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. :( ]
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
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)