Author
|
Topic: You've got a long way to go baby
|
|
|
|
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 22 January 2002 08:00 AM
Pop culture is a reflection, not so much of what society is actually doing, as of what media moguls think will go down well with a brain-numbed public. Once in a while a writer can get away with an accurate - even sharp - comment on how things really are, but it's rare and buried in a pile of contrary images. The most important (and effective) thing on television is not the programming but the commercials. There, the way people are presented depends on what's being advertised. With what sort of character would the target audience like to identify? In ads for home remedies, we see a lot of stupid, incompetent, childish men married to smart, organized, controlling women. In shampoo and perfume ads, we see a lot of bimbos. In car ads, we see a lot hip young people of both sexes with money to burn and not a care in the world. In junk-food ads, we see a lot of rude, crude, self-indulgent teenagers. All of these depictions are bound to offend somebody. They are also bound to influence - subtly, incrementally - how people look at one another. Ah, so women think we're all idiots. Aha, men think we're nothing but hair. All boys are barbarians. Girls are only interested in our money. That may not be what we are - but it is, drip by insidious drip - what we may become. [ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 22 January 2002 05:02 PM
quote: Have things really changed for the better for women? Is tokenism rampant in the workplace? Are women valued for much more than their sexuality in popular culture? Has the climate of "blaming women" really changed?
Interesting questions.... First of all, I think the initial "liberation" of the 1960s and 70s wasn't entirely a liberation... Women fought for and gained the right to enter non-traditional female roles (at least to some degree) -- but didn't find a way to escape the duties of the traditional female roles. So we had women who were magnanimously given the right to bust their asses at a full time job, then go home and keep house, too... I don't see that as a change for the better. Even now, I know a lot of women who are still trying to have the perfect home and work full time, while darling hubby sits on his ass and wonders why she gripes. I don't think we'll see a complete change in my generation... Maybe the next one... As to tokenism in the workplace... Well, less than in the past, I think, but it's still there. The last "job" that I worked at had departments where women had never worked. I was slated to take a temporary seat in that dept before I left, and there was quite a bit of furor over my "youth and inexperience" -- but then, a man around my age wouldn't likely have been commented on. I also think women are very much more valued for their sexuality in our culture, popular or otherwise. Pop culture has its very narrow view of acceptable sexuality, though, which gets a lot of attention. But what about our culture at large? Here's an example: As a youngish, attractive woman, I have been referred to by a colleague as "bait" at a tradeshow -- I was supposed to stand around and look cute while the GUY colleague did all the talking.... I've encountered this attitude many times and in varying degrees. You are valued, yet not valued at the same time. And it's not just in the media, it's everywhere. And yes, we get blamed for a multitude of things. From the high rate of marriage breakup to the delinquincy of minors, but mostly for just making the world more inconvenient for the male of the species.... [ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331
|
posted 22 January 2002 07:19 PM
One think that I get tired of hearing is people calling Margaret Atwood a male-basher just because her male charactors are pathetic. I've read a few of her books - all her charactors are pathetic - even the female ones.What do we say to "reviewers" who do not recognize reciprocity when they see it? I think as punishment they should be forsed to review "Cat's Eye" but they would probably find evidence of male-bashing even in that book. How many of us is going to be out there watching Woman's hockey and Men's figure-skating? Actually it is more interesting this way than doing the opposite. The only one who can skate in panties without looking too foolish is Philip Candelaro - but I had to actually rewatch his "George of the Jungle" (I taped it) before I noticed how many jumps he actually did.
From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 22 January 2002 07:27 PM
quote: I think as punishment they should be forsed to review "Cat's Eye" but they would probably find evidence of male-bashing even in that book.
Hey, I think my favorite "male-bashing" quote comes from that very book. Elaine (the main character) is in the kitchen while her husband and his buddy are sitting in the living room, and she's angry about something and slamming things (I think). This is from memory, so it's not verbatim. Anyhow, the buddy asks the husband, "What's up with her?" And the husband answers, "She's just mad because she's a woman." Then Elaine comes out of the kitchen and tells him, "I'm not mad because I'm a woman. I'm mad because you're an asshole."
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 22 January 2002 08:35 PM
There was a good line on the Bill Cosby Show (the variety one) back in ... oh, the late 70's? In the skit, he was married to (uh - cute blonde singer, name escapes me) and they're having an argument, and she says, "My mother warned me about mixed mariages." He says, "You think this is because you're white and I'm black?" "No," she answers, "because I'm neat and you're a pig!" Seriously, from having to ask for housekeeping money to CEO of a Fortune 500 company (yes, even one!) in a generation ain't too shabby. If you put it on a historical time-line, this is a lot of change in a very short time. Of course there is still a long way to go, and of course it hasn't improved everyone's life, and of course we get frustrated... But there is an awful lot to be proud of.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
banquo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2124
|
posted 23 January 2002 12:49 AM
See, for me the question needs a little refinement. If you mean network TV then I'd respond that nobody's treated very well on network TV...including household pets. Most network TV isn't about representing reality, it's about shilling for sponsors so nothing's done with the intention of representing reality as it is. There are a very few fictionalized television programs that try. DaVinci's Inquest comes to mind although even there they've bought into the TV pretty thing. It's OK for DaVinci and the other men on the show to be ordinary or even ugly but not the women. West Wing seems to try. The National Security advisor is a black woman and a little overweight. But again I stress that looking to Western popular culture as represented on television for role models for either women or men is a dicey proposition. I spent a lot of years in television and most of my friends still are and I can tell you that proposing role models is so far off the radar of television execs and producers as to be simply not there. And really, should it be? Did Shakespeare? Did Moliere? Did any popular culture of it's day dedicate itself to trying to be a propogator of role models for the population?
From: north vancouver, bc | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 23 January 2002 01:16 AM
Banquo - it may have been a rant, but i didn't mention, let alone bash, America. I said "not all nations", rather than "no other nation". Infer as you will. I did mention commercials earlier.Vaudree - 10 of each? (Are there as many as 10 Canadian tv series?) Watch 20 North American tv series on a regular basis? Oy! The Practice is pretty good for characters (though i got fed up with their attitude to justice a while back and stopped watching); Judging Amy is all right; That's Life isn't bad. I haven't seen much of DaVinci's Inquest (though the subject-matter would normally interest me, i lost patience with guys standing around in the cold, saying nothing significant... maybe i'll give it another chance). I watch the British ones, when i can get them, because there, characters are allowed to have crooked teeth, flawed skin and unfashionable haircuts. I have no objection to any role-models people choose, except Barbie and Ken. [ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184
|
posted 23 January 2002 01:51 PM
quote: so no, things havn't changed much for me as i see womenhood.
Huh? Did I miss something? Over the last couple of hundred years in the U.S. little if anything has changed in respect to human rights????????? I suggest a study in the state of human rights in America and the changes made between 1802 and 2002. You guys do know that for some time now women have had the vote right?
From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 23 January 2002 03:00 PM
I see. Well, I was wondering if I'd read you right.To tell you the truth, statica, sometimes I figure for all the good voting ever does for most of us, I would probably prefer that too if I had to make the choice between the two of them. Luckily, I think we can have both a place politically, AND work for change socially. I think we've made big leaps and strides in both places. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of sexism and inequality in both areas as well. I guess that's been the feminist debate for a long time now, hasn't it? Some feminists think that if you change the political structure or make it possible for more women to participate in the political structure, the positive changes will trickle down into women's social and personal lives. And then other feminists say, no, we have to start with our personal and social lives and make changes there because that's where sexism most affects us, and then the political will follow. I think these days, while there are still some feminists who are very polarized about where the change has to come first, most realize that you really have to fight for change in both spheres, simultaneously.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Guerrilla Grrl
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2143
|
posted 26 January 2002 03:39 AM
have things changed?Well things are getting worse in many respects. The right is far smarter than we give them credit for. One of Dubya's first nominations was for a black woman and some people went "Oh wow he really is a compassioate conservative" Of course many of Dubya's policy's screwed the marginalized people in America but the perception was made from the start of Dubya's administration that things would be different. At least you could say generally that the guys on the left put their money where their mouth was much more than the right has-they actually hired the marginalzied people beyond mere tokenism. The right is so steeped in pork, that they have to be checked every six months for trichinosis. [ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Guerrilla Grrl ]
From: the caves | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|