a tool towards ending partiarchy is completely misguided. The fact that we reward physical power over any other quality is part of the partiarchy, so if you want to challenge the system, you have to do more than make women "men in a skirt", to use an expression the following article uses. Otherwise you're maintaining the hegemony of what we see as a masculine quality over feminine qualities, you're only changing the appearance of the vessel of domination. Fortunately, Joss's effort to challenge sexist norms and expectations are much deeper than a single creative arc.

Finally, if there's anti-partiarchal power to Joss's initial creative act, it's in the fact that he turns around on its head the stereotype of the helpless female victim by giving her the strength and confidence to fight back. Because that calls onto a stereotype - a generalization of what women are, helpless victims - and through that it challenges a sexist idea. That's a much more powerful perspective than saying Buffy's singularity - which is just that, a singularity, an exception - is a challenge to partriarchy. Systems of domination can perfectly integrate exceptions, they even feed on exceptions to reinforce the whole system, that's how hegemony works.

There. I just needed to get it out there. It just annoyed me so much. It's kind of like when people suggest fighting social inequalities by encouraging upward mobility.

EDIT: Since I'm on the topic on all, see this post about Perry's song "I kissed a girl" and everything that's wrong with the message it sends. It drives me batshit insane and

currentlymusing perfectly sums up why.

Current Mood: annoyed
Current Music: Anthony Stewart Head - Standing

I've been meaning to share that link - a must-read for guys, but it's a very useful read for gals, too.

Don't be That Guy.

Current Mood: working
Current Location: Paris, France
Current Music: Scooter - AudioTrack 14

P.S. This metaquote just reminded me: anyone has a clue in this day and age of so-called gender equality hairdressers still justify charging women more than men, regardless of actual hair length?

I'm actually interested in perspectives from all countries since anti-discrimination laws vary quite a lot. Is there any country where women and men pay the same for a haircut? Or where difference in price is based on hair length rather than the arbitrary (not to say sexist) characteristic of gender?

And actually, since I'm posting about this - U.S. peeps, I'm pretty certain at the federal level you have a document that states that all people should be treated equality regardless of race and religion (and probably more grounds, though I know gender is not in there)? Or is it just the whole "all men are created equal"? I feel kind of stupid asking, but I haven't managed to find it.

I swear I'm going to stop posting any minute now. Sorry for spamming your friendlist and being really bipolar about it, too. ^^

EDIT: Thanks to

lvs2read for helping me find the answer to that last question. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. DUH, Joey. DUH. Remember how you're supposed to be a North American civilization major? *facepalm*

Current Mood: confused
Current Location: Paris - I don't see where I could have gone in 10 minutes.
Current Music: Girls in Hawai - Flavor

So I'm in the middle of writing that first chapter of my thesis, right. And I'm talking about colonial rule and its effects on native beliefs about gender and sexuality.

I type out "For example, the Indian Act of 1896 established a rule of patrilineal descent..." and Word puts a little red squiggle under patrilineal ("tracing descent through the male line"). I right-click on the word to see what Microsoft has to offer as a suggestion to correct the word, and here's the best part.

Word thinks I really meant... matrilineal.

I just laughed out loud. For real.

Who knew Microsoft was a radical feminist who thinks only matrilineal descent exist, eh? I feel kind of dirty having to teach it patrilineal, now.

Current Mood: giggly
Current Music: Didier Squiban - Suite d'An Dro du pays vannetais

"And with this kind of role model and a changing social context, Jennifer is a girl who plays [softball] with a sense of enjoyment and confidence that was never allowed her mother. She loves to play. And she even loves to be the "bat-girl" for her father's city-league softball team. The first time she went to clear a bat away from home plate, she was confronted by a boy about her age who said to her derisively, 'There's no such thing as a bat-girl!"
'Watch me,' she replied."

By Mike Messner in Race, Class and Gender in the United States (Rothenberg, 1998)

Current Mood: hopeful
Current Music: Javier Ruibal - Isla Mujeres

Where does homosexuality come from: the question we shouldn't be asking ourselves

heikki_cheren just linked me to this episode of 60 minutes on, basically, the origins and manifestations of homosexuality.

( On sexuality, gender identity, femininity and masculinity, and all that good stuff - or what was wrong and/or interesting about these videos )

Yesterday I was at the monthly meeting of the ComPol of the Inter-LGBT, and we were reworking a text for a flyer that will be distributed at pride. I'm mentioning it now because we came to make a distinction that can be essential when discussing all of these questions. Sex life is a private matter - that's related to whom you're sleeping with, how you're sleeping with them, any preference you might have in the bedroom. Sexuality, however, belongs partly to the public sphere. I've made that point before and I know some people differ, but I really believe it stands. You define your sexuality in lots of ways in your everyday life - by the interest you show for people of a particular gender, by jokes you make, by some of your statements, and of course, when you're in a couple, by the hundreds of small gestures that betray you and the other person are a couple. By doing all of this, you're saying nothing about your sex life - and a majority of people would feel uncomfortable bringing their sex life itself into the public light, while they're open about their sexuality. Keep that in mind when people ask the typical "but why do you/they have to say you're/they're gay?". If people were asked not to be straight, you'd find a lot of conversations would become stilted, because sexuality is pervasive in our society. I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing, it's simply a fact. In this context, for a gay person to simply affirm their sexuality is a way to feel more at ease, because they will be better included in the conversation. Saying it is often the simplest way.

Current Mood: contemplative
Current Music: Regina Spektor - On the radio

You might remember the topic for our in-class US Civilization exam was a totally gift for gender-obsessed me.

Well, looks like school's liking me this year, because the in-class exam we just had in UK Civilization was about gender and work and the pay gap. It was fairly straight-forward and easy to write and dude! I wish all of my in-class papers went like that.

And now I'm on SPRING BREAK. And planning on doing nothing exciting, but yay! break! And I get to work on all the exams that are coming up after break. Technically I should really, really work on Spanish, but I have a tiny feeling I won't. La la la! But still, a quick list of what I should try and do during break :
- study
- paint my window
- stick the tiles to the floor in the toilets (don't ask me why the fuck they're not stuck anymore)
- get my bike to the repairshop!! (for brakes, light, oil)
- take pictures for the MAG poster and come up with a final version
- get my passport

...I know, my life's just so.intereting. Actually, in more exciting news,

woodsong_1978 is coming over next week and I can't wait! So basically as usual, I shouldn't have too much time to get bored.

Also, I wish UBC would send me something, anything, that would be a hint that they got my application okay. I find myself highly distrustful of my university when it comes to this exchange program.

Finally, a Neil Gaiman quote I really like, even though I'm a little more optimistic than that on the topic.

"Have you ever been in love? Horrible isn't it? It makes you so vulnerable. It opens your chest and it opens up your heart and it means that someone can get inside you and mess you up. You build up all these defenses, you build up a whole suit of armor, so that nothing can hurt you, then one stupid person, no different from any other stupid person, wanders into your stupid life...You give them a piece of you. They didn't ask for it. They did something dumb one day, like kiss you or smile at you, and then your life isn't your own anymore. Love takes hostages. It gets inside you. It eats you out and leaves you crying in the darkness, so simple a phrase like 'maybe we should be just friends' turns into a glass splinter working its way into your heart. It hurts. Not just in the imagination. Not just in the mind. It's a soul-hurt, a real gets-inside-you-and-rips-you-apart pain. I hate love."

Current Mood: accomplished
Current Music: Gaelic Storm - Pina Colada in a Pint Glass

L'Inter-LGBT a fait parvenir un questionnaire à tous les candidates à la Présidentielle pour qu'ils prennent clairement positions sur les questions LGBT (discrimination - couples - parentalité - personnes trans - santé - solidarité internationale)

J'étais assez étonnée de découvrir l'(apparent) enthousiasme et volonté de Bayrou sur ces questions. A l'opposé, les réponses de Royal sont beaucoup plus réservées, en particular sur la PMA (Procréation Médicalement Assistée) et les personnes trans. Sarkozy, évidement, a des gros progrès à faire. Lire son opinion ne me donne même plus envie de me taper la tête contre les murs, à force on finit par être habitués. Tsk.

Also, WTF WHO TELLS THEIR DAUGHTER "BOYS DON'T LIKE SMART GIRLS" IN THIS DAY AND AGE?

I guess I should expect that sort of crap from people by now.

*HEADDESK*

*loves on librarian mom*

Current Mood: enraged
Current Music: The Decemberists - The Engine Driver

I ended up never saying a word about the presentation on gender and work I did with

littlegothsin last week for our UK Civilization class. It went really well, and people asked questions afterwards. Made me so happy people actually had things to say - and it was sort of funny because afterwards Tara (one of the girls who'd asked a question) came up to me and was like, I hope it didn't bother you I asked something. Er, how about NO.

What struck me is that the few girls who took part in the discussion after the presentation seemed pretty optimistic about the situation improving in the next twenty years - Tara said something about how our generation of women wouldn't let the guys do no housework at home. It made me realize how pretty pessimistic I am about the issue - when I see how little boys (and little girls) are still raised today? I cannot bring myself to believe things will improve that greatly in a decade or two. I also get a feeling it's getting better for the higher, more educated classes, but in the meanwhile? The situation isn't getting any better for the lower classes. Listening to some kids when I go to schools with the MAG, I have a feeling things might even be getting worse.

While I'm on gender issues and gender perception in a society that's supposedly moving away from patriarchy, here's an interesting article about advertising in the men's magazine GQ.

In the same vein... the other day I was biking back from school when a couple of ads caught my attention. They're ads for one of the latest Suzuki car, the Swift. The first one says "Who said cars were solely a male fantasy?" which I was like, hey! Challenging stereotypes, yay! So it's for a tiny city car and not a Hummer, but it's a start. And then immediately after I discovered another ad for the same car, which this time reads "sensuality, seduction, swift... words are never feminine by chance." (French words always have a gender, unlike in English.) And I was like, *facepalm*.

I find interesting that this is the same ad campaign, which possibly reflects our current society's struggle between trying to challenge stereotypes while still heavily relying on those same stereotypes. Of course, the gender of word doesn't always follow a patriarchal pattern : strength (la force) and intelligence, for example, are both feminine in French. But it's never innocent to associate seduction and sensuality with women - and we can't pretend it is.

For more positive models of masculinity in advertising, see the Jules ad campaign "Il paraît que les hommes sont..." ("they say men are..."), which I really love, especially as a photographer (how much do I wish I'd taken those pictures?). It's too bad because they only have a sample there of all the cards they printed out for the campaign, but already some are pretty telling. (First one says "they say men are obsessed" and the second one, "they say men are abrupt".)

The more I go on, the more I realize this is really what I'm most interested in - gender studies, basically. Too bad that we basically don't what it is in France. Or that it doesn't lead to anywhere very precise. But hey, I guess it's still a step ahead of everyone who doesn't even know what they're really interested in!

Current Mood: contemplative
Current Music: Regina Spektor - Us

I've started watching the Channel 4 series "Let's talk about sex". The whole series can be watched for free on the website.

- What annoys me is grown-ups who get their kids sex ed because they're uncomfortable with talking about sex and their kids end up paying the price for it. EVERYthing shows abstinence-only programs DON'T work, and I truly do not understand how parents can keep the wool so tight over their eyes that they would still go for that option rather than teach their kids to 1) protect themselves and 2) protect others.

- What the fuck are we doing about boys? It's so unfair how much of the burden rests on girls when mistakes are made. Moms tend to be more concerned about the sex life of their kids, and of their daughters in particular. But god, you need a man and woman to have a baby. There are boys in that documentary that say, if the woman doesn't ask for a condom, then they'll go without it. That's so many levels of wrong. Condoms shouldn't be the woman's responsibility, and I'm appalled that we're not teaching boys that. (Just had a thought - it's even more terrifying when you think of gay male teenagers because where's the woman to suggest a condom in that relationship?)

- I find it so hard to find a right balance, figure out what age is best to talk about what, and how graphically. I think we tend to be out of touch with how in touch some kids are with sex. The other day a friend was telling us about this 10-year-old girl she watches over and who watches porn sometimes at night - and her boy friends at school already download porn off the internet! Yet they won't be given sex ed for another what, 3 or 4 years at best. We don't want to shock kids but some of them are so ahead of us. How do you deal with the differences amongst kids? Because the average age for a first time is still around 17. It's such a delicate issue, especially considering parents are more or less uptight. But the more I think about it, the more it seems obvious to me kids should be told more explicitly about sex earlier on. In the end, what are we really afraid of?

EDIT : Interestingly enough, my own experience is little helpful. I cannot remember my parents ever giving me The Talk (they're not big on sitting their kids down and having Talks, I suspect), but condoms have always been a pretty obvious necessity to me. (Of course, there's a difference between being aware of protection and using it, and the catch is that I never had to make that choice of using a condom or not.) But it really makes me wonder where I did get my sex ed from, and I suspect that might be from books my mom brought home from her library. Note to self : must probe little brother's memory.

Current Mood: thoughtful
Current Music: Eskobar - Whatever This Town

- Living 'til the End FINALLY arrived. And right now the only thing I can say is that I was already disappointed that they'd filmed in Paris and I wasn't even aware, but Sean filmed a freakin' topless scene in the streets here. How did I miss that? Karma, what did I do to you? /mindless fangirl ramble
( A bit more about the movie itself )

- Note to UK Civilization lecturer : please take two seconds of your life to realize how deeply ironic it is for you to tell us about socialization at school, to tell us that it shapes our views of gender, and then move on to talking of family and then only mention mothers? Really. I wonder why we keep associating women with the role of caretakers and men with the figure of authority. *headdesk* The worse part is that I notice that kind of thing (and vent my frustration at poor

littlegothsin) but most people don't. Whether because it's too small to be noticed or because it's so familiar that we've stopped noticing, most people just keep unconsciously integrating it and it kills me. That at university level, we'd talk of parenting and its effect on the kid's socialization and rather than talk of parents, we talk of mothers. Fuck that.

- I have two new series of pictures up at my photo journal (one was posted a while ago but I forgot to mention it here) : skater boys and another walk in the city. Click on the pictures below to access each series :

(

littlegothsin : les trois tiers de mon LJ en un post! C'est magnifique! :-p)

Current Mood: lonely
Current Music: Poe - Beautiful Girl

Profile

greenie_breizh

November 2011

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Syndicate

Page Summary

More Twilight + Judy Dushku on her church
Twilight-angry and Madagascar-happy
On prop 8, Florida, and Sweden
Gendered images, the history of marriage and bromance
Young People Fucking
The beauty of teen movies
Norms of self-expression and gender essentialism
Heterosex
In the vein of evolutionary psychology...
Quick thoughts on Buffy and Partriarchy
Reflecting on male/female interactions
Now on gender stuff...
Take that, patriarchy
Watch me.
"It's about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or a random fetish."
"I've been running through these promises to you that I made and I could not keep"
"Duh, everyone knows thick books make you a lesbian."
Rummaging for answers in the pages
"What used to be is just nowhere to be found"
There was a loophole in my dreaming, so I got out of it.

Style Credit

Base style: Five AM by winterfish
Theme: Your Smile by krja

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jul. 20th, 2025 04:19 am

My scrap of dirt

Dis est ce que tu m'aimes encore? Dis est ce que tu dors?

Entries tagged with gender & co

More Twilight + Judy Dushku on her church

Twilight-angry and Madagascar-happy

On prop 8, Florida, and Sweden

Gendered images, the history of marriage and bromance

Young People Fucking

The beauty of teen movies

Norms of self-expression and gender essentialism

Heterosex

In the vein of evolutionary psychology...

Quick thoughts on Buffy and Partriarchy

Reflecting on male/female interactions

Now on gender stuff...

Take that, patriarchy

Watch me.

"It's about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or a random fetish."

"I've been running through these promises to you that I made and I could not keep"

"Duh, everyone knows thick books make you a lesbian."

Rummaging for answers in the pages

"What used to be is just nowhere to be found"

There was a loophole in my dreaming, so I got out of it.