For class I read Tong's fourth chapter on Psychoanalytical Feminism. I was happy to find the others who read the chapter shared my dislike for the content. The first thing we all agreed on was that for a feminist theory, it was remarkably un-feminist. I can't really agree to a theory that places all the blame for our gender differences on mothers (admittedly, they insist it's not her fault, just they nature of things) and claims that all women sub-consciously seek to be dominated by men for fear of womanhood. This may be simplifying things, but it all felt a bit icky to me.
I am not going to talk about too much Freud, because that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. But the modern feminist perspectives are obviously based on his concepts - though, thankfully, ditching the whole "penis-envy" bullsh*t. Some main themes were the emphasis on the sub-conscious mind, early childhood and it's effects on individuals, and (unfortunately) the Oedipus/Electra complex.
What I find difficult about psychoanalytical feminism, and many other controversial theories, is I have a hard time distinguishing between"gross" or otherwise unappealing and "untrue." Let me explain. When I look at these concepts that claim all children have sexual feeling for their mother and/or father, my knee-jerk reaction is "no way" (usually with some profanity in there, but I already swore once so I'll keep it clean). But do I actually believe that these theories are false, or do I just want them to be? One cannot write off every idea that doesn't fit into their nice little world-view - if we did that we would still be thinking the world is flat and that the stars revolve around the earth. So where is that line of disliked/disbelieved? I don't know.
But when it comes to a lot of what makes up the modern psychoanalytical perspective on gender, I think I can say that it freaks me out AND I actually don't believe it. For many reasons; one of which being that all of the weight of this argument lies on the "traditional" family. What about children of single mothers who have no father to learn the "logical language of the world" from? Single fathers, whose children have no mother to lust after and be betrayed by? Same-sex parents, raised by grandparents or other relatives, adopted after infancy, two working parents and a nanny - there are so many more of these than the actual white-picket-fence families of the middle class with working daddy and stay-at-home mommy. I just can't validate it.
Also, I don't know about you, but I really don't think I lusted after either of my parents, or that I must suppress my inner-femininity so I will not become my evil evil mother. Sub-consciously or not. Thank-you-very-much.
-Sara
Friday, September 28, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
More on gender difference theory
Today's class was mostly interesting and useful. I like hearing all theories and arguments, and it's best to hear theories from it's actual proponents. I don't 100% agree with what he said, but I did appreciated his views as well as his respect.
I am reading a book right now called "Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society and Neurosexism Create Difference" by Cordelia Fine (Here on Amazon). One of the big things I really am taking from it is how studies and test results etc. aren't always what they seem. She talks about this idea of "priming" which in context means bringing something specific to the subject's attention. Usually it is an aspect of themselves, some sort of category they fall into - gender and race are great examples of what can be primed. Two important things have been figured out about priming. First, by priming something as loaded as gender you can actually shift how someone behaves and responds in a study. For example, women who are gender primed (reminded in some way of their gender) before a math exam will do worse on the exam than a control group of women who were primed with, say, their academic standing as a college student at a prestigious university. Second, to prime someone with gender can be as easy as having a gender: male or female check-box at the beginning of an exam.
Now I haven't looked up these studies, I only know of this author's summary. I have to be cautious not to blindly jump on these ideas just because I like them more than others. However - if we assume that these studies are consistent and show a real effect with this "priming," think of what that does to a grand majority of our research of gender. Many gender differences that are linked with biology (say, spatial navigation) could be completely made up! I can't say I have a serious well thought-out argument for or against anything yet. But those are just some thoughts.
I'll try to get some specific examples from this book. It's super interesting, by the way, and I highly highly recommend it!
Until next time,
Sara
I am reading a book right now called "Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society and Neurosexism Create Difference" by Cordelia Fine (Here on Amazon). One of the big things I really am taking from it is how studies and test results etc. aren't always what they seem. She talks about this idea of "priming" which in context means bringing something specific to the subject's attention. Usually it is an aspect of themselves, some sort of category they fall into - gender and race are great examples of what can be primed. Two important things have been figured out about priming. First, by priming something as loaded as gender you can actually shift how someone behaves and responds in a study. For example, women who are gender primed (reminded in some way of their gender) before a math exam will do worse on the exam than a control group of women who were primed with, say, their academic standing as a college student at a prestigious university. Second, to prime someone with gender can be as easy as having a gender: male or female check-box at the beginning of an exam.
Now I haven't looked up these studies, I only know of this author's summary. I have to be cautious not to blindly jump on these ideas just because I like them more than others. However - if we assume that these studies are consistent and show a real effect with this "priming," think of what that does to a grand majority of our research of gender. Many gender differences that are linked with biology (say, spatial navigation) could be completely made up! I can't say I have a serious well thought-out argument for or against anything yet. But those are just some thoughts.
I'll try to get some specific examples from this book. It's super interesting, by the way, and I highly highly recommend it!
Until next time,
Sara
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Beginnings of Gender Difference
Like the most of the class, I was reading the wrong syllabus so I don't quite know what I am talking about yet. Today was a good introduction into the theories on gender differences, but a very brief one, so I can't say I have much to discuss yet. I am excited to really get into these theories because all of it I've never thought of before. I find the historical and social/political theories to be fascinating - far more in depth than the broad nature vs. nurture debate I know of. I look forward to learning more about how sex politics are thought to have effected gender roles and creation.
I am going to catch up on the right reading, and then maybe I'll know what I am talking about!
-Sara
I am going to catch up on the right reading, and then maybe I'll know what I am talking about!
-Sara
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Also...
I came across this article/blog post and I thought it was very relevant to our topic: http://viewsfromthecouch.com/2012/02/12/you-didnt-thank-me-for-punching-you-in-the-fac/
[warning: language]
It talks about how messed up it is that we tell our little girls "oh, he's only pulling your hair/pushing you/teasing you because he LIKES you." And what that really is saying about the relationship between boys and girls. Messed up, right? It's super short, and very interesting!
[warning: language]
It talks about how messed up it is that we tell our little girls "oh, he's only pulling your hair/pushing you/teasing you because he LIKES you." And what that really is saying about the relationship between boys and girls. Messed up, right? It's super short, and very interesting!
Brands of Feminism
This post is going to be centered more on the Goldstein: War and Gender reading than what we discussed in class. What we discussed was really helpful, though! Breaking down the relationship between gender and conflict in to those five perspectives made it a lot easier to see how they interact, rather than attempting to attack the whole concept at once.
But what I really want to pick apart are the three feminist perspectives Goldstein talks about. Much like he says, I had never thought about the various views of feminism before - it was always just FEMINISM and that meant believing women were just as good as men and deserved better than they got. So these perspectives really got me thinking as to what I like to focus on and my own perspective on feminism and gender.
Starting with Liberal Feminism. The very quick summary of what I think Goldstein was saying about liberal feminism is that it focuses on the sexism present in our cultures. (Most) all of the differences between genders are culturally made and women, in fact, are just as capable to go to war, run countries etc. as men are. Now, at first glance I very much agreed with this view. But when Goldstein brought up the common criticism of this perspective I had to pause. This view tends to conform to the masculinized ideal of what makes a person valuable (their physical strength and political power, for example) rather than changing the negative views on traditionally feminine characteristics and roles. Very good point!
On the opposite end of the spectrum there is Difference Feminism. This view seems to emphasize that there are, in fact, differences between men and women (whether they are biological or cultural) and that this is not all bad and should be used to our advantage. The focus here is to validate the characteristics women possess and the roles women traditionally play - rather than insisting women can go outside those roles. I like the idea of bringing value to things like motherhood, emotional knowledge, interpersonal relations, care-taking, and other "womanly" traits. However this set off my "not all women are like that!" response, too.
Lastly, Postmodern Feminism. Which had more of a focus on the fluidity of gender, which I like, and instead used sets of contrasting words to define male and female characteristics, which I didn't like, no matter how accurate it was. I think my main aversion to the typical female characteristics is that I strive to be a very logical person. Possibly because I also am very emotionally-driven, but I also just tend to have a logic-centered world view. So my hackles tend to come up when words like "emotional," "irrational," or "unpredictable" get assigned to my gender (all of which Goldstein uses in this description of postmodern feminism). But that might just be a personal problem.
So what do I think? Well I don't know. But one of the main things that came up for me while reading this is how much I dislike attempts to define MAN and WOMAN separately. I think the more effort spent saying "well women do this when men do this" is more effort spent of dividing people who really don't need to be divided. Now, I understand that a lot of that is necessary, especially when discussing something like gender and conflict. But I don't have to like it!
Okay, I really wish I wasn't so obnoxiously verbose. I apologize for the small novel I have apparently written on this topic. Whoops!
Until the next 10-page essay,
-Sara
Also, fun fact: The book War and Gender is categorized in "Gay and Lesbian > History" on Amazon. Huh... not the point. Not from what I read, anyway.
But what I really want to pick apart are the three feminist perspectives Goldstein talks about. Much like he says, I had never thought about the various views of feminism before - it was always just FEMINISM and that meant believing women were just as good as men and deserved better than they got. So these perspectives really got me thinking as to what I like to focus on and my own perspective on feminism and gender.
Starting with Liberal Feminism. The very quick summary of what I think Goldstein was saying about liberal feminism is that it focuses on the sexism present in our cultures. (Most) all of the differences between genders are culturally made and women, in fact, are just as capable to go to war, run countries etc. as men are. Now, at first glance I very much agreed with this view. But when Goldstein brought up the common criticism of this perspective I had to pause. This view tends to conform to the masculinized ideal of what makes a person valuable (their physical strength and political power, for example) rather than changing the negative views on traditionally feminine characteristics and roles. Very good point!
On the opposite end of the spectrum there is Difference Feminism. This view seems to emphasize that there are, in fact, differences between men and women (whether they are biological or cultural) and that this is not all bad and should be used to our advantage. The focus here is to validate the characteristics women possess and the roles women traditionally play - rather than insisting women can go outside those roles. I like the idea of bringing value to things like motherhood, emotional knowledge, interpersonal relations, care-taking, and other "womanly" traits. However this set off my "not all women are like that!" response, too.
Lastly, Postmodern Feminism. Which had more of a focus on the fluidity of gender, which I like, and instead used sets of contrasting words to define male and female characteristics, which I didn't like, no matter how accurate it was. I think my main aversion to the typical female characteristics is that I strive to be a very logical person. Possibly because I also am very emotionally-driven, but I also just tend to have a logic-centered world view. So my hackles tend to come up when words like "emotional," "irrational," or "unpredictable" get assigned to my gender (all of which Goldstein uses in this description of postmodern feminism). But that might just be a personal problem.
So what do I think? Well I don't know. But one of the main things that came up for me while reading this is how much I dislike attempts to define MAN and WOMAN separately. I think the more effort spent saying "well women do this when men do this" is more effort spent of dividing people who really don't need to be divided. Now, I understand that a lot of that is necessary, especially when discussing something like gender and conflict. But I don't have to like it!
Okay, I really wish I wasn't so obnoxiously verbose. I apologize for the small novel I have apparently written on this topic. Whoops!
Until the next 10-page essay,
-Sara
Also, fun fact: The book War and Gender is categorized in "Gay and Lesbian > History" on Amazon. Huh... not the point. Not from what I read, anyway.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
In the Name of Violence
Once again, too many things to discuss. We spent today trying to define more terms - violence, coercion, force, and aggression. All words that are along the same line, but each have nuances and subtle difference that are hard to verbalize. To quote Justice Potter Stewart; "I'll know it when I see it." Now, he was referring to pornography - but the same concept can be applied to these ideas. There is a certain layer to violence and everything else here that is not necessarily logical or possible to put into words (let alone legislation!) but we "just know." As empathetic beings, we can feel in a way when something is violent. I guess this gets into the contextually dependent aspect Hatty brings to the table. We can tell, often by body language and cultural/contextual clues, when a physical act like shoving is playful or in the name of sport as opposed to an aggressive act of violence.
Now this is not to say these instincts are always right. We can often convince ourselves because of context or behavior that something is okay even if it does seem a little off. For example, seeing aggressive physical or verbal actions between a married couple, or father and son, or similarly intimate and dependent relationships, is easy to excuse ("She was smiling, it's obviously okay." or "It's none of my business anyway."). Or we honestly believe something can't be considered violence because it's what our culture has taught us, or we have internalized the oppression. Example being male circumcision, which we discussed today, or the sort of things that are told to our girls about their bodies and selves.
On the other side of the spectrum, we can look at things outside our own culture and call it violence easily. And be dumbfounded when the members of that culture don't agree. Similar to the way Americans are disgusted by the notion of eating dog meat - a not-uncommon thing in many other countries. This is where things get tricky. Where is the line of "this is our tradition" as compared with the line of human right's violations? Who is really to judge? Don't get me wrong, I don't think tradition or culture is an excuse for violence or oppression. But when is our own idea of what is the "right way" to do things getting in the way of us making fair judgment? This is exactly what we were saying in class. Who is to say that because we are doing things "in the name of science" that is more valid than doing it for deeply ingrained religious reasons?
And with that I think I will sign off for today. Nothing is answered or even clarified in here - just ideas and more questions! All this contemplating and thinking myself in circles is starting to give me a headache!
Now this is not to say these instincts are always right. We can often convince ourselves because of context or behavior that something is okay even if it does seem a little off. For example, seeing aggressive physical or verbal actions between a married couple, or father and son, or similarly intimate and dependent relationships, is easy to excuse ("She was smiling, it's obviously okay." or "It's none of my business anyway."). Or we honestly believe something can't be considered violence because it's what our culture has taught us, or we have internalized the oppression. Example being male circumcision, which we discussed today, or the sort of things that are told to our girls about their bodies and selves.
On the other side of the spectrum, we can look at things outside our own culture and call it violence easily. And be dumbfounded when the members of that culture don't agree. Similar to the way Americans are disgusted by the notion of eating dog meat - a not-uncommon thing in many other countries. This is where things get tricky. Where is the line of "this is our tradition" as compared with the line of human right's violations? Who is really to judge? Don't get me wrong, I don't think tradition or culture is an excuse for violence or oppression. But when is our own idea of what is the "right way" to do things getting in the way of us making fair judgment? This is exactly what we were saying in class. Who is to say that because we are doing things "in the name of science" that is more valid than doing it for deeply ingrained religious reasons?
And with that I think I will sign off for today. Nothing is answered or even clarified in here - just ideas and more questions! All this contemplating and thinking myself in circles is starting to give me a headache!
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Defining Conflict
Today's discussion on conflict was interesting. Attempting to define concepts as abstract as "conflict" or "peace" is a little frustrating - for every concrete 'rule' you try to apply to define the line there are a dozen exceptions or more. But there were some thought-provoking ideas brought to the table, and I would like to explore a little further.
Like Brock-Utne says in the "Women in Peace: What Peace Means to Women" reading, concepts like peace are most easily defined by what they are not. Peace is the absence of conflict. Conflict is a little easier to define by examples - conflict is war, violence, argument, disagreement. But the line is blurry. Like we talked about in class; are sports conflict? What is that distinction?
I don't know. To me, conflict has a strong base in the personal and emotional. Sports themselves are not conflicts, but conflict often arises from them. My extended family playing football in the yard on Christmas is not conflict. I don't think I would even call the "rivalry" between my cousin and uncle a conflict. They are competitive, but it's all talk, and at the end of the day we are equally wet and cold - winners and losers!
Conflict is based on interaction. So If only one person thinks there is conflict, is there conflict? The thought is not enough to be conflict. However, it is rare that that sort of notion does not effect the nature of interaction between the involved parties. Within that interaction is the conflict. Other than intrapersonal or internal conflict, one person alone cannot create conflict. Conflict is relational. Do both parties involved need to acknowledge the conflict? No. As long as there is interaction that is confrontational in some capacity I would say it could be conflict (and perhaps the latent factor we discussed - conflict seen from the outside - comes into play here).
Again, I really have no idea what I am talking about yet. I look forward to being able to have an actual educated opinion on these matters and how they relate to gender.
-Sara
Like Brock-Utne says in the "Women in Peace: What Peace Means to Women" reading, concepts like peace are most easily defined by what they are not. Peace is the absence of conflict. Conflict is a little easier to define by examples - conflict is war, violence, argument, disagreement. But the line is blurry. Like we talked about in class; are sports conflict? What is that distinction?
I don't know. To me, conflict has a strong base in the personal and emotional. Sports themselves are not conflicts, but conflict often arises from them. My extended family playing football in the yard on Christmas is not conflict. I don't think I would even call the "rivalry" between my cousin and uncle a conflict. They are competitive, but it's all talk, and at the end of the day we are equally wet and cold - winners and losers!
Conflict is based on interaction. So If only one person thinks there is conflict, is there conflict? The thought is not enough to be conflict. However, it is rare that that sort of notion does not effect the nature of interaction between the involved parties. Within that interaction is the conflict. Other than intrapersonal or internal conflict, one person alone cannot create conflict. Conflict is relational. Do both parties involved need to acknowledge the conflict? No. As long as there is interaction that is confrontational in some capacity I would say it could be conflict (and perhaps the latent factor we discussed - conflict seen from the outside - comes into play here).
Again, I really have no idea what I am talking about yet. I look forward to being able to have an actual educated opinion on these matters and how they relate to gender.
-Sara
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)