I agree with you Lesleigh about the whole rape issue. No matter where you look there is always a story about a women getting raped. I can say that I am very lucky that I, or any of my friends, have experienced anything with rape. I feel for the ones that have to deal with something like this. When I was thinking about the news and how they have stories about rape, the Duke lacross players came to my mind. In case you do not remember, there was a party at a lacross house and they had strippers. Well, after the party one of the strippers came forward and accused three of the lacross players of raping her in the bathroom during the party. At first people were looking at the lacross players as the "bad" guys but then after a while the media started getting information from the stripper's past and somehow turned the lacross players into the victims. I agree that she did not have the best past and she probably regrets some of the things that she did but who doesn't. I did not think it was appropriate, even if it was true, to put her out like that and make her seem like the 'bad" guy.
As I was reading Acuaintance Rape by Paula Kamen, I became fascinated by the study that Joe Weinberg conducted. When he asked them to come up with positive words of a female sexually active there was none. Females are usually called "hoes, skanks", and just negatively put down but there were a ton of positive words for the males: "Cassanova, stud, player". I agree that boys probably "feel pressure to "score" and become part of the "boys' club". I think it is a shame that they have to feel that way. I think it kind of comes back to feeling masculine and like that are a man. I know you must be sick of me bringing up my Holocaust class but a lot of these things connect with each other. We were in class talking about what and who go the killers in the Holocaust to kill these women and children. One of the theories was that they were ordinary men that if they did not kill, they would be letting their buddies down and would not be considered a "man" or even called a "sissy". If that is all it takes to get someone to kill innocent children and women, then there is something wrong. I know it is a different world today but it is still a little scarey that there could be people out there that feel and maybe could act the same way.
Lesleigh, you talked about Ann Jones' Battering: Who's Going to Stop It? and I think it is appauling that one of the reasons given is just because they can. It is sad to think that there are people out there that actually think that way. The best sentence, in my mind, from you response was from Ann Jones', "to prevent rape, we have to take it seriously". If we don't then it is never going to stop.
In Michael Scarce's Male on Male Rape, I was glad that they talked about same sex rape and domestic crimes. A lot of times people do not think it can happen to gay men and women but reality is, it can happen to anyone. Rape is rape! No matter who it happens to. Reading this made me think of the boy who was gay and got beaten to death by two other boys. I cannot remember his name but I think his first name was Matthew. I was shocked and did not know how to respond when I heard that.
Sorry for going on and on but I think it is a very sensitive and important issue that gets me upset, especially when I hear it happens to children. There is no excuse for it and it scares me that there are people who have no conscious and think they can rape someone, "simply because they can".
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Terror at Home
Hey Lesleigh,
First I want to apologize for it being so late but it has been a crazy week for me. It seems that we miss each other in class. I know you weren't there for the Terror at Home video but there were some things that go my attention. The one thing that stuck out to me, and I have no idea why, but it was the protective order only being good for two years. The way the officer said it in the video was like after that then it is ok. I would not be satisified with that. I know it is hard for me to speak on it since I have no experience in anything remotely close to this but two years is a short time for the time they spent hurting the victim. I do not believe that two years is enough time to get over something like that. Another thing that got me was that the perpetrators somehow end up making the victims feel guilty. I think that is a real shame. In my service learning I hear stories all the time about this. There are two teenage girls, one pregnant, that comes to the classes each week to get help. They both were in abusive relationships and I think one of their boyfriends tried killing her. They got protective orders against them but there is no guarentee that they will listen. I am so proud that they had the courage to get out before it was too late. I always see these murders that husbands committ on their wives and I can't believe it. I guess divorce was just to easy that they had to kill instead.
In class, at least the ones I was at, we mainly talked about men beating on women but in my brother's case it was opposite. My brother and his wife were married for about a year and one day my brother called my sister saying that his wife accused him of cheating and starting hitting him. He had bruises and cuts all over his face but he felt guilty. He would not put blame on the one hitting him but trying to come up with other excuses. He went back but they still fight all the time. I think, like Nancy in the video, he is scared that she will leave him and take their daughter.
The last thing about this is that I want to say I agree whole heartedly with Whitney about how the one doing the hitting and hurting has no room for negtiations. I just think that is absurd that they will try to plea bargin with them when it is their fault they are in the mess.
First I want to apologize for it being so late but it has been a crazy week for me. It seems that we miss each other in class. I know you weren't there for the Terror at Home video but there were some things that go my attention. The one thing that stuck out to me, and I have no idea why, but it was the protective order only being good for two years. The way the officer said it in the video was like after that then it is ok. I would not be satisified with that. I know it is hard for me to speak on it since I have no experience in anything remotely close to this but two years is a short time for the time they spent hurting the victim. I do not believe that two years is enough time to get over something like that. Another thing that got me was that the perpetrators somehow end up making the victims feel guilty. I think that is a real shame. In my service learning I hear stories all the time about this. There are two teenage girls, one pregnant, that comes to the classes each week to get help. They both were in abusive relationships and I think one of their boyfriends tried killing her. They got protective orders against them but there is no guarentee that they will listen. I am so proud that they had the courage to get out before it was too late. I always see these murders that husbands committ on their wives and I can't believe it. I guess divorce was just to easy that they had to kill instead.
In class, at least the ones I was at, we mainly talked about men beating on women but in my brother's case it was opposite. My brother and his wife were married for about a year and one day my brother called my sister saying that his wife accused him of cheating and starting hitting him. He had bruises and cuts all over his face but he felt guilty. He would not put blame on the one hitting him but trying to come up with other excuses. He went back but they still fight all the time. I think, like Nancy in the video, he is scared that she will leave him and take their daughter.
The last thing about this is that I want to say I agree whole heartedly with Whitney about how the one doing the hitting and hurting has no room for negtiations. I just think that is absurd that they will try to plea bargin with them when it is their fault they are in the mess.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Section 4: Normalizing Bodily Violations
Part II: Rape and Battering
Rape is an issue nested in our daily lives. Whether you personally have been raped or sexually assaulted in some way, or you know someone who has, or even if you only hear about it through the news, rape is a recurring issue in our society. Like many, someone very close to me was raped. It really isn’t my story to tell, and so I won’t go into specifics . . . but suffice to say, it was a jarring experience for everyone involved. When I was told, I had no idea what to do, or how to respond. I was 16 at the time, and I remember feeling frozen with shock and the fear of mistreating the situation. Even in her own family, there were some who didn’t believe her, or chose to remain silent and act like it had not happened. Like many victims of rape, she attempted to kill herself. Thankfully she did not succeed, but long after recovering from her attempt, she still bears the psychological scars of her terrifying experience. As we learned in the documentary Rape Is, rape “psychologically kills” its victims.
One of the chief problems with rape recovery is that many people do not know how to respond when someone they know has been raped, or even how to respond when they themselves have been raped. It is a common for the victims themselves to be blamed, or for the victim to place the blame on themselves. More often than should be, a victim will confess what has happened to him/her, and is met with skepticism and disbelief. In fact, just last week the Washington Post ran an article regarding a Maryland legislator who “invoked a 17th-century English jurist who instructed juries to be suspicious of women’s claims of rape.” ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502278.html )
Further adding to the confusion, in Acquaintance Rape: Revolution and Reaction, Paula Kamen discusses the anti-feminist backlash regarding the statistic that one in four college women are victims of rape or attempted rape. I was appalled to read that one explanation of the statistic was young women “mislabeling a wide array of normal, often unpleasant, sexual experiences as rape.” What exactly is normal about being forced into a sexual act?
In Battering: Who’s Going to Stop It?, Ann Jones outlines the true problem of why men’s abuse and raping of women is so prevalent: simply because they can. “There is no reason for a man who uses violence to change his behavior unless he begins to suffer some real consequences . . . right now, most batterers suffer no social or legal consequences at all for their criminal behavior.” There is no better example of this than the recent sentencing of Eugene Marriott, a minister from Maryland who was tried in a Fairfax county court for the brutal beating and rape of his ex-girlfriend behind a hotel. Though he initially faced a minimum 20-year sentence, his actual conviction whittled jail time away to a mere sixteen months—and it was not his first time being charged with a violent crime against a woman. Even more unbelievable is that, according to the Washington Post, “[the judge] had sentenced two burglars in a previous case to 18 months and 20 months in prison.”
The Post also quoted Mary Lou Leary (executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime) as saying, "When offenders avoid responsibility in these kinds of cases, it has a chilling effect on victims across the board, particularly sex crime victims. Sexual assault is a crime of domination and control, and this kind of reinforces that message, that it's completely out of the victim's control." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601574.html )
I completely agree with Ann Jones—to prevent rape, we have to take it seriously. We can’t remain silent, we can’t blame the victim or ride it off as an “unpleasant sexual experience”, and we can’t allow punishment for rape to be so minimal. I have been very grateful for this section, because it has helped me to better understand the issues of rape, and perhaps more importantly what I can do to help people in situations of rape and sexual assault. Perhaps if this knowledge becomes more readily taught in schools and displayed in the media, the process of transformation and recovery out of our “rape culture” can finally begin.
Rape is an issue nested in our daily lives. Whether you personally have been raped or sexually assaulted in some way, or you know someone who has, or even if you only hear about it through the news, rape is a recurring issue in our society. Like many, someone very close to me was raped. It really isn’t my story to tell, and so I won’t go into specifics . . . but suffice to say, it was a jarring experience for everyone involved. When I was told, I had no idea what to do, or how to respond. I was 16 at the time, and I remember feeling frozen with shock and the fear of mistreating the situation. Even in her own family, there were some who didn’t believe her, or chose to remain silent and act like it had not happened. Like many victims of rape, she attempted to kill herself. Thankfully she did not succeed, but long after recovering from her attempt, she still bears the psychological scars of her terrifying experience. As we learned in the documentary Rape Is, rape “psychologically kills” its victims.
One of the chief problems with rape recovery is that many people do not know how to respond when someone they know has been raped, or even how to respond when they themselves have been raped. It is a common for the victims themselves to be blamed, or for the victim to place the blame on themselves. More often than should be, a victim will confess what has happened to him/her, and is met with skepticism and disbelief. In fact, just last week the Washington Post ran an article regarding a Maryland legislator who “invoked a 17th-century English jurist who instructed juries to be suspicious of women’s claims of rape.” ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502278.html )
Further adding to the confusion, in Acquaintance Rape: Revolution and Reaction, Paula Kamen discusses the anti-feminist backlash regarding the statistic that one in four college women are victims of rape or attempted rape. I was appalled to read that one explanation of the statistic was young women “mislabeling a wide array of normal, often unpleasant, sexual experiences as rape.” What exactly is normal about being forced into a sexual act?
In Battering: Who’s Going to Stop It?, Ann Jones outlines the true problem of why men’s abuse and raping of women is so prevalent: simply because they can. “There is no reason for a man who uses violence to change his behavior unless he begins to suffer some real consequences . . . right now, most batterers suffer no social or legal consequences at all for their criminal behavior.” There is no better example of this than the recent sentencing of Eugene Marriott, a minister from Maryland who was tried in a Fairfax county court for the brutal beating and rape of his ex-girlfriend behind a hotel. Though he initially faced a minimum 20-year sentence, his actual conviction whittled jail time away to a mere sixteen months—and it was not his first time being charged with a violent crime against a woman. Even more unbelievable is that, according to the Washington Post, “[the judge] had sentenced two burglars in a previous case to 18 months and 20 months in prison.”
The Post also quoted Mary Lou Leary (executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime) as saying, "When offenders avoid responsibility in these kinds of cases, it has a chilling effect on victims across the board, particularly sex crime victims. Sexual assault is a crime of domination and control, and this kind of reinforces that message, that it's completely out of the victim's control." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601574.html )
I completely agree with Ann Jones—to prevent rape, we have to take it seriously. We can’t remain silent, we can’t blame the victim or ride it off as an “unpleasant sexual experience”, and we can’t allow punishment for rape to be so minimal. I have been very grateful for this section, because it has helped me to better understand the issues of rape, and perhaps more importantly what I can do to help people in situations of rape and sexual assault. Perhaps if this knowledge becomes more readily taught in schools and displayed in the media, the process of transformation and recovery out of our “rape culture” can finally begin.
Section 4: Normalizing Bodily Violations
Part 1: Objectification of Women
While watching the documentary Killing Us Softly 3, one of the themes that disturbed me the most was the living oxymoron that women are expected to portray. We have to appear both sexy and innocent, both virginal and experienced. This instantly reminded me of all the toys I see now that are hyper-sexualized and aimed at young girls. When I was younger, we played with comparatively tame Barbie dolls and My Little Ponies, so some of the toys I see on in toy stores now completely boggle my mind. There are some sexually-charged toys that are met with huge outrage from parents and are taken off the shelves; for example, a pole-dancing kit with a DVD tutorial of ‘sexy’ moves that was removed from retail toy websites in the UK (http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/tots-poledancing-row/2006/10/27/1161749287304.html ).
But toys that are less overt in their hypersexuality, such as Bratz dolls made by MGA, are practically flying off the shelves. These dolls, which are made to represent girls in the tween/teen age range, dress in a highly provocative manner and are, quite simply put, the epitome of the sexualization of children. To a degree, Barbie has been accused of provactive dress in the past and although it is certainly true in some instances, at least Barbie has “jobs” and does productive things. While she’s being a veterinarian or a teacher, all Bratz seem to be concerned with is going to the mall and riding around in Corvettes. Especially disturbing is the “Bratz Babyz” line of dolls, which are sexed-up toddler versions of original Bratz dolls.
[I hope you don’t mind the pictures, I felt they were extremely necessary.]
This line of dolls sparked controversy when it was discovered that at least one type of doll was wearing what appeared to be a THONG (http://www.parentdish.com/2005/08/11/mom-declares-war-on-baby-bratz-dolls/). The first time I saw these dolls advertised, I was in honest disbelief: What kind of babies have hair to their feet, wear make-up and don thongs? And how could you sell or buy a doll that looked like, for lack of a better term, an infant prostitute--a 'prostitot' if you will?
According to a report by the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, “Bratz dolls come dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas. Although these dolls may present no more sexualization of girls or women than is seen in MTV videos, it is worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4- to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality.” A spokesperson for Bratz countered that Bratz dolls are for children 8-years old and over, but in my experience children much younger than the age of eight play with Bratz dolls. For instance, I babysit a girl named Emma who just turned six this month. Her mother refuses to buy Bratz toys for her, but Emma has recieved invitations to Bratz-themed birthday parties from her classmates and Bratz-related toys as gifts. One occasion where I had to babysit both her and her cousin, Emma asked her cousin, “Do you still like princesses?” to which the girl (one year older) replied, “Princesses are old, I like Bratz now.” The company can choose to promote the knowledge that no one under eight plays with Bratz, but I’m sure they have consumer statistics that say otherwise.
And it’s not only dolls—Bratz have an entire line of products, from lunchboxes to makeup to underwear (including padded bras for 3 to 6-year olds called ‘bralettes’) to music CDs to movies to their own Saturday morning cartoon. So even if you’re like Emma’s mother and you refuse to buy Bratz dolls, it’s literally impossible to get away from their influence-- unless you plan to raise your child in a cave hidden deep in the Himalaya mountains.
For me, it’s also not just a matter of what the Bratz dolls wear, but their physical appearance as well. Although the Bratz line has been praised for featuring dolls that represent many different cultures, they all share the same thin-yet-curvaceous body type, along with luminously huge doe eyes, bulbous glossed lips, and the slightest hint of a nose. Just LOOK at this doll.
If it’s Barbie that has been setting girls up to live up to a standard of unattainable ideal beauty for the past fifty years, then these alien-like creatures have certainly swiped her crown. As Killing Us Softly 3 tells us, American culture believes that you CAN look ideal if you only try hard enough. Eyeball implants, anyone?
Other than unattainable beauty, what does a doll like this teach young girls? I certainly believe that toys are an integral part of the media intake of children. Just look at girls who (like me) played with ‘innocent’ toys like My Little Ponies and Barbies in childhood . . . who have grown as young women to exemplify the lifestyles as depicted in Ariel Levy’s Dispatches from Girls Gone Wild. Girls like ‘Crazy Debbie’, who “masturbated for the GGW cameras in the back of a bar,” well aware of the fact that it is fodder for “guys to get off on.” Her mindset is evident as she goes onto say, “I just think this is fun. Miami is one of the few places where people aren't ashamed of their bodies.” Naturally girls like Crazy Debbie have been molded from other forms of media, but my point is this: if girls who play with non-sexualized toys as children and grow up still wishing to objectify themselves, then how can girls who play with sexually-charged dolls like Bratz hope to act any differently?
It’s hard to judge the exact effects toys like Bratz dolls will be for the girls who play with them. Regardless, these toys undoubtedly play a part in molding the minds of young girls, and it’s very frightening to imagine what the 5 and 6-year old girls I see playing with Bratz today will become in ten years if something isn’t done. The problem with Bratz dolls isn’t only their appearance, it’s the fact that they are marketed to portray so-called “girl power.” This idea of “power” through dressing provocatively all goes back to the conclusion Ariel Levy makes in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs: “Sexual power is only one, very specific type of power . . . Looking like a stripper or a Hooters waitress or a Playboy bunny is only one, very specific type of sexual expression.”
Just look at Crazy Debbie, who believes that her acts on camera for Girls Gone Wild demonstrate that she isn’t ashamed of her body. She believes that acts like on-camera masturbation are sexually liberating and empowering. But do these acts really liberate women? Levy states, “We are not even that free in the sexual arena. We have simply adopted a new norm, a new role to play: lusty, busty exhibitionist.” This behavior only seeks to further the stereotype that this is how women should act if they want to feel liberated. Not only that, but this idea of girls showing their breasts and performing sexual acts on-command only increases the sense of entitlement males have to sexual gratification from women. And when a person is refused something to which s/he feels entitled, complexes of objectification and power can result in acts of violence, including the crime of rape.
While watching the documentary Killing Us Softly 3, one of the themes that disturbed me the most was the living oxymoron that women are expected to portray. We have to appear both sexy and innocent, both virginal and experienced. This instantly reminded me of all the toys I see now that are hyper-sexualized and aimed at young girls. When I was younger, we played with comparatively tame Barbie dolls and My Little Ponies, so some of the toys I see on in toy stores now completely boggle my mind. There are some sexually-charged toys that are met with huge outrage from parents and are taken off the shelves; for example, a pole-dancing kit with a DVD tutorial of ‘sexy’ moves that was removed from retail toy websites in the UK (http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/tots-poledancing-row/2006/10/27/1161749287304.html ).
But toys that are less overt in their hypersexuality, such as Bratz dolls made by MGA, are practically flying off the shelves. These dolls, which are made to represent girls in the tween/teen age range, dress in a highly provocative manner and are, quite simply put, the epitome of the sexualization of children. To a degree, Barbie has been accused of provactive dress in the past and although it is certainly true in some instances, at least Barbie has “jobs” and does productive things. While she’s being a veterinarian or a teacher, all Bratz seem to be concerned with is going to the mall and riding around in Corvettes. Especially disturbing is the “Bratz Babyz” line of dolls, which are sexed-up toddler versions of original Bratz dolls.
[I hope you don’t mind the pictures, I felt they were extremely necessary.]
This line of dolls sparked controversy when it was discovered that at least one type of doll was wearing what appeared to be a THONG (http://www.parentdish.com/2005/08/11/mom-declares-war-on-baby-bratz-dolls/). The first time I saw these dolls advertised, I was in honest disbelief: What kind of babies have hair to their feet, wear make-up and don thongs? And how could you sell or buy a doll that looked like, for lack of a better term, an infant prostitute--a 'prostitot' if you will?
According to a report by the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, “Bratz dolls come dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas. Although these dolls may present no more sexualization of girls or women than is seen in MTV videos, it is worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4- to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality.” A spokesperson for Bratz countered that Bratz dolls are for children 8-years old and over, but in my experience children much younger than the age of eight play with Bratz dolls. For instance, I babysit a girl named Emma who just turned six this month. Her mother refuses to buy Bratz toys for her, but Emma has recieved invitations to Bratz-themed birthday parties from her classmates and Bratz-related toys as gifts. One occasion where I had to babysit both her and her cousin, Emma asked her cousin, “Do you still like princesses?” to which the girl (one year older) replied, “Princesses are old, I like Bratz now.” The company can choose to promote the knowledge that no one under eight plays with Bratz, but I’m sure they have consumer statistics that say otherwise.
And it’s not only dolls—Bratz have an entire line of products, from lunchboxes to makeup to underwear (including padded bras for 3 to 6-year olds called ‘bralettes’) to music CDs to movies to their own Saturday morning cartoon. So even if you’re like Emma’s mother and you refuse to buy Bratz dolls, it’s literally impossible to get away from their influence-- unless you plan to raise your child in a cave hidden deep in the Himalaya mountains.
For me, it’s also not just a matter of what the Bratz dolls wear, but their physical appearance as well. Although the Bratz line has been praised for featuring dolls that represent many different cultures, they all share the same thin-yet-curvaceous body type, along with luminously huge doe eyes, bulbous glossed lips, and the slightest hint of a nose. Just LOOK at this doll.
If it’s Barbie that has been setting girls up to live up to a standard of unattainable ideal beauty for the past fifty years, then these alien-like creatures have certainly swiped her crown. As Killing Us Softly 3 tells us, American culture believes that you CAN look ideal if you only try hard enough. Eyeball implants, anyone?
Other than unattainable beauty, what does a doll like this teach young girls? I certainly believe that toys are an integral part of the media intake of children. Just look at girls who (like me) played with ‘innocent’ toys like My Little Ponies and Barbies in childhood . . . who have grown as young women to exemplify the lifestyles as depicted in Ariel Levy’s Dispatches from Girls Gone Wild. Girls like ‘Crazy Debbie’, who “masturbated for the GGW cameras in the back of a bar,” well aware of the fact that it is fodder for “guys to get off on.” Her mindset is evident as she goes onto say, “I just think this is fun. Miami is one of the few places where people aren't ashamed of their bodies.” Naturally girls like Crazy Debbie have been molded from other forms of media, but my point is this: if girls who play with non-sexualized toys as children and grow up still wishing to objectify themselves, then how can girls who play with sexually-charged dolls like Bratz hope to act any differently?
It’s hard to judge the exact effects toys like Bratz dolls will be for the girls who play with them. Regardless, these toys undoubtedly play a part in molding the minds of young girls, and it’s very frightening to imagine what the 5 and 6-year old girls I see playing with Bratz today will become in ten years if something isn’t done. The problem with Bratz dolls isn’t only their appearance, it’s the fact that they are marketed to portray so-called “girl power.” This idea of “power” through dressing provocatively all goes back to the conclusion Ariel Levy makes in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs: “Sexual power is only one, very specific type of power . . . Looking like a stripper or a Hooters waitress or a Playboy bunny is only one, very specific type of sexual expression.”
Just look at Crazy Debbie, who believes that her acts on camera for Girls Gone Wild demonstrate that she isn’t ashamed of her body. She believes that acts like on-camera masturbation are sexually liberating and empowering. But do these acts really liberate women? Levy states, “We are not even that free in the sexual arena. We have simply adopted a new norm, a new role to play: lusty, busty exhibitionist.” This behavior only seeks to further the stereotype that this is how women should act if they want to feel liberated. Not only that, but this idea of girls showing their breasts and performing sexual acts on-command only increases the sense of entitlement males have to sexual gratification from women. And when a person is refused something to which s/he feels entitled, complexes of objectification and power can result in acts of violence, including the crime of rape.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Section 3: Youth Violence
Hi folks,
Just as a forewarning: we’re halfway through the semester . . . and I don’t know about others, but for me, it has recently become a struggle to think actively about this class. In the beginning, the readings and films would make me feel horrified or sick or outraged, but with the start of this new section, I think my brain finally reached a point where the issues we are studying are too much and I’ve just become numb to it all. No matter what I do, I can’t bring myself to really focus on what I’m seeing/reading . I’m beginning to feel like I lack the true empathy necessary to understanding the depth and impact of these kind of issues. I just wanted to put that out there, because it’s a concern to me and I don’t WANT to be numb or apathetic to what I’m seeing, but it’s become somewhat of a coping mechanism for me…and as a result, my blogging might sound a little clinical.
Moving on! It’s really nice to hear about your service learning experiences, Stephanie. My personal experiences with service learning don’t put me in touch with at-risk youth, so it’s very interesting to read about someone else’s encounters. I am not working with youths in my service learning at Pathways, as it is a program that offers semi-permanent shelter to women who are typically 35 or over. However, their upbringing as children into adulthood was almost certainly a large contributing factor to the circumstances of their lives now. Though it has been very difficult to get many of the women to open up and discuss their pasts, it is written on their faces that they have seen hardships and violence in their lives. It’s easy to surmise that perhaps if they had been more privileged or had stable home lives in the past, they would not be at Pathways now. Unfortunately I do not get as much interaction with them as I would hope, but I’ve taken to reading through the logbook which records all their activities from morning to night. One of the women, named Winnie, often has a hard time coping with her current situation in combination with mental illness. She will sometimes lash out (though not physically) at other women, and as a result she has changed roommates numerous times and currently rooms alone. Recognizing the cyclical nature of violence (which has been a common topic of discussion in class), I can’t believe that Winnie is fully to blame for her actions, and I would bet that past experiences of violence have molded her into who she has become. At any rate, it is very saddening.
I think all of us have been victims (or even participants in) youth violence at least once in our lives. However, I feel my own personal experiences with youth violence are nearly inconsequential compared to what other people have to deal with. The most significant experiences of youth violence I have are actually vicarious experiences through my older sister. Growing up, my sister was diagnosed with a high-level ADHD (the specific type of ADHD is classified by some as “The Ring of Fire”). She had problems both in school and at home, and as a result my mother tried every type of program available at the time for treatment. My sister was in and out of residential and foster programs for most of her adolescence--some of which were good, and others that weren’t. In the worse residential facilities, there were incidents of verbal, physical and emotional abuse. Some even had gangs, often based on the racial divisions within the program. Once, on the first day at a new residential program, my sister was followed into the restroom by a group of girls who attempted to haze her into their gang by forcing her to lick a toilet seat (after my mother heard this, she instantly pulled my sister out of there). That’s just one incident, and I still don’t know all that my sister experienced in those places… but I know that it is something that she will almost certainly carry with her for the rest of her life.
The impact of these instances of violence on my sister is completely evident. She was often far from her home and her family, and surrounded by violent behavior. She was predisposed to drugs and alcohol at a fairly young age, without any kind of consistent mentoring to guide her. As she grew older, she turned to drugs as an escape, and went on to experiment with heavier drugs. She eventually became addicted to heroin. She lived on the streets of Baltimore for four years before finally agreeing to rehab. And now, though she is now recovering and has been clean off of heavier substances for a few years, she still displays incredibly violent behavior—behavior that she learned (that she NEEDED) to survive in residential and on the streets.
I actually remember you, Stephanie, saying in class that your siblings were “reverse role models” for you, and I feel the same way about my sister in many ways. But knowing her past, it’s hard for me because I feel like it wasn’t her fault that she turned to drugs, and that she has violent outbursts in which she lashes out against those that love and care about her most. It’s a very personal issue within out family that I don’t typically talk about, but while doing the readings I could not help but be constantly reminded of my sister. Particularly in the film City of God, I saw the theme of violence for survival echoed, where small children participated in violent acts simply to survive (such as Steak shooting the two young boys in the feet, and then killing one of them).
VIDEO GAMES
Video games, for me, are a very touchy subject. My brother and I are both avid players of video games, and I also think that creating video games is an art form unto itself. I liken game creators to storytellers, who can not only weave amazing stories but also allow you to play a part in that story. I absolutely respect that they have the same freedoms afforded to other artists in different media, including freedom of speech.
Firstly, not all video games are violent. I think video games get a bad rap—yes, there are a significant amount of games which depict violence, but there is also a good number that do not. For example, over the years we have seen video gaming devolve to a solo activity—a lonely player sitting in a dark room for hours on end, disconnected from the outside world. Nintendo, which is probably the most well-known video game franchise across the globe, has attempted to reinstate video gaming as an activity of group interaction with their newest console: the Nintendo Wii. This console encourages physical interactivity, teamwork, and friendly competition between family and friends with classic sports games like bowling and tennis. This concept and a more economical price tag is what allowed the Nintendo Wii to outsell both Xbox360 and Playstation3 in sales last year.
Secondly, people need to rid themselves of the misconception that video games are only for children. Video games are made BY adults, so it seems only natural that there will be games that, just as there are movies and books made for more mature audiences, there will also be games with mature themes. I feel banning certain games due to violence is the wrong approach, and also neglecting the true issue. Violence is a reality, and I feel that you cannot block people from this reality. To me, the argument that video games are destructive because they allow players to emulate violent behavior is an ultimately weak one. If we ban games that are based on fighting tournaments, like Mortal Kombat and Streetfighter, are we also going to ban martial arts tournaments and sparring? If we ban first person shooters like Doom and Halo, are we also going to ban paintball and laser tag? The first film we watched outside of class, The Human Animal: War & Violence, began with a group of men playing paintball in army fatigues with guns that look and feel almost exactly like the real thing. Paintballing is an activity that certainly emulates the violence of war to the same extent, if not more, than any video game would. And although only adult men are depicted in the film, I know of quite a few parents who have no problem with their 8-year old sons going paintballing…while the mass majority of first person shooter games are rated by the ESRB as Teen or Mature.
I don’t want you to get the wrong idea—I’m absolutely disgusted by certain games that are overtly violent just for the sake of violence, such as Grand Theft Auto. However, one has to ask, how could a game like this even become popular if there wasn’t a market for it already in existence? In the second part of Tough Guise, it is stated that video games and other media are simply emulating what is already omnipresent in masculine culture—a culture connected to power, control and violence. The game is so popular because our society is so infused with this masculine culture, and boys want to play it because it makes them feel more like a “real man” and justifies their need to fit in with the norm of society. Blaming the video game instead of the culture its derived from is just an easy way to skirt the issue.
My thought is that ultimately, it is the role of a parent to monitor the games that his or her children play. In I Prayed for More Gun Control and Got Better Background Checks, Tonya Maria Matthews talks about how parents sometimes act with such ignorance and neglect—giving a child a .38 caliber for his birthday, not knowing that bombs are being made in their own basement, then claiming the child who shoots up a school is a monster. I fully agree with her, and I think that it is the parents’ responsibility to pay attention to their child and ensure their wellbeing and safety. A parent who allows a child to have a video game rated Mature or higher is irresponsible, plain and simple.
[I’m sorry for the rant, I just know way too much about video gaming for my own good.]
PS: Stephanie, you asked about the reading Kids, Guns and Violence, “Kleck mentioned finding a way to ban ‘bad guns’ and leave "good guns" but I do not understand what he means. Is he talking literatively or figuratively?” I think the authors are summarizing one of the current policies regarding gun control. It relies on specific types of guns, some of which are classified as good or okay, and others which are deemed “bad” (like military-style guns).
Just as a forewarning: we’re halfway through the semester . . . and I don’t know about others, but for me, it has recently become a struggle to think actively about this class. In the beginning, the readings and films would make me feel horrified or sick or outraged, but with the start of this new section, I think my brain finally reached a point where the issues we are studying are too much and I’ve just become numb to it all. No matter what I do, I can’t bring myself to really focus on what I’m seeing/reading . I’m beginning to feel like I lack the true empathy necessary to understanding the depth and impact of these kind of issues. I just wanted to put that out there, because it’s a concern to me and I don’t WANT to be numb or apathetic to what I’m seeing, but it’s become somewhat of a coping mechanism for me…and as a result, my blogging might sound a little clinical.
Moving on! It’s really nice to hear about your service learning experiences, Stephanie. My personal experiences with service learning don’t put me in touch with at-risk youth, so it’s very interesting to read about someone else’s encounters. I am not working with youths in my service learning at Pathways, as it is a program that offers semi-permanent shelter to women who are typically 35 or over. However, their upbringing as children into adulthood was almost certainly a large contributing factor to the circumstances of their lives now. Though it has been very difficult to get many of the women to open up and discuss their pasts, it is written on their faces that they have seen hardships and violence in their lives. It’s easy to surmise that perhaps if they had been more privileged or had stable home lives in the past, they would not be at Pathways now. Unfortunately I do not get as much interaction with them as I would hope, but I’ve taken to reading through the logbook which records all their activities from morning to night. One of the women, named Winnie, often has a hard time coping with her current situation in combination with mental illness. She will sometimes lash out (though not physically) at other women, and as a result she has changed roommates numerous times and currently rooms alone. Recognizing the cyclical nature of violence (which has been a common topic of discussion in class), I can’t believe that Winnie is fully to blame for her actions, and I would bet that past experiences of violence have molded her into who she has become. At any rate, it is very saddening.
I think all of us have been victims (or even participants in) youth violence at least once in our lives. However, I feel my own personal experiences with youth violence are nearly inconsequential compared to what other people have to deal with. The most significant experiences of youth violence I have are actually vicarious experiences through my older sister. Growing up, my sister was diagnosed with a high-level ADHD (the specific type of ADHD is classified by some as “The Ring of Fire”). She had problems both in school and at home, and as a result my mother tried every type of program available at the time for treatment. My sister was in and out of residential and foster programs for most of her adolescence--some of which were good, and others that weren’t. In the worse residential facilities, there were incidents of verbal, physical and emotional abuse. Some even had gangs, often based on the racial divisions within the program. Once, on the first day at a new residential program, my sister was followed into the restroom by a group of girls who attempted to haze her into their gang by forcing her to lick a toilet seat (after my mother heard this, she instantly pulled my sister out of there). That’s just one incident, and I still don’t know all that my sister experienced in those places… but I know that it is something that she will almost certainly carry with her for the rest of her life.
The impact of these instances of violence on my sister is completely evident. She was often far from her home and her family, and surrounded by violent behavior. She was predisposed to drugs and alcohol at a fairly young age, without any kind of consistent mentoring to guide her. As she grew older, she turned to drugs as an escape, and went on to experiment with heavier drugs. She eventually became addicted to heroin. She lived on the streets of Baltimore for four years before finally agreeing to rehab. And now, though she is now recovering and has been clean off of heavier substances for a few years, she still displays incredibly violent behavior—behavior that she learned (that she NEEDED) to survive in residential and on the streets.
I actually remember you, Stephanie, saying in class that your siblings were “reverse role models” for you, and I feel the same way about my sister in many ways. But knowing her past, it’s hard for me because I feel like it wasn’t her fault that she turned to drugs, and that she has violent outbursts in which she lashes out against those that love and care about her most. It’s a very personal issue within out family that I don’t typically talk about, but while doing the readings I could not help but be constantly reminded of my sister. Particularly in the film City of God, I saw the theme of violence for survival echoed, where small children participated in violent acts simply to survive (such as Steak shooting the two young boys in the feet, and then killing one of them).
VIDEO GAMES
Video games, for me, are a very touchy subject. My brother and I are both avid players of video games, and I also think that creating video games is an art form unto itself. I liken game creators to storytellers, who can not only weave amazing stories but also allow you to play a part in that story. I absolutely respect that they have the same freedoms afforded to other artists in different media, including freedom of speech.
Firstly, not all video games are violent. I think video games get a bad rap—yes, there are a significant amount of games which depict violence, but there is also a good number that do not. For example, over the years we have seen video gaming devolve to a solo activity—a lonely player sitting in a dark room for hours on end, disconnected from the outside world. Nintendo, which is probably the most well-known video game franchise across the globe, has attempted to reinstate video gaming as an activity of group interaction with their newest console: the Nintendo Wii. This console encourages physical interactivity, teamwork, and friendly competition between family and friends with classic sports games like bowling and tennis. This concept and a more economical price tag is what allowed the Nintendo Wii to outsell both Xbox360 and Playstation3 in sales last year.
Secondly, people need to rid themselves of the misconception that video games are only for children. Video games are made BY adults, so it seems only natural that there will be games that, just as there are movies and books made for more mature audiences, there will also be games with mature themes. I feel banning certain games due to violence is the wrong approach, and also neglecting the true issue. Violence is a reality, and I feel that you cannot block people from this reality. To me, the argument that video games are destructive because they allow players to emulate violent behavior is an ultimately weak one. If we ban games that are based on fighting tournaments, like Mortal Kombat and Streetfighter, are we also going to ban martial arts tournaments and sparring? If we ban first person shooters like Doom and Halo, are we also going to ban paintball and laser tag? The first film we watched outside of class, The Human Animal: War & Violence, began with a group of men playing paintball in army fatigues with guns that look and feel almost exactly like the real thing. Paintballing is an activity that certainly emulates the violence of war to the same extent, if not more, than any video game would. And although only adult men are depicted in the film, I know of quite a few parents who have no problem with their 8-year old sons going paintballing…while the mass majority of first person shooter games are rated by the ESRB as Teen or Mature.
I don’t want you to get the wrong idea—I’m absolutely disgusted by certain games that are overtly violent just for the sake of violence, such as Grand Theft Auto. However, one has to ask, how could a game like this even become popular if there wasn’t a market for it already in existence? In the second part of Tough Guise, it is stated that video games and other media are simply emulating what is already omnipresent in masculine culture—a culture connected to power, control and violence. The game is so popular because our society is so infused with this masculine culture, and boys want to play it because it makes them feel more like a “real man” and justifies their need to fit in with the norm of society. Blaming the video game instead of the culture its derived from is just an easy way to skirt the issue.
My thought is that ultimately, it is the role of a parent to monitor the games that his or her children play. In I Prayed for More Gun Control and Got Better Background Checks, Tonya Maria Matthews talks about how parents sometimes act with such ignorance and neglect—giving a child a .38 caliber for his birthday, not knowing that bombs are being made in their own basement, then claiming the child who shoots up a school is a monster. I fully agree with her, and I think that it is the parents’ responsibility to pay attention to their child and ensure their wellbeing and safety. A parent who allows a child to have a video game rated Mature or higher is irresponsible, plain and simple.
[I’m sorry for the rant, I just know way too much about video gaming for my own good.]
PS: Stephanie, you asked about the reading Kids, Guns and Violence, “Kleck mentioned finding a way to ban ‘bad guns’ and leave "good guns" but I do not understand what he means. Is he talking literatively or figuratively?” I think the authors are summarizing one of the current policies regarding gun control. It relies on specific types of guns, some of which are classified as good or okay, and others which are deemed “bad” (like military-style guns).
Youth Violence
I just wanted to write a little about the poem that we read in class the other day. This really got me thinking about how people act and can be so judgemental. It kind of goes along with what I was saying about people stereotyping others into gangs. Well, the same thing goes to people stereotyping others as being dangerous or not belonging. Who says what "normal" is? Is right for one person to call someone else weird or not normal? Or beat someone up just because of their race or ethnicity or even where they live?
The poem is about two boys who went grocery shopping and decided to go into a different neighborhood them they live in. It is stated in the poem that it is "all white. All American". It is sad, if I am taking the right, that two boys only six and nine already have in their mind that you have to be white to be American. And they also think that just because they are Mexican, it is alright for people to hate them. This poem really struck a chord with me and did get me a little upset because when I think about, there are people who still think and act that way. And a lot of the time it is the children who get punished for it.
I know it is not a long exert but I wanted to comment on how I felt about the poem.
The poem is about two boys who went grocery shopping and decided to go into a different neighborhood them they live in. It is stated in the poem that it is "all white. All American". It is sad, if I am taking the right, that two boys only six and nine already have in their mind that you have to be white to be American. And they also think that just because they are Mexican, it is alright for people to hate them. This poem really struck a chord with me and did get me a little upset because when I think about, there are people who still think and act that way. And a lot of the time it is the children who get punished for it.
I know it is not a long exert but I wanted to comment on how I felt about the poem.
Youth Violence
Hey Lesleigh,
Before I go into gangs and the City of God movie, I wanted to talk a little about my service learning. Last night there was a little boy who would not do any of the work and was ignoring us pretty much the whole time. I guess he got to his breaking point and got mad at us trying to get him to do the work. He started to hit himself in the head with his hands and when I took his hands so he could not do it anymore, he started to bang his head on the table. This was not the first time I have seen a kid hit him or herself but this kid was very persistent. It scares me that they try to inflict pain on themselves. It might not turn to anything but if he has not problem hitting himself, I keep thinking; will it turn into more? Or will he start hitting others? We have talked in class about juveniles committing violence on each other, but not much about doing to his or her own body.
In class we were talking about choices and (as some stated) that there is always a choice. I agree with this statement that there is always a choice but neither one might be good. My Professor in my Holocaust class called this choice less choices; meaning any choice given will turn out bad. She used the example of Rumcowski having to give over twenty thousand children under the age ten. He said it was either that or the Nazis come and take more so he CHOSE to cooperate. Either choice that he could have made had a terrible outcome. This is what I thought about when talking about the City of God movie. They all had a choice throughout the movie; whether it be to join or not or to get out of the gangs. If you were already in a gang, there is a good a chance that you could get killed. If one tried to get out of the gang, then they would either be beaten to death of a good chance of getting shot. This is a choice less choice; which ever they pick will most likely end up in death. Lil Ze and Rocket grew up in the same type of neighborhood. Rocket got lucky and developed an interest in photography. In talking about gangs, I enjoyed reading Spergel’s Gang Member Demographics and Gang Subcultures. When most people think of gangs, they think teenagers, and usually black or Hispanic. I thought it was interesting that they analyzed the demographics and subcultures. Spergel stated “The analysis of age, gender, and especially race/ethnic, gang characteristics suggests that there are distinctive gang subcultures, and therefore distinctive intervention approaches are required”. In my honest opinion, I do not think anyone can see a teenager a say he/she is not in a gang. Now-a-days no one can ever tell. In today’s world, there are people that think they can stereotype others by the way that they dress or the way that they look.
One thing that was mentioned in class about City of God was that there were not parents anywhere to be seen. I am a big family person so sometimes I forget how important family influence is. I guess a big reason for that is because I have always had it and my parents have always been there for me and provided me with what I need plus a ton more. The way parents raise and interact with their children make a huge difference for when they get into their teen years and peer pressure starts to kick in. According to the Youth Gangs: A developmental perspective, Patterson stated that “… parents of antisocial children are noncontingent in many of their interactions with their children.” The parents probably ignore the behavior problems of their own children and are very inconsistent with their punishments. I have one student at my job who is very wild and gets into a lot of trouble. When the teacher has a conference with the mother, the mother tries to blame it on everyone else except for her son. He does not get punished a whole lot because she does not think he does anything wrong. After reading about gangs and talking about it in class, this is starting to concern me. I just hope he can steer away from any trouble.
Before I go into gangs and the City of God movie, I wanted to talk a little about my service learning. Last night there was a little boy who would not do any of the work and was ignoring us pretty much the whole time. I guess he got to his breaking point and got mad at us trying to get him to do the work. He started to hit himself in the head with his hands and when I took his hands so he could not do it anymore, he started to bang his head on the table. This was not the first time I have seen a kid hit him or herself but this kid was very persistent. It scares me that they try to inflict pain on themselves. It might not turn to anything but if he has not problem hitting himself, I keep thinking; will it turn into more? Or will he start hitting others? We have talked in class about juveniles committing violence on each other, but not much about doing to his or her own body.
In class we were talking about choices and (as some stated) that there is always a choice. I agree with this statement that there is always a choice but neither one might be good. My Professor in my Holocaust class called this choice less choices; meaning any choice given will turn out bad. She used the example of Rumcowski having to give over twenty thousand children under the age ten. He said it was either that or the Nazis come and take more so he CHOSE to cooperate. Either choice that he could have made had a terrible outcome. This is what I thought about when talking about the City of God movie. They all had a choice throughout the movie; whether it be to join or not or to get out of the gangs. If you were already in a gang, there is a good a chance that you could get killed. If one tried to get out of the gang, then they would either be beaten to death of a good chance of getting shot. This is a choice less choice; which ever they pick will most likely end up in death. Lil Ze and Rocket grew up in the same type of neighborhood. Rocket got lucky and developed an interest in photography. In talking about gangs, I enjoyed reading Spergel’s Gang Member Demographics and Gang Subcultures. When most people think of gangs, they think teenagers, and usually black or Hispanic. I thought it was interesting that they analyzed the demographics and subcultures. Spergel stated “The analysis of age, gender, and especially race/ethnic, gang characteristics suggests that there are distinctive gang subcultures, and therefore distinctive intervention approaches are required”. In my honest opinion, I do not think anyone can see a teenager a say he/she is not in a gang. Now-a-days no one can ever tell. In today’s world, there are people that think they can stereotype others by the way that they dress or the way that they look.
One thing that was mentioned in class about City of God was that there were not parents anywhere to be seen. I am a big family person so sometimes I forget how important family influence is. I guess a big reason for that is because I have always had it and my parents have always been there for me and provided me with what I need plus a ton more. The way parents raise and interact with their children make a huge difference for when they get into their teen years and peer pressure starts to kick in. According to the Youth Gangs: A developmental perspective, Patterson stated that “… parents of antisocial children are noncontingent in many of their interactions with their children.” The parents probably ignore the behavior problems of their own children and are very inconsistent with their punishments. I have one student at my job who is very wild and gets into a lot of trouble. When the teacher has a conference with the mother, the mother tries to blame it on everyone else except for her son. He does not get punished a whole lot because she does not think he does anything wrong. After reading about gangs and talking about it in class, this is starting to concern me. I just hope he can steer away from any trouble.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Youth Violence
Hey Lesleigh,
I was a little worried when we started youth violence. I am a people person to begin with but when it involves children, I get even more concerned. I have always wanted to work with children and I have always hated hearing about children getting hurt or even worse killed. I now realize that it was good for me to hear and participate in something like that. I will most like, one time or another in my career, work with a child that has been abused or seen someone he or she loves abused. I also enjoyed this section because in my service learning, I am working in a children's group for a domestic violence organization. The kids I have worked with have a lot of issues that need to get worked out. They have either been apart or have witnessed some kind of abuse in their family. It is really sad to hear about but on the other hand, these children are some of the best children I have ever worked with. They are eager to learn. I am trying my best to teach them the different kinds of violence and how to handle it. I feel real good when I see that they understand. I know I am running on about my service learning but this section has really helped me with it. I help run a group on Thursday nights and my supervisor is usually not there so I pretty much get to run it. One little boy had a bad day or week and everything that he wrote or drew had to do with violence. He is about nine or ten years old. One of the assignments was to draw the nicest dream you have ever had. He drew him shooting his enemy, his enemy in a grave, and him in jail. After I collected and saw that, it scared me that a boy this age could be thinking about stuff like that. We then had them draw something that they are scared of and he drew him having a caesar. I turned in his papers to the supervisor and she talked to his mother about it but it is amazing that he thinks that way.
I do blame some of the violence that we see on the media and the video games. There are so many video games that have the children shooting other people. There is one game that a child can be a bully at a school. He can pick and fight anyone he sees in the game. I think it was the documentary Tough Guise, that talked about the television and movies and video games. I cannot blame all the problems and violence on the media but they do have an impact on some children's thinking. In Tough Guise, the guy talked about wrestling. There are some kids that think it is real. I was watching Funniest Home Vidoes recently and saw two young boys taping themselves imitating two wrestlers. They were lucky that they did not get hurt. The documentary also talked about masculinity and feminitity. In today's culture, males have the need to feel masculine. If they do not act or feel macho then somehow that does not make them a man. There are things that are considered feminine and will jeopardize their "manhood" if they do it.
I was reading Kids, Guns, and Violence by Sheley and Wright and had mixed feelings about it. I first was surprised to read that youth violence has increased. I really liked and agreed with the statement "...a leading concern voiced by many observers of the contemporary urban scene is that violent behavior has become culturally normative in the context to underclass life". I think that it is a problem with it becomes a norm and is expected. There has to be something we can do about it. I tought that I read somewhere that it has gone down recently and that is why it was a surprise. A lot of the article was how guns are a major problem. I agree that to many teens have guns and it seems easy to get one. I believe that people kill people. A gun cannot aim and shoot it self. I do believe that something should be done but I am not sure what would work at this point. Kleck mentioned finding a way to ban "bad guns" and leave "good guns" but I do not understand what he means. Is he talking literatively or figuratively? I might just not understand that section or what he meant. I do understand what Reiss and Roth are talking about when they "argue for centralized and street-level tactics to disrupt illegal gun sales, like those now used to intervene in illegal durg markets". My only problem with this is that it might work for awhile but teens are going to find another way to get guns if that is what they really want. They have found a way up to this point and they will find a way after.
I feel like I am just rambling on so I am going to take a break and write more tonight. Hope to hear from you soon!
I was a little worried when we started youth violence. I am a people person to begin with but when it involves children, I get even more concerned. I have always wanted to work with children and I have always hated hearing about children getting hurt or even worse killed. I now realize that it was good for me to hear and participate in something like that. I will most like, one time or another in my career, work with a child that has been abused or seen someone he or she loves abused. I also enjoyed this section because in my service learning, I am working in a children's group for a domestic violence organization. The kids I have worked with have a lot of issues that need to get worked out. They have either been apart or have witnessed some kind of abuse in their family. It is really sad to hear about but on the other hand, these children are some of the best children I have ever worked with. They are eager to learn. I am trying my best to teach them the different kinds of violence and how to handle it. I feel real good when I see that they understand. I know I am running on about my service learning but this section has really helped me with it. I help run a group on Thursday nights and my supervisor is usually not there so I pretty much get to run it. One little boy had a bad day or week and everything that he wrote or drew had to do with violence. He is about nine or ten years old. One of the assignments was to draw the nicest dream you have ever had. He drew him shooting his enemy, his enemy in a grave, and him in jail. After I collected and saw that, it scared me that a boy this age could be thinking about stuff like that. We then had them draw something that they are scared of and he drew him having a caesar. I turned in his papers to the supervisor and she talked to his mother about it but it is amazing that he thinks that way.
I do blame some of the violence that we see on the media and the video games. There are so many video games that have the children shooting other people. There is one game that a child can be a bully at a school. He can pick and fight anyone he sees in the game. I think it was the documentary Tough Guise, that talked about the television and movies and video games. I cannot blame all the problems and violence on the media but they do have an impact on some children's thinking. In Tough Guise, the guy talked about wrestling. There are some kids that think it is real. I was watching Funniest Home Vidoes recently and saw two young boys taping themselves imitating two wrestlers. They were lucky that they did not get hurt. The documentary also talked about masculinity and feminitity. In today's culture, males have the need to feel masculine. If they do not act or feel macho then somehow that does not make them a man. There are things that are considered feminine and will jeopardize their "manhood" if they do it.
I was reading Kids, Guns, and Violence by Sheley and Wright and had mixed feelings about it. I first was surprised to read that youth violence has increased. I really liked and agreed with the statement "...a leading concern voiced by many observers of the contemporary urban scene is that violent behavior has become culturally normative in the context to underclass life". I think that it is a problem with it becomes a norm and is expected. There has to be something we can do about it. I tought that I read somewhere that it has gone down recently and that is why it was a surprise. A lot of the article was how guns are a major problem. I agree that to many teens have guns and it seems easy to get one. I believe that people kill people. A gun cannot aim and shoot it self. I do believe that something should be done but I am not sure what would work at this point. Kleck mentioned finding a way to ban "bad guns" and leave "good guns" but I do not understand what he means. Is he talking literatively or figuratively? I might just not understand that section or what he meant. I do understand what Reiss and Roth are talking about when they "argue for centralized and street-level tactics to disrupt illegal gun sales, like those now used to intervene in illegal durg markets". My only problem with this is that it might work for awhile but teens are going to find another way to get guns if that is what they really want. They have found a way up to this point and they will find a way after.
I feel like I am just rambling on so I am going to take a break and write more tonight. Hope to hear from you soon!
Thursday, March 1, 2007
What is the purpose of Gender?
As we found out in class gender is a very sensitive and complex idea. As Lesleigh stated above, we had a very large discussion about this. There were many differences. I think there are multiple fixations to gender. In "Night to His Day" by Judith Lorber, she argues that gender is socially constructed and there is a relationship between gender toles and power/ structure. She mentioned that masculinity equals power. I see everywhere (media, walking on the streest, tv shows) men thinking they have to be masculine. I know I have brought this up in class a couple of times but the snickers commercial at the super bowl. After the two men ended up touching lips they HAD to prove their masculinity by ripping off their shirts. I believe if it were two girls that happened to kiss, there would not be a problem.
According to Ivy and Blacklund, "doing gender" is using sexist languages. I have to agree that in today's english there is still a one way language. I personally think that there are some words that we should get away with but I am guilty of using sexist language sometimes, not in the bad way. I will see a bunch of people and say 'hey guys' even if there are females present. It is a habit and I do not see anything wrong with that. I agree with Sam in that I don't see a problem of having "male" or "female" but do not categorize (other) them into something they are not. The Framework essay is a great place to look for "othering". It talks about the different levels of "othering".
There is an individual level which one can experience being "othered" or one can see in which ways he or she may "other". There is a community level, where one may put a whole community into one category. After the community level, there is a societal/structural Institutional level, where comments like "the society does...". I agree with Whitney that it can be very dangerous of identifying people as "A" and not "A". I think that it is ok that we put oursleves into boxes but we should leave to just ourselves. Julie hit it right on the nose when she talked about "unconscious" categorizing. Whether you are aware of it or not, everyone "others" other people. I just did it there by stating "everyone" and did not realize it until I was done. One is not aware of it when they do it most of the time.
In my service learning, I help with the children's group for a domestic violence organization. On Thursday nights, I get to run the group. We teach them that violence is more than just physical pain and try to help them understand how to deal with it. It becomes really hard at times because these kids come in looking so innocent. I have two younger volunteers that come in and help and not to say that I do not do it but as I am watching them, I see them "othering" some of the kids. The group is a hispanic group and there are a couple of kids in there that do not speak much english if any. I heard one of the volunteers, I believe she is 12, say that she didn't think that the two that did not speak english were not very smart. She also mentioned that they did not say much either, even when we ask them, so that helped her come to think that they were not as smart as they actually are. I see "othering" everywhere, even in me. I do not think that it is necessarily a good or bad thing. I think we grew up in an era that it seems like the norm to do.
How does your social call, cultural/ethnic background and geographic region shape your beliefs about gender?
I think your social class, cultural/ethnic background and geographical shape beliefs about gender. Where you live and how you live will have a lot to do to determine what you think about gender. In the Jessica Lynch piece, The Dangers of Playing Dress-up, her fear of abandament by her male comrades and the fear that she will be harmed more severely by the Iraqis, because of being a wome, brought on some emotional distress to her. I was talking in class about this with Maria and she compared Jessica Lynch and Mohammad's daughter in the same situation. Mohammad shields his daughter from the war in fear that she will be harmed. In parts of the documentary that was shown in class (I believe it was called Tough Guise) it showed that ethnicity and environment shape gender and social class influences portraying certain aspects of gender. James William Gibson stated in Warrior Dreams that white men s masculinity is threatened or challenged by social movements in the US and worldwide. I think that there is some truth to that statement. In class we talked about wanting power. As white men, throughout the century, they have always had an upperhand and when they see that power slipping, it might be hard for them to take in.
I agree wholeheartedly with Lesleigh about growing up in this area, being so close to DC, we are living in a very diverse area. I have come to encounter a variety of people. I believe, along with Lesleigh, that I am very accepting of people who are not just like me. I will not sit here and say that I do not have some work to do on certain things, like Professor GP, I also get relieved when someone walking behind me is an older white lady. I know that I need to work on it and I have gotten much better.
How does media shape the ideas about gender roles?
The media has a major impact of the ideas about gender roles. There are people that idolize the stars and wants to be and act like them. I like that examples that Lesleigh used with Jennifer Lopez and Angelina Jolie. If you look at the music vidoes done in todays world. I can go right now and turn it on to MTV or BET and see about five videos in a row with half naked women dancing. Teenagers see those women getting the attention from the celebrities that they love and adore and feel like that is how they have to act to get a boy's attention.
In the movie, "Boys Don't Cry", it shows Brandon Teena posing as a male when he has the parts of a women. I cannot remember who said this during our class discussion but after they found out that she was a women and not a man, they treated him like something other than human, as an "it". I found that very disturbing. Just because he wasn't not a man in their eyes anymore, they still couldn't treat her women. I have been using "he" to describe Brandon Teena. As Angela pointed out in class, I am not sure how to relate with Brandon Teena. I am not sure what to write when talking about Brandon Teena. I have been using "he" because that is what he wanted to be, a man. Just out of respect, and since that is what he wanted anyways. But I still think it is a hard call, at least for me, when writing about Brandon Teena. I not only saw this is "Boy's Don't Cry" but I was watching "Ugly Bettery" and one of the episodes was about a man coming back from faking his own death and now being a women. They did not know how to respond and was called a freak. The man who turned into a women had a brother. This brother still called him his brother on occasion.
The information in this section could go on forever. There are things that I agree with and others that I disagree but it is a section that everyone should learn about. I have found myself thinking about the class more and more lately. I see what we talk about around me and I am aware of it. This is one of very few classes that have done that to me. It has helped me open my eyes and see what is going on around me.
As we found out in class gender is a very sensitive and complex idea. As Lesleigh stated above, we had a very large discussion about this. There were many differences. I think there are multiple fixations to gender. In "Night to His Day" by Judith Lorber, she argues that gender is socially constructed and there is a relationship between gender toles and power/ structure. She mentioned that masculinity equals power. I see everywhere (media, walking on the streest, tv shows) men thinking they have to be masculine. I know I have brought this up in class a couple of times but the snickers commercial at the super bowl. After the two men ended up touching lips they HAD to prove their masculinity by ripping off their shirts. I believe if it were two girls that happened to kiss, there would not be a problem.
According to Ivy and Blacklund, "doing gender" is using sexist languages. I have to agree that in today's english there is still a one way language. I personally think that there are some words that we should get away with but I am guilty of using sexist language sometimes, not in the bad way. I will see a bunch of people and say 'hey guys' even if there are females present. It is a habit and I do not see anything wrong with that. I agree with Sam in that I don't see a problem of having "male" or "female" but do not categorize (other) them into something they are not. The Framework essay is a great place to look for "othering". It talks about the different levels of "othering".
There is an individual level which one can experience being "othered" or one can see in which ways he or she may "other". There is a community level, where one may put a whole community into one category. After the community level, there is a societal/structural Institutional level, where comments like "the society does...". I agree with Whitney that it can be very dangerous of identifying people as "A" and not "A". I think that it is ok that we put oursleves into boxes but we should leave to just ourselves. Julie hit it right on the nose when she talked about "unconscious" categorizing. Whether you are aware of it or not, everyone "others" other people. I just did it there by stating "everyone" and did not realize it until I was done. One is not aware of it when they do it most of the time.
In my service learning, I help with the children's group for a domestic violence organization. On Thursday nights, I get to run the group. We teach them that violence is more than just physical pain and try to help them understand how to deal with it. It becomes really hard at times because these kids come in looking so innocent. I have two younger volunteers that come in and help and not to say that I do not do it but as I am watching them, I see them "othering" some of the kids. The group is a hispanic group and there are a couple of kids in there that do not speak much english if any. I heard one of the volunteers, I believe she is 12, say that she didn't think that the two that did not speak english were not very smart. She also mentioned that they did not say much either, even when we ask them, so that helped her come to think that they were not as smart as they actually are. I see "othering" everywhere, even in me. I do not think that it is necessarily a good or bad thing. I think we grew up in an era that it seems like the norm to do.
How does your social call, cultural/ethnic background and geographic region shape your beliefs about gender?
I think your social class, cultural/ethnic background and geographical shape beliefs about gender. Where you live and how you live will have a lot to do to determine what you think about gender. In the Jessica Lynch piece, The Dangers of Playing Dress-up, her fear of abandament by her male comrades and the fear that she will be harmed more severely by the Iraqis, because of being a wome, brought on some emotional distress to her. I was talking in class about this with Maria and she compared Jessica Lynch and Mohammad's daughter in the same situation. Mohammad shields his daughter from the war in fear that she will be harmed. In parts of the documentary that was shown in class (I believe it was called Tough Guise) it showed that ethnicity and environment shape gender and social class influences portraying certain aspects of gender. James William Gibson stated in Warrior Dreams that white men s masculinity is threatened or challenged by social movements in the US and worldwide. I think that there is some truth to that statement. In class we talked about wanting power. As white men, throughout the century, they have always had an upperhand and when they see that power slipping, it might be hard for them to take in.
I agree wholeheartedly with Lesleigh about growing up in this area, being so close to DC, we are living in a very diverse area. I have come to encounter a variety of people. I believe, along with Lesleigh, that I am very accepting of people who are not just like me. I will not sit here and say that I do not have some work to do on certain things, like Professor GP, I also get relieved when someone walking behind me is an older white lady. I know that I need to work on it and I have gotten much better.
How does media shape the ideas about gender roles?
The media has a major impact of the ideas about gender roles. There are people that idolize the stars and wants to be and act like them. I like that examples that Lesleigh used with Jennifer Lopez and Angelina Jolie. If you look at the music vidoes done in todays world. I can go right now and turn it on to MTV or BET and see about five videos in a row with half naked women dancing. Teenagers see those women getting the attention from the celebrities that they love and adore and feel like that is how they have to act to get a boy's attention.
In the movie, "Boys Don't Cry", it shows Brandon Teena posing as a male when he has the parts of a women. I cannot remember who said this during our class discussion but after they found out that she was a women and not a man, they treated him like something other than human, as an "it". I found that very disturbing. Just because he wasn't not a man in their eyes anymore, they still couldn't treat her women. I have been using "he" to describe Brandon Teena. As Angela pointed out in class, I am not sure how to relate with Brandon Teena. I am not sure what to write when talking about Brandon Teena. I have been using "he" because that is what he wanted to be, a man. Just out of respect, and since that is what he wanted anyways. But I still think it is a hard call, at least for me, when writing about Brandon Teena. I not only saw this is "Boy's Don't Cry" but I was watching "Ugly Bettery" and one of the episodes was about a man coming back from faking his own death and now being a women. They did not know how to respond and was called a freak. The man who turned into a women had a brother. This brother still called him his brother on occasion.
The information in this section could go on forever. There are things that I agree with and others that I disagree but it is a section that everyone should learn about. I have found myself thinking about the class more and more lately. I see what we talk about around me and I am aware of it. This is one of very few classes that have done that to me. It has helped me open my eyes and see what is going on around me.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
More questions answered.
How do your social class, cultural/ethnic background and geographic region shape your beliefs about gender?
I've grown up and lived around the DC metropolitan area for the majority of my life. My mom always jokes that we've lived on both sides of river, since we lived in Fort Washington in PG County, MD for eight years before moving to Alexandria. Although in PG county the demographics are predominantly black and in Alexandria they are predominantly white, I think it's arguable that both areas are extremely diverse--both in terms of the multitudes of ethnicites and social classes to which anyone living there is exposed. Because of this (and also because of the way I was raised), I am much more accepting of people who are different than I am.
How does all that affect how I look at gender? I think it's hard to say. For certain, I can say that because of my own nature of acceptance, I have often struggled with the differential treatment that men and women recieve. Working at Pathways, a shelter in DC for chronically homeless women (who are often coping with mental diseases as well), this ridge became ever-more apparent. The question of why women even need their own shelters--not that it actually needs to be asked--is a living testemony to the male dominance in our society. Although I have been working at Pathways, the main shelter at Calvary is a temporary home for some women who have been battered by their husbands or boyfriends, and they literally have no other alternative than to stay at a shelter. What kind of society are we, where a woman has to choose between being abused or having a roof over her head?
I also struggle with the fact that these women have been repeatedly rejected from our society--whether it is because of their race, their mental health status, their social class, or just because they are women. In all honesty, it makes me really very angry. What gives those in power the right to decide that one type of person matters more or is worth more than another? The hegemonies of men over women, the rich over the poor, white over every other ethnicity... Though they are homeless, many of these women have families, have children, and even have jobs. Why don't they count as much as the rich white men of our society? ...or even as much as someone like me?
How do media and mass communication shape your ideas about gender roles?
In a media-infused world such as ours, it's difficult for anyone to feel as though they are "properly" performing their gender role. As cultural consumers, we are constantly bombarded by advertisements selling products to make us thinner, toner, tanner, etc.. Both men and women have physical standards we are expected to live up to in Western society, whether it is the "heroin chic" look for women (as mentioned in the Media chapter of Genderspeak) or the top-heavy GI Joe look for men (as seen in Tough Guise). Pop culture and the advertising world feed off eachother, with product placements in films and commercials starring our favorite actors, singers and models as they hawk everything from Diet Coke to skin creams. We are made to feel deficient, and buy products or get surgeries to fix our inadequacies. We seek to portray ourselves as the same stereotypes of perfection we see every minute of everyday in the media.
One thing I wish the Gender and Mass Media chapter of Genderspeak had discussed was the power of celebrities over the public--particularly female ones. When Jennifer Lopez was rising to stardom, the masses ran to buy jeans, posterier padding and even implants so they could have "a butt like J-lo." Angelina Jolie's increasing fame resulted in droves of women flocking to get colagen injections in their lips. There was even a show on MTV not too long ago where individuals would get plastic surgery to make them look as much like a certain celebrity as possible (such as Brad Pitt and Carmen Electra). Some celebrities even feed off their own image, eventually creating caricaturized representations of themselves--like Michael Jackson or the late Anna Nicole Smith.
I've talked a lot about the physical standards to which men and women are expected to adhere, but that is only one of the roles they must fulfill. One current advertisement on TV that I find exemplifies the presence of gender roles (and by that I also mean it is incredibly irritating) is an ad for an online dating service in which a man goes on dates with series of "abnormal" women. One woman exclaims how her life "is so not together," while another informs him that chickens are the only animals that don't have nasal passages. Although this commercial obviously shows women who don't fit the typical gender roles (and how they are ultimately rejected), I tried not to over-analyze it--after all, we've all been on bad dates. However, the company doesn't run any similar ads where a woman goes on dates with a series of abnormal men (or with same-sex dating for that matter). I kept thinking back to our discussion in class about how it's fine for girls to emulate boys, but not for boys to emulate girls because the female sex is inferior to the male sex. From a female perspective, it seems to me the message of this commercial is that women who don't fit traditional gender roles are not only rejected, but don't have a chance to seek out a partner of their own. In other words, females are the ones with the deficiency, because they are the "inferior" gender whom need to live up to the standards set by males.
(I seriously hate that commercial, by the way.)
RESPONSES
To Julie:
I totally agree about the unconscious categorizing we place upon upon others. If anything deviates from what we consider to be "the norm," we automatically place judgement and also have a difficult time developing a response to it. Just like with your service learning, it was surprising to you that women were also the ones who inflicted violence because you had a set idea that women are caregivers and nurturers. In the poem we read, Guerilla War, the author expresses that within the Vietcong, "even their women fight; and young boy, and girls." Normally in war, soldiers have the option to spare the women and the children because they are typically passive, but when they deviate from that behavior, you becomes unsure whether you should spare them or shoot them, and "after a while, you quit trying."
Lorena Bobbit is also a good example of women who surprise the public through acts of violent. If it had been a man who had cut off part of a woman, or another man's penis, would the story have been as big as it was? Probably not However, I think I have to disagree with the idea that the female astronaut was targeted because she was female. After hearing about the story in class and also on the news, I asked myself, "Is it because she is a woman that her exploits became such a sensationalized media story?" To me, the answer is no. This isn't to say her sex had nothing to do with it, but I think the larger issue was that she was an astronaut. Astronauts go through rigorous training, both physical and mental, before they are put into space. The fact that someone who went through that kind of training was in such a mentally unstable state is why the story caught the public's attention. Although it's hard to say for sure, I think that if it had been a male astronaut driving across country in diapers, the story would still have been the same kind of media frenzy.
To Stephanie:
[I'll try to respond to your post if you can have it up by 9:00AM tomorrow. Otherwise, I don't know if I'll have time to respond before I have to leave for class. :( ]
I've grown up and lived around the DC metropolitan area for the majority of my life. My mom always jokes that we've lived on both sides of river, since we lived in Fort Washington in PG County, MD for eight years before moving to Alexandria. Although in PG county the demographics are predominantly black and in Alexandria they are predominantly white, I think it's arguable that both areas are extremely diverse--both in terms of the multitudes of ethnicites and social classes to which anyone living there is exposed. Because of this (and also because of the way I was raised), I am much more accepting of people who are different than I am.
How does all that affect how I look at gender? I think it's hard to say. For certain, I can say that because of my own nature of acceptance, I have often struggled with the differential treatment that men and women recieve. Working at Pathways, a shelter in DC for chronically homeless women (who are often coping with mental diseases as well), this ridge became ever-more apparent. The question of why women even need their own shelters--not that it actually needs to be asked--is a living testemony to the male dominance in our society. Although I have been working at Pathways, the main shelter at Calvary is a temporary home for some women who have been battered by their husbands or boyfriends, and they literally have no other alternative than to stay at a shelter. What kind of society are we, where a woman has to choose between being abused or having a roof over her head?
I also struggle with the fact that these women have been repeatedly rejected from our society--whether it is because of their race, their mental health status, their social class, or just because they are women. In all honesty, it makes me really very angry. What gives those in power the right to decide that one type of person matters more or is worth more than another? The hegemonies of men over women, the rich over the poor, white over every other ethnicity... Though they are homeless, many of these women have families, have children, and even have jobs. Why don't they count as much as the rich white men of our society? ...or even as much as someone like me?
How do media and mass communication shape your ideas about gender roles?
In a media-infused world such as ours, it's difficult for anyone to feel as though they are "properly" performing their gender role. As cultural consumers, we are constantly bombarded by advertisements selling products to make us thinner, toner, tanner, etc.. Both men and women have physical standards we are expected to live up to in Western society, whether it is the "heroin chic" look for women (as mentioned in the Media chapter of Genderspeak) or the top-heavy GI Joe look for men (as seen in Tough Guise). Pop culture and the advertising world feed off eachother, with product placements in films and commercials starring our favorite actors, singers and models as they hawk everything from Diet Coke to skin creams. We are made to feel deficient, and buy products or get surgeries to fix our inadequacies. We seek to portray ourselves as the same stereotypes of perfection we see every minute of everyday in the media.
One thing I wish the Gender and Mass Media chapter of Genderspeak had discussed was the power of celebrities over the public--particularly female ones. When Jennifer Lopez was rising to stardom, the masses ran to buy jeans, posterier padding and even implants so they could have "a butt like J-lo." Angelina Jolie's increasing fame resulted in droves of women flocking to get colagen injections in their lips. There was even a show on MTV not too long ago where individuals would get plastic surgery to make them look as much like a certain celebrity as possible (such as Brad Pitt and Carmen Electra). Some celebrities even feed off their own image, eventually creating caricaturized representations of themselves--like Michael Jackson or the late Anna Nicole Smith.
I've talked a lot about the physical standards to which men and women are expected to adhere, but that is only one of the roles they must fulfill. One current advertisement on TV that I find exemplifies the presence of gender roles (and by that I also mean it is incredibly irritating) is an ad for an online dating service in which a man goes on dates with series of "abnormal" women. One woman exclaims how her life "is so not together," while another informs him that chickens are the only animals that don't have nasal passages. Although this commercial obviously shows women who don't fit the typical gender roles (and how they are ultimately rejected), I tried not to over-analyze it--after all, we've all been on bad dates. However, the company doesn't run any similar ads where a woman goes on dates with a series of abnormal men (or with same-sex dating for that matter). I kept thinking back to our discussion in class about how it's fine for girls to emulate boys, but not for boys to emulate girls because the female sex is inferior to the male sex. From a female perspective, it seems to me the message of this commercial is that women who don't fit traditional gender roles are not only rejected, but don't have a chance to seek out a partner of their own. In other words, females are the ones with the deficiency, because they are the "inferior" gender whom need to live up to the standards set by males.
(I seriously hate that commercial, by the way.)
RESPONSES
To Julie:
I totally agree about the unconscious categorizing we place upon upon others. If anything deviates from what we consider to be "the norm," we automatically place judgement and also have a difficult time developing a response to it. Just like with your service learning, it was surprising to you that women were also the ones who inflicted violence because you had a set idea that women are caregivers and nurturers. In the poem we read, Guerilla War, the author expresses that within the Vietcong, "even their women fight; and young boy, and girls." Normally in war, soldiers have the option to spare the women and the children because they are typically passive, but when they deviate from that behavior, you becomes unsure whether you should spare them or shoot them, and "after a while, you quit trying."
Lorena Bobbit is also a good example of women who surprise the public through acts of violent. If it had been a man who had cut off part of a woman, or another man's penis, would the story have been as big as it was? Probably not However, I think I have to disagree with the idea that the female astronaut was targeted because she was female. After hearing about the story in class and also on the news, I asked myself, "Is it because she is a woman that her exploits became such a sensationalized media story?" To me, the answer is no. This isn't to say her sex had nothing to do with it, but I think the larger issue was that she was an astronaut. Astronauts go through rigorous training, both physical and mental, before they are put into space. The fact that someone who went through that kind of training was in such a mentally unstable state is why the story caught the public's attention. Although it's hard to say for sure, I think that if it had been a male astronaut driving across country in diapers, the story would still have been the same kind of media frenzy.
To Stephanie:
[I'll try to respond to your post if you can have it up by 9:00AM tomorrow. Otherwise, I don't know if I'll have time to respond before I have to leave for class. :( ]
prelim ideas
The question of what is the purpose of gender? is I think personally that this is a difficult question to answer. I agree with Lesleigh that this is a loaded question. To me there is not just one answer. There are many different answers which are mainly based on different opinions from people. When I think of gender I automatically think of males and females, I think of the different sexes that they are really. I know now because of the class discussions that gender and sex is different, and many times they are confused and put together in the same category. I can’t remember who it was that was that normally on forms you are asked what gender you are male and female and they should be asking what sex are they. I just always put gender and sex together as one. I have found that even though you are biologically a male you can have traits that are more feminine that can make you less masculine. “We” as people (and I say that as general as possible) like to categorize people into boxes. Either “A” or “not A” as Sam had suggested in class. These boxes can lead to stereotypes and can lead to judgments that aren’t necessarily right. I think that people always do this categorizing everyday and even unconsciously as we had discussed this in class.
I also agree with Lesliegh that the basic reason for genders are that we know who we can make babies with. Although nowadays I know same sex couples have babies but that’s another story, I will just focus on the “normal” parents which are typically male and female. Anyways, I find it interesting that when we think of typical parents you automatically assume that there is a mother and father present. This is because when I was growing up I didn’t have a father and there were so many times that I was ‘othered’ because my mom was single. My mom was also the one in the family who made the money, which back years ago that was unheard of because the men were the ones who provided for the family.
In the Documentary, Tough Guise it was the men who were more dominate in doing the violent crimes than women. Also in the documentary it talks about a “real man” in which he would be strong, tough, independent, respected and physical. When I think of violence I first think of men doing the crimes. I also think that media plays a big role in gender roles and violence. I remember a few weeks ago when the female astronaut drove all the way to Florida to attack another woman that since it was a woman it was all over the news and everyone was talking about it. Also I remember when Lorena Bobbitt had attacked her husband that afterward it was all over the media and the country because it was a woman who had done the violence.
I also have realized that through my service learning experience it is normal the men who are getting reported for child abuse/neglect. I have asked and there have been times where the woman is the one who does the violent acts but more times it is the men. I was speaking with my trainer and we were talking about instances of where women where the aggressor and how it was such a shock because she wasn’t used to seeing the women attacking others. I know that women can be the violent one however I normally think of a caretaker or nurturer when women are involved.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Answering a few of the questions...
What is the purpose of gender?
As we all know, this is a loaded question! In class, we briefly discusses the purpose of gender, and Sam talked about how placing people into categories, or boxes, makes things easier for her to identify as being "A, or not A". Whitney expressed the dangers of this, however--she didn't want to be placed in one of these boxes by someone else because what if that wasn't the box she placed herself in? Someone else (Madi?) offered a compromise: having an "open box." People can still be categorized, but we have to leave room for certain notions to be added or removed from the box as our ideas of gender (and other labels) progress.
Honestly, I think the true purpose of gender is little more than cues to aid procreation. For some reason, in our culture we feel this need to categorize and label everything and everyone around us. In the Genderspeak chapter "Choosing and Using Gendered Language", Ivy/Backlund says, ". . . People (at least in American culture) can hardly function without knowing the sex of a person. If they aren't told the sex, they generally assign one based on stereotypes." Biologically there are only two options for which sex we are (three if you consider transgendered). But how many people honestly feel they act 100% "feminine" or 100% "masculine"--in terms of what is expected of those genders--all the time? Personally, I love to dress up, wear make up and go shopping (things usually distinguished as feminine behaviors)... but I also love to play video games, and my sense of humor often leans towards the more 'crude' side (typically masculine behaviors).
The only true purpose I can see for gender that aids our evolution as human beings is, bluntly put, so we know who we can make babies with. Any other so-called purpose of gender is akin to stating there is a purpose in labeling someone a certain race--there really IS no purpose other than to satisfy our own human nature (or borderline-OCD tendencies) to organize and categorize everything in our world. But through gendered divisions, it becomes easier to assign roles to individuals based on their label. Common roles assigned to women would be cooking, cleaning and childcare, while a role for males would be "bringing home the bacon."
These roles help to enforce who has power in our society, and who does not. In many ways, I believe that gender could be considered an institution of structural violence. On the flipside, sometimes the structures of society can determine what gender a person is. In Night to His Day, I found it interesting that in some non-western societies, three genders exist. One of the third-type genders discussed was "manly hearted women" or "female women," who Lorber explains are "biological females who work, marry and parent as men." She goes on to say that these female men don't dress or behave like men, but simply have the same social responsibilities and privileges that men have . . . because they are wealthy enough to buy themselves a wife. So in those societies, it isn't necessarily the biological sex that defines the gender (as is mostly the case in our own society), but the amount of wealth (read: POWER) that determines what gender these women are expected to portray.
In what ways do you perform gender? How does your performance of gender shift depending on your social situation? To what extent is it learned/genetic?
In class, we discussed that the social construction of gender prevents many people from expressing their true natures--like tomboys and "feminine" male children. Although we decided that it was easier in society for a female to act like a male and it was less acceptable for a boy to be feminine, I think that this is only true to a point. There are CERTAIN male-centric behaviors that women are "allowed" to have--such as playing or enjoying sports--and then there are other behaviors which are less accepted. An example would be one of my best friends, Jenny. She lives in San Francisco, CA, which is usually thought of as one of the most liberal and accepting cities in the US. She recently styled her hair into a mohawk (with the sides shaved and everything) and although she loved the style, she couldn't help but notice the looks of disapproval and even disgust as people would see her mohawk--including her own parents. Her parents told her that it made her look too much like a boy or a lesbian (her parents also disapprove of her tattoos because she is a girl and "girls shouldn't have tattoos").
Because of this negative response to her hair style, Jenny expressed to me that she felt it was necessary to over-compensate for her feminism in other ways. She began wearing more jewelry, noticeable make-up and more feminine clothing. She would even accent her mohawk with barrettes in an attempt to, in her words, "look less butch." However, this was only when she went out or was visiting her parents--if she was just hanging out with people that she was comfortable with, it wasn't an issue. I think that this is an example of someone trying to "perform" their gender depending on the social setting. Although Jenny didn't necessarily act any different, she felt the need to portray her appearance in a more feminine way if she was around people that might not understand or might misconstrue her mohawk as meaning something more than simply a style that she liked.
In the reading The Dangers of Playing Dress-up: Popular Representations of Jessica Lynch and the Controversy Regarding Women in Combat (whew), I found one of main theories presented is that women in the military, regardless of whether they display masculine or feminine qualities, are ultimately held back. If they display feminine characteristics, they are criticized and devalued within the male culture for not being "manly" enough for the tasks of soldier, and if they display masculine characteristics, they are still shut out of certain positions and denied participation in combat. I think that this also relates to Jenny's position because although she isn't in the military, she is expected to appear in a certain, FEMALE way--and even if she attempts to comply in every other aspect, it will never be enough for society and she will continue to be held in disdain because her tattoos and hairstyle mark her as something outside the "normal" female gender.
As for whether behaviors between genders are learned or genetic..it's like the classic argument of Nature vs. Nurture. In gender, I find that both are factors. In class, some of the students discussed children's awareness of gender. Brian talked about how, even as a child growing up around several brothers, they acted more masculine while he felt more feminine. Angela talked about her nephew's doll, and how he hid it under his bed when other boys would come to play because it was a "girl's toy". Her nephew's actions display the learned nature of gender distinction, while Brian's own childhood shows the apparent biological nature of his own gender--despite growing up around "masculine" brothers, he did not "learn" to act more masculine. For me personally as a child, I loved to play dress up or with dolls in my room. My older sister, on the other hand preferred to race on her Big Wheel with the neighborhood boys. Any activities we did together were decidedly nuetral--playing board games, reading, or putting puzzles together. I don't recall my parents ever pushing us in one way or the other...we just naturally gravitated towards different types of play (mine being more "feminine" and her's more "masculine"). This shows that, despite being raised in the same household, our gendered tendencies were likely influenced by biologic factors as well as learned.
However, I find that as I grow older, because I look and dress very femininely, people around me expect that I should act extremely feminine. In response to those situations, I often do feel pressured to make my feminine qualities more pronounced than they normally would be--even if I'm not feeling especially feminine at the moment. This is a learned behavior on my part, and is similar to the "tough guise" we learned about in the Tough Guise documentary. Males in American culture are often pressured to wear a kind of mask in order to appear strong, independent, physical and deserving of respect. A more specific example of this would be the "Black Cool Pose" that wannabe "gangstas" of all ethnicities have adopted to inspire respect and fear in those that surround them.
(Eek, I'll address some of the other questions later! Now I have to go to class!)
As we all know, this is a loaded question! In class, we briefly discusses the purpose of gender, and Sam talked about how placing people into categories, or boxes, makes things easier for her to identify as being "A, or not A". Whitney expressed the dangers of this, however--she didn't want to be placed in one of these boxes by someone else because what if that wasn't the box she placed herself in? Someone else (Madi?) offered a compromise: having an "open box." People can still be categorized, but we have to leave room for certain notions to be added or removed from the box as our ideas of gender (and other labels) progress.
Honestly, I think the true purpose of gender is little more than cues to aid procreation. For some reason, in our culture we feel this need to categorize and label everything and everyone around us. In the Genderspeak chapter "Choosing and Using Gendered Language", Ivy/Backlund says, ". . . People (at least in American culture) can hardly function without knowing the sex of a person. If they aren't told the sex, they generally assign one based on stereotypes." Biologically there are only two options for which sex we are (three if you consider transgendered). But how many people honestly feel they act 100% "feminine" or 100% "masculine"--in terms of what is expected of those genders--all the time? Personally, I love to dress up, wear make up and go shopping (things usually distinguished as feminine behaviors)... but I also love to play video games, and my sense of humor often leans towards the more 'crude' side (typically masculine behaviors).
The only true purpose I can see for gender that aids our evolution as human beings is, bluntly put, so we know who we can make babies with. Any other so-called purpose of gender is akin to stating there is a purpose in labeling someone a certain race--there really IS no purpose other than to satisfy our own human nature (or borderline-OCD tendencies) to organize and categorize everything in our world. But through gendered divisions, it becomes easier to assign roles to individuals based on their label. Common roles assigned to women would be cooking, cleaning and childcare, while a role for males would be "bringing home the bacon."
These roles help to enforce who has power in our society, and who does not. In many ways, I believe that gender could be considered an institution of structural violence. On the flipside, sometimes the structures of society can determine what gender a person is. In Night to His Day, I found it interesting that in some non-western societies, three genders exist. One of the third-type genders discussed was "manly hearted women" or "female women," who Lorber explains are "biological females who work, marry and parent as men." She goes on to say that these female men don't dress or behave like men, but simply have the same social responsibilities and privileges that men have . . . because they are wealthy enough to buy themselves a wife. So in those societies, it isn't necessarily the biological sex that defines the gender (as is mostly the case in our own society), but the amount of wealth (read: POWER) that determines what gender these women are expected to portray.
In what ways do you perform gender? How does your performance of gender shift depending on your social situation? To what extent is it learned/genetic?
In class, we discussed that the social construction of gender prevents many people from expressing their true natures--like tomboys and "feminine" male children. Although we decided that it was easier in society for a female to act like a male and it was less acceptable for a boy to be feminine, I think that this is only true to a point. There are CERTAIN male-centric behaviors that women are "allowed" to have--such as playing or enjoying sports--and then there are other behaviors which are less accepted. An example would be one of my best friends, Jenny. She lives in San Francisco, CA, which is usually thought of as one of the most liberal and accepting cities in the US. She recently styled her hair into a mohawk (with the sides shaved and everything) and although she loved the style, she couldn't help but notice the looks of disapproval and even disgust as people would see her mohawk--including her own parents. Her parents told her that it made her look too much like a boy or a lesbian (her parents also disapprove of her tattoos because she is a girl and "girls shouldn't have tattoos").
Because of this negative response to her hair style, Jenny expressed to me that she felt it was necessary to over-compensate for her feminism in other ways. She began wearing more jewelry, noticeable make-up and more feminine clothing. She would even accent her mohawk with barrettes in an attempt to, in her words, "look less butch." However, this was only when she went out or was visiting her parents--if she was just hanging out with people that she was comfortable with, it wasn't an issue. I think that this is an example of someone trying to "perform" their gender depending on the social setting. Although Jenny didn't necessarily act any different, she felt the need to portray her appearance in a more feminine way if she was around people that might not understand or might misconstrue her mohawk as meaning something more than simply a style that she liked.
In the reading The Dangers of Playing Dress-up: Popular Representations of Jessica Lynch and the Controversy Regarding Women in Combat (whew), I found one of main theories presented is that women in the military, regardless of whether they display masculine or feminine qualities, are ultimately held back. If they display feminine characteristics, they are criticized and devalued within the male culture for not being "manly" enough for the tasks of soldier, and if they display masculine characteristics, they are still shut out of certain positions and denied participation in combat. I think that this also relates to Jenny's position because although she isn't in the military, she is expected to appear in a certain, FEMALE way--and even if she attempts to comply in every other aspect, it will never be enough for society and she will continue to be held in disdain because her tattoos and hairstyle mark her as something outside the "normal" female gender.
As for whether behaviors between genders are learned or genetic..it's like the classic argument of Nature vs. Nurture. In gender, I find that both are factors. In class, some of the students discussed children's awareness of gender. Brian talked about how, even as a child growing up around several brothers, they acted more masculine while he felt more feminine. Angela talked about her nephew's doll, and how he hid it under his bed when other boys would come to play because it was a "girl's toy". Her nephew's actions display the learned nature of gender distinction, while Brian's own childhood shows the apparent biological nature of his own gender--despite growing up around "masculine" brothers, he did not "learn" to act more masculine. For me personally as a child, I loved to play dress up or with dolls in my room. My older sister, on the other hand preferred to race on her Big Wheel with the neighborhood boys. Any activities we did together were decidedly nuetral--playing board games, reading, or putting puzzles together. I don't recall my parents ever pushing us in one way or the other...we just naturally gravitated towards different types of play (mine being more "feminine" and her's more "masculine"). This shows that, despite being raised in the same household, our gendered tendencies were likely influenced by biologic factors as well as learned.
However, I find that as I grow older, because I look and dress very femininely, people around me expect that I should act extremely feminine. In response to those situations, I often do feel pressured to make my feminine qualities more pronounced than they normally would be--even if I'm not feeling especially feminine at the moment. This is a learned behavior on my part, and is similar to the "tough guise" we learned about in the Tough Guise documentary. Males in American culture are often pressured to wear a kind of mask in order to appear strong, independent, physical and deserving of respect. A more specific example of this would be the "Black Cool Pose" that wannabe "gangstas" of all ethnicities have adopted to inspire respect and fear in those that surround them.
(Eek, I'll address some of the other questions later! Now I have to go to class!)
Integrative Essay Questions
Hey Stephanie and Julie,
I know you both missed the last class, so I wanted to give you the questions that Eby and GP said to keep in mind when we are working on our integrative essays.
1) What is the purpose of gender?
2) What is the relationship between privilege and vivid gender categories? [I may have copied this one down wrong...]
3) How do you social class, cultural/ethnic background and geographic region shape your beliefs about gender?
4) In what ways do you perform gender? How does your performance of gender shift depending on your social situation? To what extent is it learned/genetic?
5) How do media and mass communication shape your ideas about gender roles?
6) Try the ad-analysis plot. [Another one I'm not sure of... I guess this means to analyze an ad for different gender potrayals?]
7) Apply the questions to music videos--what did you discover?
I'm doing this during a class break so I'll probably post more in a little bit. Look forward to hearing from you guys. :]
I know you both missed the last class, so I wanted to give you the questions that Eby and GP said to keep in mind when we are working on our integrative essays.
1) What is the purpose of gender?
2) What is the relationship between privilege and vivid gender categories? [I may have copied this one down wrong...]
3) How do you social class, cultural/ethnic background and geographic region shape your beliefs about gender?
4) In what ways do you perform gender? How does your performance of gender shift depending on your social situation? To what extent is it learned/genetic?
5) How do media and mass communication shape your ideas about gender roles?
6) Try the ad-analysis plot. [Another one I'm not sure of... I guess this means to analyze an ad for different gender potrayals?]
7) Apply the questions to music videos--what did you discover?
I'm doing this during a class break so I'll probably post more in a little bit. Look forward to hearing from you guys. :]
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Hi Guys!
I wanted to first say that I agree on what Lesleigh and Stephanie said about shame. I believe that this movie and the reading that we have done has a huge impact because of the shame that the characters in the movie has and the other victims have.
The movie Once Were Warriors was definitely a movie that I had to absorb and I’m definitely appreciative that we had last class to talk about it. This movie had a greater impact on me then I thought it would. It has also made me realize that it definitely ties in with the readings that we have done. After the movie I was thinking about the reading I started thinking about what different types of violence was in the movie and compared those to the readings. The first major type of violence that I found tied into the movie and the readings was structural violence. In the reading, The Deadliest Form of Violence is Poverty, by James Gilligan states “The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this country.” This statement to me says that violence is everywhere, probably more then I tend to think it is. When I think of violence the first thing that comes to mind is there must be a reason why they are being violent.
As we see in the film, the family wasn’t ‘middle class’ but they were the ‘lower class’ and struggling with money issues. At first what seemed to be normal to me when Jake brought home the seafood Beth immediately wanted to know what happened. To me this would be a treat to me and not an ‘oh my gosh something must be going on.’ In fact that was true because Jake had lost his job so he spent that money on a luxury item for his family. Then I noticed that Beth wasn’t happy with Jake and that was when shame started to be a big factor in the movie. Shame is a big theme throughout the movie and the readings. It took me back because I never really noticed just how much shame played a role in violence. The class discussion that we had also had a big theme throughout which again was shame. After hearing the discussion and the movie I realized that if I was in a position that something happened to myself it is easier said then done to get help. I know we had talked about oh why can’t they just get the help and we had talked about resources available. It just made me realize that it must take a lot for someone to get up the courage to admit what happened to them and take the actions that will come with admitting it.
The reading Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrerweich came into my mind when I was thinking about the family’s shame and social class. Depending on what social class you are in means different opportunities. In the reading they talk about how the lower class doesn’t feel that they can get the better opportunities so they don’t try. If you compare other lower class families and the movie I tended to see that this is true. In the movie the scene where you see Grace cleaning up after the party her brother says you’ll get used to it. That to me just shows that since the eldest son thinks that since he is lower class that he can’t be anything higher and so he doesn’t try. I think that’s true with a lot of people in the world because they don’t feel that they are able to try to do better with their life and I honestly wish there was a way to change their thinking.
The class discussion was a great help to me to understand better about the different themes and help myself apply them to situations that I will have to deal with in my Experiential Learning site.
An addendum!
After Tuesday's class, I found that there are some more ideas that I wanted to expand upon and discuss, and I also want to respond to what both Julie and Stephanie had to say.
In class, one of the main themes we found in the film related to the reading Shame: The Emotions and Morality of Violence. I think this is one of the readings that much of the class (myself included) found to be the most eye-opening, and Once Were Warriors really showed how this theory plays out in everyday life. In speaking about shame, Stephanie said, "it was also shame that ultimately took Grace's life from her. It seemed to me that she felt ashamed of what happened and the fact that she felt like she could not express her feelings about it to anyone, drove her to her suicide." I agree, although I think that though she was not able to express her shame directly to other people, she was able to express it somewhat through her writing. When her father ripped her journal in two, that was like a breaking point for Grace--her only coping mechanism was destroyed, and with that she had no other way to deal with her pain other than to end her own life. I know for me, I am deeply personal and I don't typically talk to others about my problems unless it's dire. I keep several journals to express how I am feeling, and if someone (especially a parent) were to rip one up right in front of me, I would be utterly devastated. Add to that the fact that she was only 13, had just been raped by a trusted family friend, and lived her entire life surrounded by violence, and it becomes very clear that in her mindset, ending her own life was the only option--it was the only way to be free from her pain.
Reading Julie's thoughts really made me think about how many factors are truly involved in matters of violence. It is rarely any ONE type of influence that causes people to act violently, but rather a combination of several. Julie talked about the fear of shame and social class, two points that were well-exemplified in Once Were Warriors. In the Boys Will Be Boys article, another influence discussed was early childhood, where Medzian states, "when a child's caretakers do not listen or respond to the child, when they neglect essential emotional needs . . . the chances of violent behavior in later life are greatly increased." This statement reminded me greatly of Boogie in the film, because I feel that his parents' neglect is at least a partial reason he began to senselessly commit acts of violence, eventually getting him in trouble with the law. I think the point of Boogie's character in the film was to show the incredible importance of family and cultural identification in a young person's life. Because Boogie's biological family could not provide the emotional stability he needed, he found it elsewhere--by relating to his ancestorial heritage through traditional Maori warrior chanting. With the help of a positive male role model who ran the boys' home, this activity gave Boogie a true sense of strength and belonging--one that he never felt within his own household. This lack of true family (chiefly because of negligent parents) is obviously also experienced by the other children as well. It is no doubt the reason why the eldest brother, Nig, joins a gang--to feel that same sense of belonging. In the film, the gang leader even tells him, "We're your family now."
It seems like all three of us were pretty blown away by Once Were Warriors. I think what shocked me the most about the film, beyond everything else, was the sheer enormity and depth to the cycle of violence. All of the acts of violence could be traced back to at least one previous act...even back to the time before Jack was even born and his ancestors were slaves. I would bet that Jack's father (or someone in his family) was similarly violent, causing "narcissistic rage" (as Medzian puts it) to emerge from Jack himself in his adulthood.
Before I end this post, I just wanted to mention a special I saw last week on The Learning Channel. It was called Tragedy in Amish Country, and it was about the well-publicized shooting that took place in an Amish schoolhouse last fall and left six (including the gunman) dead. All his victims were female and aged 7 to 13. What I found most confounding was that the gunman had, in fact, no real history of violence before the incident, but evidence showed he'd been planning it for weeks. This immediately made me think of the Gilligan reading that talked about violent people not being violent all the time. Was this man a "violent" individual his entire life and just managed to keep it all pent up until that point?
It was suggested in the special that his "snap" was caused by the fact that he had never fully recovered from the death of his infant daughter nearly a decade before. It also took place around the time of at least two other school shootings, which made me wonder about the gunman having somewhat of a "monkey-see, monkey-do" mentality. I'm kind of hoping we get to have an in-class discussion about this incident in more detail, because I would definitely like to explore the ideas of how gender related to this man's seemingly random but horrifying crime.
In class, one of the main themes we found in the film related to the reading Shame: The Emotions and Morality of Violence. I think this is one of the readings that much of the class (myself included) found to be the most eye-opening, and Once Were Warriors really showed how this theory plays out in everyday life. In speaking about shame, Stephanie said, "it was also shame that ultimately took Grace's life from her. It seemed to me that she felt ashamed of what happened and the fact that she felt like she could not express her feelings about it to anyone, drove her to her suicide." I agree, although I think that though she was not able to express her shame directly to other people, she was able to express it somewhat through her writing. When her father ripped her journal in two, that was like a breaking point for Grace--her only coping mechanism was destroyed, and with that she had no other way to deal with her pain other than to end her own life. I know for me, I am deeply personal and I don't typically talk to others about my problems unless it's dire. I keep several journals to express how I am feeling, and if someone (especially a parent) were to rip one up right in front of me, I would be utterly devastated. Add to that the fact that she was only 13, had just been raped by a trusted family friend, and lived her entire life surrounded by violence, and it becomes very clear that in her mindset, ending her own life was the only option--it was the only way to be free from her pain.
Reading Julie's thoughts really made me think about how many factors are truly involved in matters of violence. It is rarely any ONE type of influence that causes people to act violently, but rather a combination of several. Julie talked about the fear of shame and social class, two points that were well-exemplified in Once Were Warriors. In the Boys Will Be Boys article, another influence discussed was early childhood, where Medzian states, "when a child's caretakers do not listen or respond to the child, when they neglect essential emotional needs . . . the chances of violent behavior in later life are greatly increased." This statement reminded me greatly of Boogie in the film, because I feel that his parents' neglect is at least a partial reason he began to senselessly commit acts of violence, eventually getting him in trouble with the law. I think the point of Boogie's character in the film was to show the incredible importance of family and cultural identification in a young person's life. Because Boogie's biological family could not provide the emotional stability he needed, he found it elsewhere--by relating to his ancestorial heritage through traditional Maori warrior chanting. With the help of a positive male role model who ran the boys' home, this activity gave Boogie a true sense of strength and belonging--one that he never felt within his own household. This lack of true family (chiefly because of negligent parents) is obviously also experienced by the other children as well. It is no doubt the reason why the eldest brother, Nig, joins a gang--to feel that same sense of belonging. In the film, the gang leader even tells him, "We're your family now."
It seems like all three of us were pretty blown away by Once Were Warriors. I think what shocked me the most about the film, beyond everything else, was the sheer enormity and depth to the cycle of violence. All of the acts of violence could be traced back to at least one previous act...even back to the time before Jack was even born and his ancestors were slaves. I would bet that Jack's father (or someone in his family) was similarly violent, causing "narcissistic rage" (as Medzian puts it) to emerge from Jack himself in his adulthood.
Before I end this post, I just wanted to mention a special I saw last week on The Learning Channel. It was called Tragedy in Amish Country, and it was about the well-publicized shooting that took place in an Amish schoolhouse last fall and left six (including the gunman) dead. All his victims were female and aged 7 to 13. What I found most confounding was that the gunman had, in fact, no real history of violence before the incident, but evidence showed he'd been planning it for weeks. This immediately made me think of the Gilligan reading that talked about violent people not being violent all the time. Was this man a "violent" individual his entire life and just managed to keep it all pent up until that point?
It was suggested in the special that his "snap" was caused by the fact that he had never fully recovered from the death of his infant daughter nearly a decade before. It also took place around the time of at least two other school shootings, which made me wonder about the gunman having somewhat of a "monkey-see, monkey-do" mentality. I'm kind of hoping we get to have an in-class discussion about this incident in more detail, because I would definitely like to explore the ideas of how gender related to this man's seemingly random but horrifying crime.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Hey guys!
I don't know about either of you, but after seeing Once Were Warriors, much of the film stayed with me and there are still parts repeating in my head. I think often we become desensitized to the types of violence shown in the movie, and I wasn't aware of how deeply the events in the movie impacted me until well after we watched it. Parts of the film keep flashing through my brain and it's almost hard to truly analyze it with full concentration because many of the acts were so heinous and brutal. However, I can discuss some of the theories and ideas we read about in the readings that came to life in the film.
One that I felt resonated most deeply was the idea of shame, and how it is linked to violence. Throughout the film, we see Jake (the father) repeatedly resort to violence in order to avoid shame. He strives to be the "top dog" and anyone that threatens to take him down a notch (his family included) is victimized by his lashings out (whether they are physically, verbally or emotionally). Even at the end of the film, after the death of his own daughter, he could not bring himself to attend her own funeral because it took place on ancestorial land where his descendants were a long line of slaves and he himself was denied marriage to his wife--a place of his own shame.
The influence of race and social class on violence also linked the readings with the film. The film took place in New Zealand, and the family characters (and many of the supporting characters also) were aborigines--descendants of native Maori tribes. It is made obvious in the film that this family and their friends are below middle class; some, such as Toot, are homeless and live in poverty. The brief glimpses we do see into the "higher class" world (such as Boogie's day in court) are almost absent of racial diversity. All but one of the "people in power" are white, and the majority of them are men. These segregations of power and wealth are examples of structural violence. In Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and Its Causes, James Gilligan states that "Structural violence is normally invisible; because it may appear to have other (natural or violent) causes." In a previous class I had with Prof. Suzanne Scott (Art Interventions in Global Affairs), we often talked about structural violence and how it feels "natural and normal" and how it is "the way things have always been." I think this is a reason why structural violence is so dangerous, because it is something than you can't see unless you looking deeply enough into an already-instilled system.
One vein of thought that I noted several times in the movie is the role that women play. Grace (the eldest daughter) is told on numerous occasions that it's just the way things are, and, "It's a woman's lot--someday you'll understand." Mavis, Beth's friend, even makes the comment (although somewhat jokingly) that as a woman you know to "keep your mouth shut and your legs open." I know we haven't yet discussed too much in the readings or in class about gender roles, but I noticed that as soon as I heard that in the movie, I thought it was a ridiculous mentality. However, upon reflection I think that is perhaps only a slight exaggeration of how our society works at present. We've made huge strides towards equalities between gender, like Nancy Pelosi becoming the first female Speaker of the House. But acts of violence like what we witnessed in the film happen daily, hourly, minutely--and in incidents of domestic violence and rape, more often than not the victims are female.
But I feel like I'm rambling and I want to hear what you guys have to say too! How did you respond to the film?
PS: I know I am doing this before the class discussion on the movie, just because I really felt like I had to "debrief" myself. Don't feel like you have to talk about the film, I'm just using that as a jumping off point for myself. :]
I don't know about either of you, but after seeing Once Were Warriors, much of the film stayed with me and there are still parts repeating in my head. I think often we become desensitized to the types of violence shown in the movie, and I wasn't aware of how deeply the events in the movie impacted me until well after we watched it. Parts of the film keep flashing through my brain and it's almost hard to truly analyze it with full concentration because many of the acts were so heinous and brutal. However, I can discuss some of the theories and ideas we read about in the readings that came to life in the film.
One that I felt resonated most deeply was the idea of shame, and how it is linked to violence. Throughout the film, we see Jake (the father) repeatedly resort to violence in order to avoid shame. He strives to be the "top dog" and anyone that threatens to take him down a notch (his family included) is victimized by his lashings out (whether they are physically, verbally or emotionally). Even at the end of the film, after the death of his own daughter, he could not bring himself to attend her own funeral because it took place on ancestorial land where his descendants were a long line of slaves and he himself was denied marriage to his wife--a place of his own shame.
The influence of race and social class on violence also linked the readings with the film. The film took place in New Zealand, and the family characters (and many of the supporting characters also) were aborigines--descendants of native Maori tribes. It is made obvious in the film that this family and their friends are below middle class; some, such as Toot, are homeless and live in poverty. The brief glimpses we do see into the "higher class" world (such as Boogie's day in court) are almost absent of racial diversity. All but one of the "people in power" are white, and the majority of them are men. These segregations of power and wealth are examples of structural violence. In Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and Its Causes, James Gilligan states that "Structural violence is normally invisible; because it may appear to have other (natural or violent) causes." In a previous class I had with Prof. Suzanne Scott (Art Interventions in Global Affairs), we often talked about structural violence and how it feels "natural and normal" and how it is "the way things have always been." I think this is a reason why structural violence is so dangerous, because it is something than you can't see unless you looking deeply enough into an already-instilled system.
One vein of thought that I noted several times in the movie is the role that women play. Grace (the eldest daughter) is told on numerous occasions that it's just the way things are, and, "It's a woman's lot--someday you'll understand." Mavis, Beth's friend, even makes the comment (although somewhat jokingly) that as a woman you know to "keep your mouth shut and your legs open." I know we haven't yet discussed too much in the readings or in class about gender roles, but I noticed that as soon as I heard that in the movie, I thought it was a ridiculous mentality. However, upon reflection I think that is perhaps only a slight exaggeration of how our society works at present. We've made huge strides towards equalities between gender, like Nancy Pelosi becoming the first female Speaker of the House. But acts of violence like what we witnessed in the film happen daily, hourly, minutely--and in incidents of domestic violence and rape, more often than not the victims are female.
But I feel like I'm rambling and I want to hear what you guys have to say too! How did you respond to the film?
PS: I know I am doing this before the class discussion on the movie, just because I really felt like I had to "debrief" myself. Don't feel like you have to talk about the film, I'm just using that as a jumping off point for myself. :]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)