 |
(Sorry this is so blurry - I captured it on my phone camera at an airport newsstand.) |
Check out the transcript or listen to the interview aloud (hey, why not) here.
You may also wish to consider this critique from Mediaite.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Is Masculinity, Um, Dead?
The media seem fascinated this week by the question of whether Masculinity. Is. Dead. My beloved Neal Conan on NPR's Talk of the Nation held a discussion the other day about the recent Newsweek cover that proclaimed, "Man Up! The Traditional Male is an Endangered Species."
Check out the transcript or listen to the interview aloud (hey, why not) here.
You may also wish to consider this critique from Mediaite.
Check out the transcript or listen to the interview aloud (hey, why not) here.
You may also wish to consider this critique from Mediaite.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
"By Her Support, Does She Earn His Infidelity?"
- Pamela Paul, Sept. 24, 2010. The New York Times
In conjunction with...
"Men Earning Less Than Women, Cheat"- August 16,2010. The Times of India
In a study released in August 2010, Christin L. Munsch polled over a thousand men and women about their relationships, discovering what Pamela Paul of the New York Times called a "score... for sexual stereotypes"(Paul). In her study Munsch found that when women were the only source of income, husbands were five times more likely to cheat on their spouses. Analyzing this statistic Munsch explained that it probably stemmed from the intertwined ideas of masculinity and providing for the household (Paul). She also explained that this disturbing statistic held more weight in certain communities. Specifically, Latino men dependent on their wives' salaries were more likely to cheat because the "breadwinning status is "one of the defining features of Hispanic masculinity,"" explained Munsch (Times of India).
On the other side women who earned significantly less than their partners seemed to become more loyal. They have "more to loose", explained Munsch (Paul). Yet, Munsch also discovered that when men earned significantly more than women, cheating ensued at a higher rate than the average. Pamela Paul of the New York Times explained that "the safety zone" is where women make 75% of what men make.
While the percentage of male disloyalty was higher in couples where females dominated the economics, the percentage of overall cheaters was still small. In addition, of couples where the female had a higher income, more education and religious involvment decreased the chances of cheating. Yet, Munsch was adamant that women should take that raise when it comes, and press on as a loving, caring couple, for relationship satisfaction trumped all the statistics.
I found this study fascinating. Investigating Christin L. Munsch's profile on google I read that she initially became interested in this topic after working with women affected by domestic abuse. The connections are tricky. When men have more power, domestic abuse can occur and women are trapped. When women have more power, men (a small percentage of men) have a greater tendency to cheat. How can the cycle be broken? How can we transition to a world where it is acceptable for women to be the breadwinners and for men to stay home, without feeling inferior. As someone in class eloquently said, women are being pushed towards acting like men, yet there is still a negative stigma for men filling the roles of women. Women and men are biologically different, yet all people should probably be held to the same moral standards. Is there a way to transcend or shift cultural expectations as women shatter through the glass ceiling?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Malleable Bodies?
Works Cited:
Tuana, Nancy. The Less Nobel Sex. (Indiana University Press).
Picture sources:
A Cultural Paradigm Gap, Or, Why Did I Get Married?
In northeastern Thailand, many Thai women have begun marrying Western men who have settled in the area in order to get married. Though at first this tradition seems as distasteful as when Western men would take their wives home with them, both men and women seem somewhat satisfied with the way it works out. Thai women actually aspire to marry these men because of their wealth. In what seems to be a reversal of traditional roles, the men are often the ones seeking an emotional connection. One cited the fact that the Thai women were “a lot like women were in America 50 years ago” in that they have not yet asserted their rights and become “strong-headed and opinionated,” so that the marriage is not as “peaceful and relaxed,” according one of the men, an American who had been divorced twice prior to his marriage with his Thai wife.
When I first came across this article, my initial reaction was one of distaste toward the practice. However, while this particular man’s view is full of views of women that I find outdated and distasteful, I’m not entirely convinced that this phenomenon is all bad. After all, both parties are willing and benefit; the American found a wife whose views more closely corresponded with his own, and his wife achieved what she had always wanted – to marry a foreigner for the wealth and status she would acquire in the process.
On the other hand, the practice seems colonialistic on the men’s side and exploitative on the women’s. The women tend to be motivated by the desire for money, which probably doesn’t make the men looking for emotional connections feel good (again, the role reversal here is interesting). The men may not understand that, or if they do, they may not understand that they are also expected to support the wife’s family, as is traditional in Thai culture. If they are not prepared to do so, there can be trouble with the surrounding community.
Furthermore, the idea of allowing the stereotype of a subservient, domestic wife to continue to exist in these Western men’s minds is not one that rests easily in my mind. This American was actually looking for a wife who fit the traditional role, because most modern American women reject it to one extent or another. From the article, I can only conclude that he thinks the liberation of women in today’s society was a bad thing and wants to live in a place where that liberation hasn’t happened, which is a view I cannot stomach.
My question, then, is this: is what this American man did wrong? If both parties to the marriage want to be married, then at what point does it become unacceptable? On a larger scale, which culture’s value systems take precedence, Thai or Western?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/world/asia/25iht-thai.html
When I first came across this article, my initial reaction was one of distaste toward the practice. However, while this particular man’s view is full of views of women that I find outdated and distasteful, I’m not entirely convinced that this phenomenon is all bad. After all, both parties are willing and benefit; the American found a wife whose views more closely corresponded with his own, and his wife achieved what she had always wanted – to marry a foreigner for the wealth and status she would acquire in the process.
On the other hand, the practice seems colonialistic on the men’s side and exploitative on the women’s. The women tend to be motivated by the desire for money, which probably doesn’t make the men looking for emotional connections feel good (again, the role reversal here is interesting). The men may not understand that, or if they do, they may not understand that they are also expected to support the wife’s family, as is traditional in Thai culture. If they are not prepared to do so, there can be trouble with the surrounding community.
Furthermore, the idea of allowing the stereotype of a subservient, domestic wife to continue to exist in these Western men’s minds is not one that rests easily in my mind. This American was actually looking for a wife who fit the traditional role, because most modern American women reject it to one extent or another. From the article, I can only conclude that he thinks the liberation of women in today’s society was a bad thing and wants to live in a place where that liberation hasn’t happened, which is a view I cannot stomach.
My question, then, is this: is what this American man did wrong? If both parties to the marriage want to be married, then at what point does it become unacceptable? On a larger scale, which culture’s value systems take precedence, Thai or Western?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/world/asia/25iht-thai.html
Monday, September 27, 2010
"Feminist" Advertisements: Exploitation, or a Sign of Progress?
NYT article
Peggy Orenstein’s “The Way We Live Now” piece in this week’s New York Times Magazine explores what she calls the “empowerment mystique,” or using themes of girl power to sell products that have nothing to do with promoting equality. She mentions several recent commercials by companies selling products unrelated to gender or discrimination, such as Verizon and Target, which send a message of empowerment for girls and women. This kind of ad, she claims, manipulates people to associate the company with sincerity and hopefulness. It is also a reflection of a society in which women hold the majority of jobs, and earn more bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, and doctorates than men.
Orenstein draws a distinction between the Verizon ad, which shows a series of young women speaking proudly and vaguely about the unbiased nature of air, and a similar Nike commercial from the 90’s which showed girls describing the benefits of playing sports. The latter had a specific purpose—encouraging schools and parents to promote girls’ sports teams and clubs. It also used real facts and statistics, and the company has ties with organizations that promote equality for girls in sports. Clearly, Orenstein is taking a strong stand against such advertisements when they don’t support a specific cause or aren’t in line with the company’s actions. I understand part of her concern—it is disappointing to find yourself being inspired and moved by a commercial only to find out that it’s actually just promoting a cell phone company. It feels a little bit like someone is taking advantage of your feminist pride.
But personally, when I see an ad on TV that celebrates female empowerment or individualism, it makes me feel good. Not just because there’s a girl on the screen telling me how us women are super cool, but because the existence of these ads indicates that feminism, however dulled down and commercialized, sells. In a world where every other ad features a half-naked woman selling clothing or a man making suggestive comments about hamburgers, I’m okay that people are trying to exploit my feminist instincts. Whether intentionally or not, these ads contribute to the rising acceptance of girl power in women and men. Shouldn’t we be happy that feminism, or whatever less controversial word we’re using these days, is “in”? Orenstein has a right to be frustrated at the advertising industry’s constant manipulation of human nature, but there’s nothing new about that. What is new is a society in which a company like Dove can advertise body lotion by telling us we’re all pretty enough without it.
Nike Ad (1995)
Verizon Ad (2010)
Other relevant ads
Sarah Palin's "Mama Grizzlies" Ad
Target "Free to Be You and Me" Ad
Dove Self-esteem Ad (2006)
Nike "Men vs. Women" Ad
Peggy Orenstein’s “The Way We Live Now” piece in this week’s New York Times Magazine explores what she calls the “empowerment mystique,” or using themes of girl power to sell products that have nothing to do with promoting equality. She mentions several recent commercials by companies selling products unrelated to gender or discrimination, such as Verizon and Target, which send a message of empowerment for girls and women. This kind of ad, she claims, manipulates people to associate the company with sincerity and hopefulness. It is also a reflection of a society in which women hold the majority of jobs, and earn more bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, and doctorates than men.
Orenstein draws a distinction between the Verizon ad, which shows a series of young women speaking proudly and vaguely about the unbiased nature of air, and a similar Nike commercial from the 90’s which showed girls describing the benefits of playing sports. The latter had a specific purpose—encouraging schools and parents to promote girls’ sports teams and clubs. It also used real facts and statistics, and the company has ties with organizations that promote equality for girls in sports. Clearly, Orenstein is taking a strong stand against such advertisements when they don’t support a specific cause or aren’t in line with the company’s actions. I understand part of her concern—it is disappointing to find yourself being inspired and moved by a commercial only to find out that it’s actually just promoting a cell phone company. It feels a little bit like someone is taking advantage of your feminist pride.
But personally, when I see an ad on TV that celebrates female empowerment or individualism, it makes me feel good. Not just because there’s a girl on the screen telling me how us women are super cool, but because the existence of these ads indicates that feminism, however dulled down and commercialized, sells. In a world where every other ad features a half-naked woman selling clothing or a man making suggestive comments about hamburgers, I’m okay that people are trying to exploit my feminist instincts. Whether intentionally or not, these ads contribute to the rising acceptance of girl power in women and men. Shouldn’t we be happy that feminism, or whatever less controversial word we’re using these days, is “in”? Orenstein has a right to be frustrated at the advertising industry’s constant manipulation of human nature, but there’s nothing new about that. What is new is a society in which a company like Dove can advertise body lotion by telling us we’re all pretty enough without it.
Nike Ad (1995)
Verizon Ad (2010)
Other relevant ads
Sarah Palin's "Mama Grizzlies" Ad
Target "Free to Be You and Me" Ad
Dove Self-esteem Ad (2006)
Nike "Men vs. Women" Ad
Friday, September 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)