I'm not much of a tv person, and am far from participating in anything like fan culture, but there is this one show that I have begun to really enjoy. Hung. On HBO after True Blood (which I thought was disgusting and will never watch again). But I like Hung. It's about a guy who used to be a sports hero, but now he is washed up in his 30s, his wife left him, his house burned, he's living in a tent in his backyard and in danger of losing his job as a high school coach. The only thing going for him is that he is Hung. Add a disorganized hippie woman pimp who is surprisingly courageous in an awkward way and a bitch of a wanna-be pimp, and it's a good show.
I think what I like most about it is the fact that it shows women genuinely enjoying sex. There is usually a sex scene, and at least in the first season, they were pretty hot. The women just have orgasm after orgasm. I don't know that I have ever seen much (non-porn) media at all that focuses on a woman's straight up pleasure. No agenda, no judgment of manipulation or sluttiness, no bones about it other than the fact that she is CHOOSING to have sex and is REALLY REALLY enjoying it.
The correlating criticism here is the explicit story that large penis size is crucial to a woman's pleasure and therefore bigger penises=superior men/sex/pleasure for women. And the show is even clear about the fact that he doesn't start out as any kind of super-lover, he is just an average joe with an exceptionally large penis. And honestly, the whole bigger-is-better myth is just harmful. Far more important is appropriate size for the orifice. Just saying.
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Monday, August 16, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Vasopressin Junkies? (RetroPosted)
(Date adjusted to when this should have been written, though I was quite late with it.)
I enjoy sex. As a topic and as an activity. To that end, I read various Everything About Sex books, from the basic biology on down to the sex magic. I stockpile the random facts that make for great party conversations, the kind that stop the chatter in the whole room as everyone leans in closer to try to figure out what I just said about a penis. I know the pH of cum. I know how to make a woman ejaculate and what that ejaculate is made of. I know most of the myriad parts of the complete clitoris. I know what an os is and why not to ram it. I know why zinc supplements are especially good for men. You know, random but useful facts.
A recent factoid acquisition has sparked a conversation between my partner and I. Turns out, there is a hormone called vasopressin that is released in men during physical, especially sexual, contact. It gives pleasure and promotes bonding. My partner and I have been making jokes about getting a vasopressin fix through cuddling, since we do a lot of that.
Upon further contemplation though, my partner came up with the theory that maybe men are often the physical boundary pushers in relationships with women because the men want their vasopressin fix. They get more of an instant biochemical reward for making physical contact. I said I was not so sure, that it seems to me that there is also a competitive territory-claiming side, as if points are given for certain types of contact, the more intimate and personal the better. I think I even compared it to capture the flag, honestly.
Together, we came up with the idea that yes, society/stereotypes says that men (all men) are playing capture the flag (or Oklahoma Land Rush), but that the enforced myth of stoicism and unflagging put-it-in-a-hole-somewhere virility was probably covering up the emotional need men have of making those intimate vasopressin-rewarded physical contacts. I feel pretty proud of us.
I enjoy sex. As a topic and as an activity. To that end, I read various Everything About Sex books, from the basic biology on down to the sex magic. I stockpile the random facts that make for great party conversations, the kind that stop the chatter in the whole room as everyone leans in closer to try to figure out what I just said about a penis. I know the pH of cum. I know how to make a woman ejaculate and what that ejaculate is made of. I know most of the myriad parts of the complete clitoris. I know what an os is and why not to ram it. I know why zinc supplements are especially good for men. You know, random but useful facts.
A recent factoid acquisition has sparked a conversation between my partner and I. Turns out, there is a hormone called vasopressin that is released in men during physical, especially sexual, contact. It gives pleasure and promotes bonding. My partner and I have been making jokes about getting a vasopressin fix through cuddling, since we do a lot of that.
Upon further contemplation though, my partner came up with the theory that maybe men are often the physical boundary pushers in relationships with women because the men want their vasopressin fix. They get more of an instant biochemical reward for making physical contact. I said I was not so sure, that it seems to me that there is also a competitive territory-claiming side, as if points are given for certain types of contact, the more intimate and personal the better. I think I even compared it to capture the flag, honestly.
Together, we came up with the idea that yes, society/stereotypes says that men (all men) are playing capture the flag (or Oklahoma Land Rush), but that the enforced myth of stoicism and unflagging put-it-in-a-hole-somewhere virility was probably covering up the emotional need men have of making those intimate vasopressin-rewarded physical contacts. I feel pretty proud of us.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Brooding (RetroPosted)
(Date adjusted to when this should have been written, though I was quite late with it.)
I lost this week. I don't know quite where it went, but I have been on the equivalent of a juice fast for media. I have been playing mindless games on my computer instead of reading my now glutted blog subscriptions and webcomics. I haven't updated this or any of my other blogs. I've been hiding.
Or perhaps I have been processing something big, or maybe just brooding. A lot. Okay, whatever I have been doing, it has definitely included brooding. When I think about things, it all seems hard and complicated and panic-inducing. When I meditate and connect with the Divine, it all seems like it is toodling along just fine, I only need to hang on to the wooden slats on the sides of the little red wagon and enjoy the suburban scenery. But then I go back to mundane life and brooding.
Perhaps the brooding is reproduction-induced. The term (as I understand things) comes from chickens who want to hatch chicks. They get broody, as in moody and anti-social, and just want to sit around working on their eggs. Perhaps people get this way, too. It is hard to make a conscious choice to have kids. They are expensive and life transforming, rather like skydiving. Only more permanent. Perhaps brooding is only natural. Perhaps stopping life in order to brood is a necessary process of slipping cognitive gears in order to better adjust to an impending complete and utter paradigm shift.
Interesting note: Brooding is associated with female animals like broody hens and brood mares, but is coded masculine when referring to human activities. Its feminized human counterparts include fretting and worrying. Just thought I'd point that out.
I lost this week. I don't know quite where it went, but I have been on the equivalent of a juice fast for media. I have been playing mindless games on my computer instead of reading my now glutted blog subscriptions and webcomics. I haven't updated this or any of my other blogs. I've been hiding.
Or perhaps I have been processing something big, or maybe just brooding. A lot. Okay, whatever I have been doing, it has definitely included brooding. When I think about things, it all seems hard and complicated and panic-inducing. When I meditate and connect with the Divine, it all seems like it is toodling along just fine, I only need to hang on to the wooden slats on the sides of the little red wagon and enjoy the suburban scenery. But then I go back to mundane life and brooding.
Perhaps the brooding is reproduction-induced. The term (as I understand things) comes from chickens who want to hatch chicks. They get broody, as in moody and anti-social, and just want to sit around working on their eggs. Perhaps people get this way, too. It is hard to make a conscious choice to have kids. They are expensive and life transforming, rather like skydiving. Only more permanent. Perhaps brooding is only natural. Perhaps stopping life in order to brood is a necessary process of slipping cognitive gears in order to better adjust to an impending complete and utter paradigm shift.
Interesting note: Brooding is associated with female animals like broody hens and brood mares, but is coded masculine when referring to human activities. Its feminized human counterparts include fretting and worrying. Just thought I'd point that out.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Kids Are a Very Expensive Emotional Luxury
There are no logical reasons to have children. If we were all Vulcans, we would not reproduce and therefore die out fairly quickly. (Actually, I wonder WHY Vulcans have kids.) Not only are there no logical reasons for having kids, they also come with quite the expensive price tag. The (fully consensual) decision to reproduce is entirely emotional.
Having children is a tremendously expensive emotional luxury (and/or obligation, depending on the level of reproductive consent). If fertility control were perfect and widespread, kids would be nothing but a luxury. But because reproduction also comes with a biological imperative and our fertility control is not perfect due to flaws in access, education, and the technologies themselves, the luxury and cost of children is not something accorded only to those who explicitly consent to reproduce. One could argue that there is an implicit reproductive consent that comes with (consensual) heterosexual coitus, but given the number of after-the-fact fertility control technologies and the number of people who use them, it is clear that many dispute the validity of that implicit consent by their very choices.
Given this murky context of implicit and explicit (or coercive) reproductive consent, it is really no surprise that the moralists have colonized this issue. The idea then becomes that there is a MORAL reason why consent can often become irrelevant to whether any given person reproduces. Various religious dogmas support and encourage the production of more Christian or Jewish soldiers to populate the world. Many of those same dogmas also condemn the single and/or teenage mother for her pregnancy, couching it as the price of her slut-itude (the attitude and lifestyle of being a slut, in case you were wondering). Children then become both the goal of the morally righteous and the price of the morally bankrupt.
Of course, these musings only really apply to modern developed society. Before widely effective fertility control methods became available, there was a much closer coupling of the consent/coercion of heterosexual coitus to the consent/coercion of reproduction. Also, in agricultural and early industrial revolution society, children were of economic benefit to their families. They could work on the farm or earn wages at child labor (albeit in often horrific working conditions). (There is quite the possibility that kids were also an asset in pre-agricultural society, but I don't know as much about it.)
I do not condone nor advocate a repeal of child labor laws by any means, but it is worth pointing out that our current economic system is set up so that a child is nothing but a drain on their parents' resources until they become working age and begin paying their own way. Not only does it cost resources for clothing, food, housing, etc., but there are other costs as well. There are the childcare costs, the time and labor of potty training, and the general incompatibility of the corporate workplace (with some notable exceptions) to the demands of parenthood.
Furthermore, women carry the majority of the burden for childbearing. Not only is there is biological cost of gestation and labor (and possibly lactation), but there is also the added economic cost of missed work, a glass ceiling effect due to being shunted onto the "mommy track," and the "second shift" burden of being expected to shoulder the majority of the caretaking and housekeeping regardless of other breadwinning accomplishments.
Perhaps it is this very lack of economic viability of reproduction that will be our salvation as a species on this planet. Perhaps as the global levels of education for women and overall access to reproductive planning services and technology increase, and more of the world moves to a "developed" economy, the luxury of kids will become less and less of a viable choice and worldwide fertility rates will continue to fall until we move into negative population growth. Perhaps lessening our ecological footprint via negative population growth will be what keeps humans from destroying our global habitat.
Or perhaps we just need to realize our gross sexism and institutional hostility toward parents and fix it.
Having children is a tremendously expensive emotional luxury (and/or obligation, depending on the level of reproductive consent). If fertility control were perfect and widespread, kids would be nothing but a luxury. But because reproduction also comes with a biological imperative and our fertility control is not perfect due to flaws in access, education, and the technologies themselves, the luxury and cost of children is not something accorded only to those who explicitly consent to reproduce. One could argue that there is an implicit reproductive consent that comes with (consensual) heterosexual coitus, but given the number of after-the-fact fertility control technologies and the number of people who use them, it is clear that many dispute the validity of that implicit consent by their very choices.
Given this murky context of implicit and explicit (or coercive) reproductive consent, it is really no surprise that the moralists have colonized this issue. The idea then becomes that there is a MORAL reason why consent can often become irrelevant to whether any given person reproduces. Various religious dogmas support and encourage the production of more Christian or Jewish soldiers to populate the world. Many of those same dogmas also condemn the single and/or teenage mother for her pregnancy, couching it as the price of her slut-itude (the attitude and lifestyle of being a slut, in case you were wondering). Children then become both the goal of the morally righteous and the price of the morally bankrupt.
Of course, these musings only really apply to modern developed society. Before widely effective fertility control methods became available, there was a much closer coupling of the consent/coercion of heterosexual coitus to the consent/coercion of reproduction. Also, in agricultural and early industrial revolution society, children were of economic benefit to their families. They could work on the farm or earn wages at child labor (albeit in often horrific working conditions). (There is quite the possibility that kids were also an asset in pre-agricultural society, but I don't know as much about it.)
I do not condone nor advocate a repeal of child labor laws by any means, but it is worth pointing out that our current economic system is set up so that a child is nothing but a drain on their parents' resources until they become working age and begin paying their own way. Not only does it cost resources for clothing, food, housing, etc., but there are other costs as well. There are the childcare costs, the time and labor of potty training, and the general incompatibility of the corporate workplace (with some notable exceptions) to the demands of parenthood.
Furthermore, women carry the majority of the burden for childbearing. Not only is there is biological cost of gestation and labor (and possibly lactation), but there is also the added economic cost of missed work, a glass ceiling effect due to being shunted onto the "mommy track," and the "second shift" burden of being expected to shoulder the majority of the caretaking and housekeeping regardless of other breadwinning accomplishments.
Perhaps it is this very lack of economic viability of reproduction that will be our salvation as a species on this planet. Perhaps as the global levels of education for women and overall access to reproductive planning services and technology increase, and more of the world moves to a "developed" economy, the luxury of kids will become less and less of a viable choice and worldwide fertility rates will continue to fall until we move into negative population growth. Perhaps lessening our ecological footprint via negative population growth will be what keeps humans from destroying our global habitat.
Or perhaps we just need to realize our gross sexism and institutional hostility toward parents and fix it.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Offensive Stereotypes in Toy Story 3
I already spoke a bit about what I liked and what I found to be a masterful guilt-trip in Toy Story 3. Here are some of the other things I find problematic:
The toys are basically slaves that glorify slavery. They can run away (at their great peril) or continue to serve at the whim of their owner (child) without the ability to ever express their needs, wants, or feelings. And yet, they are "Good Slaves" in that they are devoted to serving and all they really want is the chance to be loved as they are and played with. Their first loyalty is always to their owner, and though they notice most everything going on around them, they can comment only among themselves (except under rare and dangerous circumstances). Some owners are bad to them and dismember them, torture them, play with them inappropriately due to immaturity, and though the toys feel terror (and possibly pain), they are powerless to express themselves or change the situation.
The "Spanish Mode" Buzz Lightyear is a horrifically over-the-top stereotype. He becomes an ardent and devoted lover, dances the tango, speaks in a lower, more gravelly (sexy) voice, swivels his hips, and is so much his own cliche that a single rose appears from nowhere in order to be held in the teeth of his lady of choice.
Barbie and Ken: Though soppily emotional, Barbie is given some brains, which is nice. Her guile seems to come naturally, but her straight intelligence is seen only in a single moment when it comes across as comic. Barbie outwits Ken, which would be an encouraging turn of events if Ken weren't coded as so feminine (and possibly gay) that it upholds the social hierarchy whereby a feminine woman trumps a feminine man. At one point Ken is called a "pink-noser," he is very into clothes, and writes in a "girly" manner that is temporarily mistaken as Barbie's writing. I would have no problem with his alternative gender-presentation if it weren't also being held up to a certain amount of ridicule.
As for the rest of the gender dynamics, the co-alphas (or alpha and sub-alpha?) of the toys are both gendered masculine (Woody and Buzz), and the rest of the characters are either gendered masculine or neuter other than the sidekick cowgirl (I forget her name), and Mrs. Potato Head. Barbie is outside their group, but still responds to orders given by the alphas. Also, the alphas are the most strongly cis-gendered, while the rest of the toys are given more quirky/gender-transgressive (and enjoyable to me) personality traits, like the (masculine) T-Rex that is always afraid and worried.
And finally, I take issue with the fact that the big bad guy, the teddy bear, spoke in a southern accent, activating the set of southern stereotypes. Apparently if someone speaks with a southern accent, they are more friendly seeming to your face, more likely to betray you behind your back, more likely to say nasty things in a friendly tone of voice, and more likely to be power-mad or to have rigged the system with boss politics. I think they only left out ignorant, but they did include wrong-minded.
I know that stories work off a certain amount of stock material, but still. I have problems with the use of these stereotypes and find them offensive.
The toys are basically slaves that glorify slavery. They can run away (at their great peril) or continue to serve at the whim of their owner (child) without the ability to ever express their needs, wants, or feelings. And yet, they are "Good Slaves" in that they are devoted to serving and all they really want is the chance to be loved as they are and played with. Their first loyalty is always to their owner, and though they notice most everything going on around them, they can comment only among themselves (except under rare and dangerous circumstances). Some owners are bad to them and dismember them, torture them, play with them inappropriately due to immaturity, and though the toys feel terror (and possibly pain), they are powerless to express themselves or change the situation.
The "Spanish Mode" Buzz Lightyear is a horrifically over-the-top stereotype. He becomes an ardent and devoted lover, dances the tango, speaks in a lower, more gravelly (sexy) voice, swivels his hips, and is so much his own cliche that a single rose appears from nowhere in order to be held in the teeth of his lady of choice.
Barbie and Ken: Though soppily emotional, Barbie is given some brains, which is nice. Her guile seems to come naturally, but her straight intelligence is seen only in a single moment when it comes across as comic. Barbie outwits Ken, which would be an encouraging turn of events if Ken weren't coded as so feminine (and possibly gay) that it upholds the social hierarchy whereby a feminine woman trumps a feminine man. At one point Ken is called a "pink-noser," he is very into clothes, and writes in a "girly" manner that is temporarily mistaken as Barbie's writing. I would have no problem with his alternative gender-presentation if it weren't also being held up to a certain amount of ridicule.
As for the rest of the gender dynamics, the co-alphas (or alpha and sub-alpha?) of the toys are both gendered masculine (Woody and Buzz), and the rest of the characters are either gendered masculine or neuter other than the sidekick cowgirl (I forget her name), and Mrs. Potato Head. Barbie is outside their group, but still responds to orders given by the alphas. Also, the alphas are the most strongly cis-gendered, while the rest of the toys are given more quirky/gender-transgressive (and enjoyable to me) personality traits, like the (masculine) T-Rex that is always afraid and worried.
And finally, I take issue with the fact that the big bad guy, the teddy bear, spoke in a southern accent, activating the set of southern stereotypes. Apparently if someone speaks with a southern accent, they are more friendly seeming to your face, more likely to betray you behind your back, more likely to say nasty things in a friendly tone of voice, and more likely to be power-mad or to have rigged the system with boss politics. I think they only left out ignorant, but they did include wrong-minded.
I know that stories work off a certain amount of stock material, but still. I have problems with the use of these stereotypes and find them offensive.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
I Already Knew I Had a Keeper
Ever since the wedding, I have been asked repeatedly if the ceremony changed anything. Usually, the person doing the asking is a married person who fully expects that I will say "yes, surprisingly, getting married has changed everything, even though I didn't think it would."
Well, it hasn't. Really, it hasn't changed anything other than the fact that I have an insane urge to giggle inanely when referring to my spouse as a spouse and not a significant other. But then again, I made my decision to keep my partner long before we got married, so the wedding was not that final moment of irrevocable commitment I think it must be for so many other folks.
I also wonder, though, whether the "it changes everything" experience doesn't also have something to do with a set of expectations that are suddenly triggered by married status. I read once that even though young women are under tremendous social and psychological pressure to be the "perfect girl", young wives are under even more pressure to be the "perfect wife," as evidenced by the fact that the relatively few women who resisted the dangers of "perfect girl" syndrome are still likely to fall prey to "perfect wife" syndrome. (I think this came from The Erotic Silence of the American Wife by Dalma Heyn, but I am not certain.)
There do seem to be some very strong social messages about what husbands and wives are and do. I know that my married sister is constantly categorizing my relationship with my partner in terms of gender roles and/or in comparison to our parents' marriage, a rubric that she also applies to her own marriage. She seems bothered that my relationship with my partner does not fall into her proscribed boxes very well, and that many of the gender roles seem to be reversed or scrambled between us.
I do not think that I have many expectations for gender roles or a different way of life labeled "married." Instead, we chose to become "married" as a prerequisite for having children, not as a lifestyle or attitude change (other than those that will come with kids). So for now, every time I am asked the excited question, "So, did marriage change anything?" I just reply, "No, I already knew I had a Keeper."
Well, it hasn't. Really, it hasn't changed anything other than the fact that I have an insane urge to giggle inanely when referring to my spouse as a spouse and not a significant other. But then again, I made my decision to keep my partner long before we got married, so the wedding was not that final moment of irrevocable commitment I think it must be for so many other folks.
I also wonder, though, whether the "it changes everything" experience doesn't also have something to do with a set of expectations that are suddenly triggered by married status. I read once that even though young women are under tremendous social and psychological pressure to be the "perfect girl", young wives are under even more pressure to be the "perfect wife," as evidenced by the fact that the relatively few women who resisted the dangers of "perfect girl" syndrome are still likely to fall prey to "perfect wife" syndrome. (I think this came from The Erotic Silence of the American Wife by Dalma Heyn, but I am not certain.)
There do seem to be some very strong social messages about what husbands and wives are and do. I know that my married sister is constantly categorizing my relationship with my partner in terms of gender roles and/or in comparison to our parents' marriage, a rubric that she also applies to her own marriage. She seems bothered that my relationship with my partner does not fall into her proscribed boxes very well, and that many of the gender roles seem to be reversed or scrambled between us.
I do not think that I have many expectations for gender roles or a different way of life labeled "married." Instead, we chose to become "married" as a prerequisite for having children, not as a lifestyle or attitude change (other than those that will come with kids). So for now, every time I am asked the excited question, "So, did marriage change anything?" I just reply, "No, I already knew I had a Keeper."
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
I Love the Smell of Gender Parity in the Morning
I just read this NY Times article, Now, Dad Feels as Stressed as Mom, by Tara Parker-Pope. It says that men are reporting more conflict over their work-family balance, specifically that they are moving more into a nurturing father role from a solely providing father role, and so are more active in childcare and homemaking. This is bumping up against the classic workforce dynamic that does not expect men to have childcare and family-life demands that affect their availability as workers, or as the article puts it, assumes that men will be "largely unaffected by children."
One of my favorite bits of info from the article says that men are less likely to take advantage of flexible schedules and family leave, and more likely to take care of their family obligations in "stealth" mode. It conjures images of men sneaking out of the office to a Mission Impossible theme song, slinking along the row of cars in the corporate parking garage to their own carseat-laden vehicle. If the boss calls while they are at the doctor's office with the little tyke, he pretends he is out to drinks with an important potential client. "Hem, hum, yeah, I, uh, need to get back to this. Don't want to blow this deal," he mutters and hangs up the phone before his kid starts the usual post-vaccination wail.
Amusing mental images aside, I am encouraged to see more recognition of the shifting gender roles and the upswing of acknowledgment that more and more men are tapping into their nurturing natures and taking on more responsibility around the house to become more equal partners. I am bothered by the tone of the article overall, though. It starts on a campy note with the title, and goes on to cite facts about men and imply accusations about their women partners who doubt they are really contributing as much as they think they are. It comes across to me as a bit self-congratulatory on the part of the men, and seems to perpetuate some war-of-the-sexes thinking.
Instead, I would have preferred if the article took a more philosophical view of the shift: Look, these things are changing. Gender roles are shifting. Here is evidence that some men are making some of the shifts into the home that will balance some of the shifts out of the home and into the workforce that women began 50 years ago. No one has figured this all out yet, but isn't it cool that some of the hard work of social parity between (among) the genders is cooking along?
So I will file it away into my "hopeful signs badly interpreted by mainstream press" folder and move on, encouraged.
One of my favorite bits of info from the article says that men are less likely to take advantage of flexible schedules and family leave, and more likely to take care of their family obligations in "stealth" mode. It conjures images of men sneaking out of the office to a Mission Impossible theme song, slinking along the row of cars in the corporate parking garage to their own carseat-laden vehicle. If the boss calls while they are at the doctor's office with the little tyke, he pretends he is out to drinks with an important potential client. "Hem, hum, yeah, I, uh, need to get back to this. Don't want to blow this deal," he mutters and hangs up the phone before his kid starts the usual post-vaccination wail.
Amusing mental images aside, I am encouraged to see more recognition of the shifting gender roles and the upswing of acknowledgment that more and more men are tapping into their nurturing natures and taking on more responsibility around the house to become more equal partners. I am bothered by the tone of the article overall, though. It starts on a campy note with the title, and goes on to cite facts about men and imply accusations about their women partners who doubt they are really contributing as much as they think they are. It comes across to me as a bit self-congratulatory on the part of the men, and seems to perpetuate some war-of-the-sexes thinking.
Instead, I would have preferred if the article took a more philosophical view of the shift: Look, these things are changing. Gender roles are shifting. Here is evidence that some men are making some of the shifts into the home that will balance some of the shifts out of the home and into the workforce that women began 50 years ago. No one has figured this all out yet, but isn't it cool that some of the hard work of social parity between (among) the genders is cooking along?
So I will file it away into my "hopeful signs badly interpreted by mainstream press" folder and move on, encouraged.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Which Set of Lips Stay Closed Now?
A friend recently sent me a link to this article about Purity, or how dieting is the new virginity. It makes the point that women's bodies used to be more controlled via sexuality. Women were valuable based on their virginity and the sex they did not have. Now, women's bodies are more valued on their thinness, or on the food they did not eat.
I think there are some interesting correlations here. Firstly, both sex and eating can be highly pleasurable activities, and I believe that we as a culture are quite afraid of pleasure, especially the pleasure of women. Women feeling pleasure makes them into people instead of objects or "lesser beings" and that can be dangerous to the "men are people, women are commodities" story of much of our patriarchal culture.
I also am sorry that the author of the article, Zaftigzeitgeist missed the obvious play on words. Zey say, "It is as if we have gone from legs closed to lips closed." I would say that the more obvious phrasing would be more like, "It is as if we have just changed which set of lips to keep closed." (Groan, I know. My partner definitely groaned at that one. But I think it's good.) Looking at it from a lips point of view raises the appetites correlation, which delves a little deeper.
Things go through women's lips into their bodies, and often it is because women choose to bring those things (food, fingers, penises) into themselves. The patriarchy has a fear of women's appetites and women wanting too much. Too much sex, which can "unman" a man, too much food, which can mean she is not striving to meet patriarchal beauty standards, too much attention, work, rights, votes, influence, power, equality, etc. Women wanting things, or more than their allotted amount, is dangerous to the patriarchy. Therefore what passes through women's lips and how much they are allowed to WANT to pass through their lips becomes an appetites control.
I also find the whole situation sad. Sex shame and food/fat shame do documented damage to women throughout our society. And as for the men, they don't really want skinny women or women who hate sex. Studies have shown that men in our society really do prefer women curvier than the prevailing beauty standards and willing partners. Patriarchy hurts all of us.
This all goes back to the Pleasure House ambition of mine, and speaks to the deep revolutionary nature of a sacred space for people, especially women, to explore and indulge themselves in sacred pleasure. Perhaps the motto should be something like "open wide" or "making all lips smile" or "read our lips to see if we're satisfied." Okay, all of those are terrible, but I'm sure someone will think of something actually clever and a little raunchy without being terribly offensive along those same lines.
I think there are some interesting correlations here. Firstly, both sex and eating can be highly pleasurable activities, and I believe that we as a culture are quite afraid of pleasure, especially the pleasure of women. Women feeling pleasure makes them into people instead of objects or "lesser beings" and that can be dangerous to the "men are people, women are commodities" story of much of our patriarchal culture.
I also am sorry that the author of the article, Zaftigzeitgeist missed the obvious play on words. Zey say, "It is as if we have gone from legs closed to lips closed." I would say that the more obvious phrasing would be more like, "It is as if we have just changed which set of lips to keep closed." (Groan, I know. My partner definitely groaned at that one. But I think it's good.) Looking at it from a lips point of view raises the appetites correlation, which delves a little deeper.
Things go through women's lips into their bodies, and often it is because women choose to bring those things (food, fingers, penises) into themselves. The patriarchy has a fear of women's appetites and women wanting too much. Too much sex, which can "unman" a man, too much food, which can mean she is not striving to meet patriarchal beauty standards, too much attention, work, rights, votes, influence, power, equality, etc. Women wanting things, or more than their allotted amount, is dangerous to the patriarchy. Therefore what passes through women's lips and how much they are allowed to WANT to pass through their lips becomes an appetites control.
I also find the whole situation sad. Sex shame and food/fat shame do documented damage to women throughout our society. And as for the men, they don't really want skinny women or women who hate sex. Studies have shown that men in our society really do prefer women curvier than the prevailing beauty standards and willing partners. Patriarchy hurts all of us.
This all goes back to the Pleasure House ambition of mine, and speaks to the deep revolutionary nature of a sacred space for people, especially women, to explore and indulge themselves in sacred pleasure. Perhaps the motto should be something like "open wide" or "making all lips smile" or "read our lips to see if we're satisfied." Okay, all of those are terrible, but I'm sure someone will think of something actually clever and a little raunchy without being terribly offensive along those same lines.
Monday, March 29, 2010
I Vote for a Male Birth Control Pill
In poking around in the blogosphere, I stumbled on this fact I had never really thought about before: women have a choice of 11 kinds of contraception, but men only have two: condoms and vasectomies. And, if gender bias were not an issue and the research were being funded and made a priority, we could have a long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) for men. It could work through hormones, though there are sexist fears that the side-effects of testosterone might make some men feel unmanned. It could work by stopping ejaculation, since ejaculation has no effect on orgasm, but that might make some men "freak out". The research for a male birth control pill is 50 years behind the female birth control pill, due in part to these gendered stories.
I think this is a crying shame. A pill to stop ejaculation? All the orgasm, none of the clean up? Sounds awesome. No more socks or towels with their special home by the bed. Less worry about condom efficacy. No more choice between permanent birth control (snip snip!) or latex sheaths. I wonder what kind of effect it would have upon the tantric goal of male multiple orgasms? Would it make them easier? Common, even?
Even better, a male birth control pill could help even the contraceptive playing field. Both (or all) sex partners would be able to be equally responsible for prevention of pregnancy. It would empower men to better control whether or not they are sowing seeds. It would take the onus of birth control off of women and bring more equality. And it could get men in to see their doctors annually, like women do now for their female birth control prescriptions. There are a lot of benefits to that, as I understand it.
Also, what about the fact that vasectomies are much easier and less invasive for men than tubal ligations are for women? Could a male birth control pill be easier and less risky for men than female birth control is for women, with its elevated risk of blood clots and all?
"Permanent" birth control, also known as "getting fixed" or vasectomy/tubal ligation also comes with all kinds of strings attached. There are mandatory waiting periods, minimum age requirements that come only after 20-25 years or so of fertility, minimum procreative requirements of so many kids, of these sexes, etc. If a sexually active man really wants to make sure that he does not accidentally father any kids, his choices now are to rely on condoms with their 16% ineffective rate or jump through the hoops and hope someone will give him a snip, thereby foregoing a change of mind or incurring the expense and inconvenience of a vasectomy reversal.
I sincerely hope the money and research on this one gets stepped up, because it sounds to me like we are past due for this one.
I think this is a crying shame. A pill to stop ejaculation? All the orgasm, none of the clean up? Sounds awesome. No more socks or towels with their special home by the bed. Less worry about condom efficacy. No more choice between permanent birth control (snip snip!) or latex sheaths. I wonder what kind of effect it would have upon the tantric goal of male multiple orgasms? Would it make them easier? Common, even?
Even better, a male birth control pill could help even the contraceptive playing field. Both (or all) sex partners would be able to be equally responsible for prevention of pregnancy. It would empower men to better control whether or not they are sowing seeds. It would take the onus of birth control off of women and bring more equality. And it could get men in to see their doctors annually, like women do now for their female birth control prescriptions. There are a lot of benefits to that, as I understand it.
Also, what about the fact that vasectomies are much easier and less invasive for men than tubal ligations are for women? Could a male birth control pill be easier and less risky for men than female birth control is for women, with its elevated risk of blood clots and all?
"Permanent" birth control, also known as "getting fixed" or vasectomy/tubal ligation also comes with all kinds of strings attached. There are mandatory waiting periods, minimum age requirements that come only after 20-25 years or so of fertility, minimum procreative requirements of so many kids, of these sexes, etc. If a sexually active man really wants to make sure that he does not accidentally father any kids, his choices now are to rely on condoms with their 16% ineffective rate or jump through the hoops and hope someone will give him a snip, thereby foregoing a change of mind or incurring the expense and inconvenience of a vasectomy reversal.
I sincerely hope the money and research on this one gets stepped up, because it sounds to me like we are past due for this one.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Adventures in Guyland
I've been increasingly fascinated with masculine gender studies, and have stumbled across several things that have piqued my interest. I am currently reading Guyland by Dr. Michael Kimmel. I haven't finished it yet, but one concept that really struck home for me is about gender police.
Guyland is specifically about the life stage of "guy", somewhere between boy and man, usually running from ages 16-26. Kimmel is a sociologist, and has done extensive research and interviews all across the country. For a while now, I have said that I think the next step in toward gender equality is to unpack "masculine" in much the same way that feminism has unpacked "feminine". Kimmel seems to correlate this.
He says that if he asks a young woman what it means to be a Woman, she will look at him confusedly and say it means whatever she decides it means. But if he asks a guy what it means to be a Man, there is a definite answer. To me, this says that the idea of being a Woman has been unpacked; there is no set answer, no particular rite of passage or quality that equals womanhood. But the idea of being a Man has not been unpacked. Kimmel works on unpacking it by pointing out the "Guy Code" that is really about never showing or having emotions, keeping silent about things other guys do that bother you, and the culture of protection in the community that says boys will be boys, and they are our boys so they must not be capable really of doing violent things.
He goes on to say that boys are subjected to much more gender policing than girls are. Everything boys and guys do gets labeled by their peers. If at any point they fail to live up to the Guy Code, they will be called "gay". "Gay" means less than a man, and gets used as an epithet almost ubiquitously. "That's so gay." "Those shoes are gay." A guy does not want to be called gay because that makes him a target for harassment, bullying, and possible physical violence, and so he tends to "correct" his behavior and work hard to stay unnoticed.
I found myself feeling very depressed after reading the first few chapters. It is all a little too true for comfort, and speaking about these unspoken rules highlights how destructive they really are. I have, however, continued reading, and find that as I understand more of the dynamics at work, I am coming back into a more hopeful place.
Guyland is specifically about the life stage of "guy", somewhere between boy and man, usually running from ages 16-26. Kimmel is a sociologist, and has done extensive research and interviews all across the country. For a while now, I have said that I think the next step in toward gender equality is to unpack "masculine" in much the same way that feminism has unpacked "feminine". Kimmel seems to correlate this.
He says that if he asks a young woman what it means to be a Woman, she will look at him confusedly and say it means whatever she decides it means. But if he asks a guy what it means to be a Man, there is a definite answer. To me, this says that the idea of being a Woman has been unpacked; there is no set answer, no particular rite of passage or quality that equals womanhood. But the idea of being a Man has not been unpacked. Kimmel works on unpacking it by pointing out the "Guy Code" that is really about never showing or having emotions, keeping silent about things other guys do that bother you, and the culture of protection in the community that says boys will be boys, and they are our boys so they must not be capable really of doing violent things.
He goes on to say that boys are subjected to much more gender policing than girls are. Everything boys and guys do gets labeled by their peers. If at any point they fail to live up to the Guy Code, they will be called "gay". "Gay" means less than a man, and gets used as an epithet almost ubiquitously. "That's so gay." "Those shoes are gay." A guy does not want to be called gay because that makes him a target for harassment, bullying, and possible physical violence, and so he tends to "correct" his behavior and work hard to stay unnoticed.
I found myself feeling very depressed after reading the first few chapters. It is all a little too true for comfort, and speaking about these unspoken rules highlights how destructive they really are. I have, however, continued reading, and find that as I understand more of the dynamics at work, I am coming back into a more hopeful place.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
A Fulcrum for Deconstructing Gender
Gloria Steinem was in town recently and I had a chance to go down to campus to see her. I best liked the Q & A at the end. One thing she said is that we (our society) now knows "women can be equal in the world outside the home. We still don't know if men can be equal inside the home." She went on to say, "For men to raise children as women do is not a punishment, it's a gift."
This concisely expresses something that I have felt but haven't been able to put into words. I have followed several different discussions about the next step for men in the transition to gender equality. I have heard a young woman, presumably out of a third wave feminist context, ask older women, presumably from a more second wave feminist background, ask how women should be helping men deal with the ongoing shifts in gender dynamics. And I heard the older women reply, "Nothing," and explain that the men have the privilege, let them use it to figure it out. I have been a part of a Men's Monologues that was inspired by gender equality and the Vagina Monologues, only to see a lot of unexamined privilege undermine what was otherwise a rather profound and funny show. I have read some of the "Men's Movement" books from the 1990s, and I have read a few accounts and critiques of a feminist men's conference that was held last year.
The thought I have is that it is time to unpack the idea of masculinity and what it means to be a man. The feminist movement has done this with femininity and what it means to be a woman, greatly expanding the "definition" to include the spheres of in and out of the home and removing the boxes of assumptions around marital and motherhood status. This has not yet really been done at an effective societal level around masculinity, especially concerning what Gloria Steinem called the "cult of masculinity," which basically encompasses the harmful masculine stereotypes men take on to "prove" their manhood.
And yet, unpacking something that big takes both a lot of time and dedicated motivation from the relevant population (who, notably, are privileged and therefore less likely to decide the pain of change is less than the pain of staying the same). However, Gloria Steinem's frame of the spheres in and out of the home makes for an excellent applied situation that gives a great starting point.
One of the most effective ways women unpacked the social construction of "feminine" was by fighting their way into the workforce and up the corporate ladder. The philosophical project of unpacking their gender roles was not the main motivation, of course; far more mundane and practical matters drove the changes. However, applying this to the masculine means that men fighting their way back home and into the diaper bag could and would help effectively unpack the social construction of "masculine."
I think Gloria is right: working towards reframing "men taking care of children as women do" as a gift instead of a punishment is a fulcrum that could help tip our social philosophies into a wider deconstruction of gender altogether.
This concisely expresses something that I have felt but haven't been able to put into words. I have followed several different discussions about the next step for men in the transition to gender equality. I have heard a young woman, presumably out of a third wave feminist context, ask older women, presumably from a more second wave feminist background, ask how women should be helping men deal with the ongoing shifts in gender dynamics. And I heard the older women reply, "Nothing," and explain that the men have the privilege, let them use it to figure it out. I have been a part of a Men's Monologues that was inspired by gender equality and the Vagina Monologues, only to see a lot of unexamined privilege undermine what was otherwise a rather profound and funny show. I have read some of the "Men's Movement" books from the 1990s, and I have read a few accounts and critiques of a feminist men's conference that was held last year.
The thought I have is that it is time to unpack the idea of masculinity and what it means to be a man. The feminist movement has done this with femininity and what it means to be a woman, greatly expanding the "definition" to include the spheres of in and out of the home and removing the boxes of assumptions around marital and motherhood status. This has not yet really been done at an effective societal level around masculinity, especially concerning what Gloria Steinem called the "cult of masculinity," which basically encompasses the harmful masculine stereotypes men take on to "prove" their manhood.
And yet, unpacking something that big takes both a lot of time and dedicated motivation from the relevant population (who, notably, are privileged and therefore less likely to decide the pain of change is less than the pain of staying the same). However, Gloria Steinem's frame of the spheres in and out of the home makes for an excellent applied situation that gives a great starting point.
One of the most effective ways women unpacked the social construction of "feminine" was by fighting their way into the workforce and up the corporate ladder. The philosophical project of unpacking their gender roles was not the main motivation, of course; far more mundane and practical matters drove the changes. However, applying this to the masculine means that men fighting their way back home and into the diaper bag could and would help effectively unpack the social construction of "masculine."
I think Gloria is right: working towards reframing "men taking care of children as women do" as a gift instead of a punishment is a fulcrum that could help tip our social philosophies into a wider deconstruction of gender altogether.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Shifting Sands of Gender in Romance
I've been noticing how romantic tropes are shifting due to changing gender roles lately. Going back into books and film from the 70s and 80s, there is a common theme of "really, ideally, women are soft and vulnerable and men are hard and competent." In many cases it seems almost as though it is a "doth protest too much" kind of situation, as if these gender roles need to be defended, which is probably accurate given strides in feminism and so on. He is arrogant, she is vulnerable. His life is over controlled in a logical way, she brings balance by understanding the more chaotic nature of emotions. Her warmth saves him from being cold, and he gives her life meaning. She belongs to and is a possession of his.
But this begins to change over time. The heroines begin to get stronger, more assertive. The heroes then get even bigger, badder, more dominating. It seems to be a statement of "yes, woman, you are strong, but really you like it when man is stronger." Every dominant woman really needs to be tamed by a more dominant man. Yes, women might be getting more dominant, having more power, but we must keep the balance in the Force, so men just have to step up to their A game and tame the willful filly.
Then enter the theme from the late 90s on of "woman, learn to control your power or the world will be destroyed." This gets into a lot of sci-fi and fantasy story lines so that women can come into sudden supernatural or magical powers and then they don't learn to use them properly, something awful happens, and then the women have to go get training, usually from men on how to use power. I think this is probably commentary on fear of women's power even as it acknowledges the sociological shifts.
I am finally seeing some romantic gender dynamics where the hero and heroine fight for dominance, but instead of it being a given that he will win and she will surrender into a happy ending and his paternalistic care, now I am seeing more of the woman fighting for partnership. She is not making him prove himself as a man dominant enough to alpha over her, but instead is demanding respect and partnership for herself so that they can have more of a relationship of equals. Suddenly the men of these story lines seem to have a lot more self-doubt and self-reflection than before. And they all appreciate and are attracted to the power and strength of their women instead of wanting to tame or own it.
There is another story line that I would like to see. All of these stories start with alpha men, and it is the ideal of what an "alpha" woman/paragon of virtue/ideal heroine is that has shifted. I would like to see the idea of alpha male change as well. As a general rule, these heroes are cool and controlled, keep their emotions tightly locked away from the world, lead men or go their own way in a maverick sense, and are generally competent at inflicting violence/offering protection.
I am excited to see where the shifting sands of gender leave the definitions of masculinity. Femininity has changed, the vise of gender is being pried wide open to disclose the spectrum between the poles, and now let us see how the masculine morphs as well.
But this begins to change over time. The heroines begin to get stronger, more assertive. The heroes then get even bigger, badder, more dominating. It seems to be a statement of "yes, woman, you are strong, but really you like it when man is stronger." Every dominant woman really needs to be tamed by a more dominant man. Yes, women might be getting more dominant, having more power, but we must keep the balance in the Force, so men just have to step up to their A game and tame the willful filly.
Then enter the theme from the late 90s on of "woman, learn to control your power or the world will be destroyed." This gets into a lot of sci-fi and fantasy story lines so that women can come into sudden supernatural or magical powers and then they don't learn to use them properly, something awful happens, and then the women have to go get training, usually from men on how to use power. I think this is probably commentary on fear of women's power even as it acknowledges the sociological shifts.
I am finally seeing some romantic gender dynamics where the hero and heroine fight for dominance, but instead of it being a given that he will win and she will surrender into a happy ending and his paternalistic care, now I am seeing more of the woman fighting for partnership. She is not making him prove himself as a man dominant enough to alpha over her, but instead is demanding respect and partnership for herself so that they can have more of a relationship of equals. Suddenly the men of these story lines seem to have a lot more self-doubt and self-reflection than before. And they all appreciate and are attracted to the power and strength of their women instead of wanting to tame or own it.
There is another story line that I would like to see. All of these stories start with alpha men, and it is the ideal of what an "alpha" woman/paragon of virtue/ideal heroine is that has shifted. I would like to see the idea of alpha male change as well. As a general rule, these heroes are cool and controlled, keep their emotions tightly locked away from the world, lead men or go their own way in a maverick sense, and are generally competent at inflicting violence/offering protection.
I am excited to see where the shifting sands of gender leave the definitions of masculinity. Femininity has changed, the vise of gender is being pried wide open to disclose the spectrum between the poles, and now let us see how the masculine morphs as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)