When "Girl Power" fails...

In my world literature course last semester, we read short stories from around the globe (as the name would imply!). One Japanese story, Late Chrysanthemum ("Bangiku") by Hayashi Fumiko, was a particularly interesting take on femininity. It was also nice to get a different culture's perspective for a change.

Late Chrysanthemum tells the story of a well-to-do geisha in her mid-50's, Kin. There is a general western misconception that geishas are like Japanese prostitutes. This is not true. They are trained singers, musicians, conversationalists and entertainers in general. While they provide company for men, true geishas don't engage in anything sexual with their clients. That said, Kin was a strong woman in her own right. She dabbled in real estate and was a money-lender. She supported herself financially, choosing not to depend on a man. In fact, she almost had a contempt for men, refusing to provide meals to her male visitor in the story, Tabe. "Domesticity had no appeal for her." At this point in the story, I applauded Kin's willingness to break gender norms.

Unfortunately, as the paragraph went on, my liking for Kin took a major nosedive. She revealed that "nothing held less charm" than a man with no money. No wonder she wouldn't give a meal to Tabe, "in the hope of winning his heart with her cooking." He had no money, and therefore, nothing that interested her. This notion, along with her extreme obsession with her looks, really made me resent her character. While, yes, she admittedly was an autonomous woman, she'd also play her expected feminine roles, when it was beneficial to her. She was a hypocrite.

What really shocked me was that during the class discussion of this story, only one other person (a girl) agreed that Kin was a morally repugnant. The others found her to be some poster child of "Girl Power." If gold-digging geishas are your idea of new femininity, then be my guest...

(Extra Credit 2) "Hilarious social commentary", or homophobic-meathead-tough-guy's rant?

So, I'm watching Comedy Central and a commercial comes on. It's advertising some stand-up comedian named Sebastian Maniscalco. The video below will give you a taste of his "humor."



Unfortunately, I could not find a link to the commercial I saw. In it, though, he talks about men in bars these days, saying:

“Go look at what they’re ordering to drink. Apple martinis? You’re 35 years old; you’re walking around with a green drink, a little apple floating on top. You go get a beer or something that tastes like gasoline...”

So to Mr. Maniscalco, alcoholic drinks do define us. Obviously, he sees apple martinis as something feminine and, thus, an undesirable drink to a man. In order to be masculine enough, the drink has to taste like "gasoline," as he says. What I get from this, is that "masculine" men are stupid. They'll do anything that tests their toughness. You think natural selection would have eliminated these "irrational" beings by now.

I'm sorry for laying on the sarcasm so thick, but people with this kind of macho mindset (especially stand-up comedians who have an entire audience roaring with laughter) really annoy me. I swear, if men aren't outwardly projecting MANLINESS, they're automatically deemed feminine by these types of people. Sorry, let me break out my 32. oz bleeding steak, my can of frothy Budweiser and a football, so I can show you how manly I am. Kidding of course. I don't care that much. What is so ironic to me is that, even though Sebastian is so ready to make fun of "wimpy" guys, he looks pretty metrosexual himself, with the gelled, spiked hair and well-manicured appearance.

(Extra Credit 1) Musings on Roller Derby

Sex sells. It’s pretty much a concrete fact at this point. It’s in film, on television, and even here at Old Dominion University. While ODU may not be sponsoring the event directly (maybe they are, I don’t know), it is still advertising it with flyers. The picture below shows one such flyer I found in the BAL building.



Obviously the picture caught my eye and prompted me to write this blog. What is it about this type of image that attracts peoples attention?
One look at the sensual pose and lack of clothes should answer the question. But let's think about this. Does it imply that Roller Derby is actually really boring, to the point that it needs to have scantily-clad girls to attract an audience? I've only seen clips of Roller Derby (or "Roller Jam") on TV before, but it seems like a fairly exciting sport. Its fast-pace makes it seem more appealing than other popular spectator-sports like golf. So why did the makers of this poster (as well as those who decided that the competitors would wear such skimpy uniforms) feel the need to take it step further by making the sport all about sex? What happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" I guess it boils down to: Roller Derby sells, but sexy Roller Derby sells better. It's just one of those ugly truths that we, as a consumerist society, have to accept.

Another take on this poster and the sport as a whole is that they may even be marketing violence towards women! This may sound like a stretch, but we've already established that the hunched-over girl is a selling point. Just look at the picture. What happens when we add bruises and bandages to the mix? This sport has elbowing, shoving, and sometimes legitimate fighting. I don't think it would attract much of a female audience (how sexist of me!), so the audience would be primarily men. With all that, is Roller Derby really just a practical and legal outlet for misogynists? The scary thing is, yes, maybe it is.

10) What Women Want (in a Video Game)

“Since more women play video games than in years past, it's only natural for guys to give them to their female love interest. Some gift games, however, could get you punched in the face by sending the wrong message. When buying games for your girlfriend, make sure you avoid these potential disasters.”

Last week, a headline, by the name “Don’t Buy These Games for Your Girlfriend,” caught my eye. I always love reading the cheesy countdown lists, provided by AOL or AIM, that are usually based on almost nothing. But this one is more than pertinent with its overwhelming amount of gender stereotypes.

According to the list, men should NOT buy the following “potential disasters” for their girlfriends:
-Weight Loss Games (ex: Wii Fit)
-Brainy/ Educational Games (ex: Brain Age)
-Cooking Games
-“Imagine” Games
-Violent Games(ex: Grand Theft Auto, Mad World)
-“Just ones she hates”
-Erotic Games
-Sports Games

The only ones I can truly understand are “just ones she hates,” “Imagine” games and erotic games. Why would anyone buy a gift for their girlfriend that they would hate? The “Imagine” series is obvious, since it’s primarily for small children (I shudder to think anyone has a girlfriend that is a little girl) and erotic games just seem inappropriate to buy for anyone. If you are into that, then buy it and keep it to yourself.

As far as weight loss, educational, and cooking games, I find the reasoning really silly. The list claims that a woman will think her boyfriend is calling her fat with an exercise game, stupid with a “brainy” game, or her cooking bad with a cooking game. Maybe this reveals something about women in American society, though. Do women really take any kind of gift as an attack on them? If I give jewelry to a woman, will she misconstrue that I’m saying she is poor? I wouldn't be mad if someone bought me Brain Age. So what is it that is different in women’s minds that make them react in such an accusatory manner?

The sports and violent games make the least sense to me, though. What a glaring generalization, that women don’t like sports. Plus, it does not seem very fair to simply say that women don’t “like” violence. Plenty of women enjoy scary/ gory films. Or are the creators of the list really implying that men do like violence?

While it is definitely filled to the brim with stereotypes, it makes me wonder: what were the people who made this list basing their assertions on? Generalizations have to come from somewhere. Maybe the way women respond to certain gifts is an implication that they are more self-conscious than men. But it leads me to another question, what is so unique to women that makes them more self-conscious than men (generally speaking, of course)? Are lists like these, perhaps, perpetuating stereotypes? Are they programming women to think that a gift has some negative signal behind it?

The part on sports and violent games also made me ask myself, why are sports and violence automatically considered masculine interests? I suppose the "aggressive" quality usually tied to masculinity played a part in creating those stereotypes. In reality, most women (and men) are more complex than this article would have you believe, and their likes and dislikes are not really so easily categorized.

9) We wear each others pants in this relationship

Sure, men and women both wear pants, but the fits are completely different. Men’s pants are generally more formless and baggy, while women’s pants usually accentuate curves. Although under these generalities, clothing companies have further compartmentalized, to appeal to a wider range of consumer niches. On the Levi website alone, men can get “relaxed,” “slim,” and “bootcut” jeans. Women can get “flare,” “skinny,” and “low-rise” jeans, among others.

Nowadays, however, clothes long-established for one specific gender are being “made available” to the other. For instance, males within certain music subcultures are known to wear “girl pants.” Girls are now also being marketed to, with “boyfriend jeans.” What does this say about our societal norms for clothing? We expect men to wear their “own” clothes and women to wear their “own” clothes. But when they do go outside of these norms, it’s somehow special enough to get its own label.

This really just further proves how arbitrary the conventions of femininity and masculinity really are. If you can be feminine just from wearing girl pants, or masculine from boyfriend pants, isn’t the whole thing a charade? If you stripped away all the feminine skirts, the masculine cologne, and the now-androgynous girl and boyfriend pants, what would you have? Are these people really inherently masculine or feminine, or does it mostly stem from material possessions? What it all comes down to, in the minds of those buying the clothes, is “who do I want to be today?” Though it seems like it may be blurring the lines between the genders, fashion has just become another way to perpetuate gender stereotypes, by marketing femininity and masculinity.

8) Here's to You, Mrs. Robinson

"And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson,
Jesus loves you more than you will know
God bless you please, Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray"

We all know the song by Simon & Garfunkel. It turns out this song was actually made for a film classic from the 1960's called The Graduate. Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft) is a middle-aged woman who tries to seduce her neighbor's son, college graduate Benjamin (Dustin Hoffman). She makes him drive her home. Then he must come into the house with her because she doesn't like to be alone. Then he must go upstairs and unzip her dress because she can't reach. You get the idea. Benjamin was pretty shy guy and was very hesitant to do any of the things she wanted. At the end of the night, nothing happens and Benjamin leaves, feeling very confused about what has just happened.

Some time later, however, Benjamin gives Mrs. Robinson a call. They go to a hotel and begin their summer fling. After a couple months, things aren't going the way Mrs. Robinson plans and she threatens Benjamin. He moves on with his life and Mrs. Robinson tells everyone that he raped her. No one questions what she may have actually done and Benjamin is automatically deemed "filth."

Is this situation representative of a larger trend in modern society? In any situation in which a man and a woman come to blows, no matter their relationship, isn't it true that there often tends to be a certain bias against the man? Can it so easily be assumed that under any circumstances, the man is more likely at fault? Mrs. Robinson is the one who assertively initiated the situation. She is the one who put even the idea of an affair in Benjamin's mind. Yet, she is infallible. If she says she was raped, then she undoubtedly was. Forget the fact that Benjamin was an honors student and a virgin. If she says it, it happened. I cannot imagine the kind of trouble Mr. Robinson would get in if he fooled around with a younger woman...

7) Deputy Punches Girl on Video.

The headline reads, “Deputy Punches Girl on Video.” This incident was revealed through a released surveillance video, in which a 15-year-old girl is put into a holding cell. As the deputy walks out, she kicks off one of her shoes at him. At this, the male deputy loses control, first slamming her against a wall, then pulling her to the ground by her hair and punching her repeatedly while she’s pinned down.

This was undoubtedly an extreme overreaction and the man really deserves whatever charges are placed against him. Though, I cannot help but wonder if this story was given such media attention (enough to be on AOL’s front page) because it depicted a male suppressing a female. Would this even have been brought to anyone’s attention if the victim were another male? What if a female deputy had done the same to a male or female victim? I think that in such a case, the deputy would be seen as defending herself. It seems that, for some reason, our brains are programmed to react much more strongly to a man harming another woman, than a man harming another man, or a woman harming anyone. Then again, there’s that unwritten rule that men don’t hit women.

This brings a recent event to mind. About three weeks ago, R&B superstar Chris Brown allegedly beat his also famous girlfriend Rihanna, to the point where she had heavy facial bruising, a split lip, bite marks, and swelling. She has rightfully received plenty of sympathy, because no one deserves that. But I wonder if, hypothetically, Rihanna had attacked Chris, who according to the “no hitting girls” golden rule did nothing, would he get any sympathy? Think about it, a woman beats up a man. There is no way he’d get any kind of consolation from the public. He would be endlessly ridiculed and laughed at because it’s “shameful” for a man to be overpowered physically by a women. Then why is no one laughing about Rihanna's situation? Once again, there are double standards and gender stereotypes involved with even something like this.