Stop Acting So Crazy!

Today, a friend or two on Facebook posted this article on their wall, and I immediately needed to share it. This is an article written by a man explaining how men in our society have been socialized to treat women's normal emotions (anger, frustration, sadness, etc.) as "crazy" and "irrational," you know, because emotions are just so feminine. Since the article is titled "A Message to Women From A Man: You Are Not 'Crazy,' " you can guess where the author's opinions lie.

This article is so refreshing! It's really great to see a man understanding, and speaking out about, the deeply ingrained misogyny in our society (and though I know it happens, I still love seeing a man openly identifying as a feminist). Many men (though I am not saying all), even those who see themselves as progressive and forward-thinking, tend to fall back on this kind of reaction to women's emotions.



Men and women have been socialized to feel and express emotion totally different.** Women are taught to be passive, more in touch with their "feminine" emotions and their expressions (like feeling sad and then crying) while men are taught to "man up" and express as little emotion as possible. So it makes sense that men see women's emotional reactions as abnormal or different (just like when women don't understand men's seeming lack of emotion). Any one man by himself is not at fault for not understanding a woman's emotions at any given time.

The problem really comes in with the way our culture created and reinforces the idea that women's reactions are not just different from men's, but "crazy" and "irrational." How many movies have you seen where a man discusses his "crazy" ex-girlfriend who constantly "freaked" out about nothing? This stereotype associates natural emotion with mental illness, instability, and illogical thinking. It's a terrible way to think about the women of the world (and a terrible stereotype that undermines and ignores the many, many people of the world who have mental illness and can cope and lead stable lives).

I would write more about this, but honestly, the article that inspired this post is written so well, I really suggest you read it in its entirety. However, don't read the comments after; surprise, surprise, they are filled with misogynist reactions attempting to undermine the author's piece.



**I would just like to point out that when I discuss men's emotions and women's emotions as categories, I am talking about two things: 1. the way these gender groups are socialized to feel and express emotions and 2. the way that members of each of these gender groups tend to express emotions. I recognize that every person feels and expresses emotion differently, and many people may not fit solidly into one, or either, of these categories. I am simply using the categories as they are used in society to reinforce these stereotypes.



Update: Just discovered this follow-up to the original article. Here he specifically responds to the misogynistic comments the first post received. I love it!! I think I'm gonna start following this blog.

"It's My Day!": Weddings and Sexism

I have several problems with the cultural traditions and ideas surrounding weddings. I have a problem, as I've said in a post before, with engagement rings and the expectations of spending a specific, certain amount of money on them. I have a problem with the idea that a wedding has to be perfect (marriage sure as hell isn't going to be perfect; why should the wedding?). And I especially have a problem with the idea that the wedding is the bride's day, no matter what.

This bothers me on several levels. For one, women use the "my day" excuse to lose control, boss people around and stress everyone (themselves included) out. The first year of marriage is stressful. A wedding is stressful. By going into all of this with the belief that "It's my day and it must be perfect," is just adding more stress, plus the inevitability of something failing. Now, I'm not saying that all women turn into bridezillas; of course they don't. But I am saying that with our culture telling us it's OK to expect everyone to fall over backwards for us in order to achieve perfection, we are telling women that bridezilla-like behavior is acceptable when they are getting married.

But the idea that a wedding is the bride's day bothers me even more because it focuses on one person.
Forget for a moment the assumption that a wedding is a fairy tale princess day for every woman. Forget that it's about flowers, decorations, food, a band, and everything else. It is a wedding. At its most basic, it is a ceremony to celebrate a marriage. And a marriage simply can not happen with just a bride. You need a groom (or another bride, or two grooms, etc.). It is about the joining of two people. It's about the start of a journey, the start of a life. The wedding is not the culmination of months of planning, spending, crying, etc.; the wedding is the beginning.

So where is the groom in all of this? Why is it all about the bride? Because she's wearing a pretty dress that she'll never wear again? Because women are supposed to be emotionally excited about marriage and men aren't? In the same way that these cultural assumptions allow women to take on the ridiculous behavior of a bridezilla, they allow men to play the role of uninterested, aloof bachelors counting down the last days of their freedom. Until recently, I thought that the story of a groom showing up still drunk from the bachelor night at the strip club was just a movie plot device; not so! A woman I know recently told me about her wedding and that is exactly what happened! I couldn't believe this was real (and I couldn't believe she still married him, but I didn't say that out loud...). Why is it okay for men to care so little about this ceremony that women are supposed to care so much about (and why must women care so much when men get to care so little)? We, as a society, tell men that weddings and marriage are not something they need to be concerned with; if anything, it's something they have to put up with.

A lot of this ties back into gender assumptions that we have about men and women. We expect women to be faithful to one person; we tend to expect less from men, and therefore simply roll our eyes when men go off to strip clubs or to sleep with someone else before getting married. "Boys will be boys" our culture tells us. Meanwhile, the women are supposed to be dealing with flowers and dresses and cakes; you know, because that's what women love to do, and are good at. I, for one, can not imagine entering into a lifelong commitment to a person with these divisions from the very beginning. Marriage is supposed to be a partnership. Marriages are about people vowing to support each other. Marriage is not about boys being boys, or women being bitchy micro-managers. But this, as far as I can tell, is what our culture has made weddings into. With TV shows like Say Yes to the Dress and other wedding reality television, we are telling people that this is what they should aspire to when they find someone they love.

I don't know about you, but when I'm ready to commit to a marriage with one person for the rest of my life, I expect a little more.

Contradictions Galore!: My Thoughts on The Help

Lately, the movie The Help has been on everyone’s minds and most everyone’s websites. Some are praising it as a great film, some are condemning it as another “white person’s civil rights film,” or, as a commenter on Bitch magazine’s blog put it, “racist garbage,” and most others are saying it falls somewhere in between. I’ve gone back and forth, originally more in defense of the book and film than not (though always aware that it is problematic) but looking at some well written reviews today, more of the problems were pointed out than I originally noticed. **spoiler alert**

I want to say first that I enjoyed this movie. Aware that I have white privilege, I wasn’t struck by any horrific, racist or anti-feminist moments/themes/ideas right off the bat (I did pause over Minny’s obsession with fried chicken, it seemed so stereotypical, but then I thought that just because it’s a stereotype doesn’t mean it can’t ever be true, right? And many of us Southerners, black and white, love fried chicken!) The movie made me laugh several times, and actually made me cry once. And I would tell anyone, no matter how problematic/racist/silly you might think it is, the film is worth it for Viola Davis’s performance. It’s absolutely incredible. She’s a fabulous actress (stole the film Doubt while having only seven or so minutes onscreen) and she deserves praise for her performance. She completely inhabits all the contradiction of her character: loving the children she raises, hating the women who hire her, enjoying making fun of the white women when with other black women, feeling constant pain and bitterness since her son’s death, and many more. So, I think it’s entirely possible to enjoy this film while staying aware of the issues (though I do kind of wish I had waited for DVD instead of adding to the box office results).

            

Now, the problems. I admit, I did not notice all of these originally; some I didn’t think about until reading other reviews. First, while everyone has been praising the film for portraying well-rounded, three-dimensional female charaters (white and black) this isn’t really the case. The (black) maids all tend to be slightly plump or overweight while the white women are all thin and attractive. Yes, the white women are taking the time to do their hair and make-up while the black women may not be, but that doesn’t exactly size and shape, does it? The black women do seem to be physically filling the “Mammy” stereotype, even if their personalities aren’t. And, come on, I’ve grown up around Southern women and Southern food; all those white women wouldn’t be that thin, even if they are in bridge club and Junior League. No way.

            

Also, the male characters are a problem. Both the film and the novel focus mainly on the female characters, with all the men relegated to side roles (Stuart’s role may be a little bigger than that, as he is a love interest). In the film, the black men are completely absent; we only hear about Leroy, Minny’s husband, and in one weird scene he comes in yelling and clearly about to beat her but he is never actually seen by the camera (a scene that seemed so strange when I was watching the film; why didn’t they just show him?). But in both the film and the novel, the black men fit into the stereotypes of absent fathers, abusive husbands and lazy good-for-nothings. And the white men? College educated, polite, supportive. Now, of course, white and black men at this time had very different opportunities for money and education, and this made a difference for them in lots of ways. But it didn’t make all black men abusive and all white men upstanding citizens. Why do none of the maids have a husband who helps support the family and struggles through the civil rights movement with his wife? Why don’t the white women have any husband troubles, be it over money, children, mistresses, abuse, alcohol, or anything? (You might say that Celia Foote has husband trouble, but that’s not really true because she just thinks she does; once he knows everything, he is completely supportive.)

           

I especially have a problem with Stuart and Skeeter’s relationship. Stuart is nice enough, and Skeeter really seems to fall for him, but, as expected, their relationship falls apart when she has reveals that she wrote the book on black women and their jobs as maids (in the novel, the relationship is already falling apart by this point, but this moment is still the most crucial). As a reader, I was expecting this scene, and in fact anticipating it; I was ready for Skeeter to face someone (white) head-on with her views and stand strong. But she doesn’t!!! In both the book and the film, she’s just crying, sad that he’s ending their relationship. To me, this seems completely out of character. She’s just spent so much time on this book, working in secret, risking some danger for herself and much more for the black women, it’s finally been published, and people are reading it. She’s done what she wanted to do, and I expected her to dismiss anyone unwilling to support her. Instead, she just pouts over Stuart’s exit (again, it especially bothered me in the novel, because with their relationship headed downhill, I wanted her to end it sooner). It seemed out of character, it seemed out of place, and I just didn’t understand it. She went through all this to get published and isn’t willing to speak out for it?

            

Then there’s the implication in the film that all women’s issues are similar and comparable. They’re not. Everyone has problems, yes, and everyone has a right to feel however they need to feel about their problems. Just because I know there are children living in countries where wars are being fought who witness death everyday doesn’t mean I’ll be any less sad when my grandmother dies. And I shouldn’t have to be; I have a right to grieve. However, when it comes to a film/novel about white women and black women in 1960s America, the problems are not equal. I don’t feel as bad for Celia as I do for Minny. They do have different problems: Celia is dealing with several lost pregnancies, a lack of friends and social standing, and a fear of her husband; Minny is dealing with finding and keeping employment, supporting her family, and keeping herself and her children protected. But ultimately, Celia has money when Minny doesn’t, and her fear of her husband is totally unfounded; he’s a really nice guy. Now, if we saw a white woman and a black woman both dealing with similar issues (death of a loved one, abusive husband, etc.) it might become more about women dealing with their problems together, race aside. But that scenario is not presented. Instead, the white women’s problems are mainly (not completely) much smaller than the black women’s.

Are you tired yet? Well, now, for the things I liked. I did like that it’s a film about women, and about women accomplishing something. Emma Stone said, “It’s not really a story about racism. It’s a story about three women coming together to make an extraordinary positive change.” We certainly need movies like that, movies that put women at the forefront, working together and making a difference, without men playing a central role.

          

I also personally liked the portrayal of the contradictory relationships between black maid/white child/white mother. Aibileen loves the little girl she’s caring for, Mae Mobley, and she does her best to teach her to see people as people without color. She also does her best to support this little girl whose mother gives her no encouragement, and seems to be embarrassed by her child’s chubbiness and lack of cuteness. Aibileen, on the other hand, constantly reminds the child, “You are smart. You are kind. You are important.” I grew up in the South in the 1990s, and this stuff rings true with me. Not the absent mother part, just the relationship with a black caretaker. The woman who watched me and my sisters after school every day still knows which foods I like and don’t like; my paternal grandmother does not (and never has). These relationships exist. The problem comes when the portrayal of these relationships makes them out to be the only relationships of the black women. The movie seems to try to show an outside life for the black women: we know about Aibileen’s dead son and how that loss changed her, and we see Minny’s home life and children. But the movie still puts these white relationships at the center of their lives.

This post is incredibly long. But there’s been so much talk about the film, and I’ve read so many conflicting opinions, that I had to get all my contradictory opinions about it out in the open. At the end of the day, I think the film is worth seeing for two reasons: 1) for Viola Davis’ performance and 2) in order to critically analyze a hugely popular film that may not be presenting its “issues” in the best way. After all, as one of the many reviews/blogs/comments I’ve read online recently said, the problem is not really that the movie exists; the problem is that this movie is the one that gets mainstream attention and funding, instead of those written by/made by black women that portray a black woman’s perspective. 

Crazy, Stupid Reverse Objectification

So, if anyone has not yet seen the film Crazy, Stupid Love, this post may contain some mild spoilers.

First of all, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone totally made this movie. Ryan Gosling is hilarious, Emma Stone is sarcastic and awesome as always. My favorite scene from this entire film was between the two of them. Let me lead you up to it: Ryan Gosling is, as Emma Stone and her friend call him, "the hot guy from the bar," the guy who's always hitting on women and getting them to go home with him. We know he never calls women back, we know he uses the same moves on every woman he tries to get with; he's totally sleazy and predictable. So, as often happens in the romantic comedy, he's most attracted to Emma Stone's character, because she is not seduced by him, and she blows off his attempts to hit on her.


Jump ahead to a later scene, in which Emma Stone realizes that her boyfriend is a lame-ass douchebag, and she starts drinking heavily and builds up her courage to go have some R-rated fun (her friend tells her repeatedly that her life is PG-13). So she goes after "hot guy from the bar."

This is where things get good. Emma storms into the bar, yells "You!" and kisses him. Then she tells him to take her home. And he does.

When they get back to his fabulous house, she's starting to get nervous. But she keeps talking about what she does, and does not, want from him. When he tells her she's adorable, she cries, "NO! I'm sexy. And we are gonna bang!" She makes it very clear that what she wants is hot sex with the hot guy from the bar (he reminds her a couple of times that his name is Jacob; she doesn't call him that). Then, she makes him take off his shirt so she can see what he's got going on. After making him uncomfortable and telling him that he looks "photoshopped," she refuses to let him put his shirt back on.

Why do I love this scene? For one, it's wonderfully acted and comically timed by the two actors. But more than that, I love it because Emma Stone is showing Ryan Gosling exactly what it feels like to be objectified. She's not trying to mess with his head or teach him a lesson; in the moment, she is objectifying him, or at least trying to. She's trying to have an R-rated one night stand the way that he does, and in his world, objectification is required. (So in her mind, and I would say the collective mind of our culture, R-rated fun is masculine and sexist.)

I think this scene is important because, in order for Ryan Gosling to open up to a relationship beyond one-night stands, he has to understand what he's been doing to women. He experiences being wanted and used just for his body, sex, etc., and he doesn't necessarily like it.

I don't think that reverse objectification is the way to solve problems of men objectifying women, but I don't think the movie is saying that, either. After all, (*spoiler!*), they don't end up having sex; they end up talking, laughing, and Gosling is the one to pass out before anything else happens. Emma Stone's character is, ultimately, unable to truly objectify someone; she's too interested in other people. I think the movie uses Ryan Gosling to show that objectification of others leaves people empty and lacking in actual relationships (not saying that this means all casual sex is wrong; just that manipulating women/men for casual sex consistently can lead to sad, lonely lives).

I'm kind of amazed I was able to write this much about this romantic comedy. I'm not sure if it all makes sense. But if nothing else, this movie is worth it for Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, and don't worry, I have definitely not spoiled the best moment between the two of them!

Socialization and Smiling

I just read a great article on Sadie Magazine's website about the gendered act of smiling. It discusses how women are expected to smile more than men, regardless of how they feel. We are socialized to smile just to be polite, even when we don't feel like it.

I have dealt with this all my life. I used to be asked all the time "what's wrong?" when my face was in a natural, relaxed position. People find me standoffish or even snobbish when I don't smile. I'm a nice person. I'm generally pretty happy most of the time. That doesn't mean my face has to show it (and come on, forced smiles are exhausting!). I have a female coworker who tells me stories all the time and I can see her waiting for me to laugh and smile. I think she's great, her stories are funny sometimes, but they rarely inspire huge grins and loud laughter. Yet I do it, because otherwise I feel I'm being impolite. I've been socialized to feel like I'm being rude when I don't find someone else as funny as others do.

My boyfriend called me out on this. He makes a lot of corny jokes and I would often laugh at them without thinking about whether they were funny or not. He finally asked me why I was fake laughing so often. I hadn't even realized I was doing it! It was so nice, though, to be called out for smiling/laughing too much and nongenuinely instead of being asked to smile more. (By the way, even though my computer is putting an ugly red line underneath it, nongenuinely is a real word. I looked it up. Ingenuinely is not.)

Sex vs. Gender as discussed on Facebook

Recently, something very interesting happened among the comments on the Facebook status of one of my friends (I know it's shocking but true). A friend of mine posted a link to an article all about gender. To me, a well-versed sociology student (hee hee), this article was nothing new: Sex and gender are two different things, sex being biological and gender being socially constructed and learned. Among the comments on this friend's link, one girl wrote

     I think the mistake of gender socialization is to teach gender ideals based on anatomy rather than discerning the balance of masculinity and femininity within the individual. Gender differences are REAL and INNATE. They just aren't always as clear cut as penises and vaginas.

My initial reaction was to angrily respond to her "real and innate" comment. But then I read the whole thing again. She's not saying anything about women biologically being feminine or men masculine; she's saying that the personality traits which we've designated as feminine and masculine exist, and are different, but just don't exist in humans based on genitals, or primary sex characteristics. Very interesting thought.

What do you think?

I'm undecided as of now. I think it's a very interesting point, but my problem with it is the perpetuation of binaries. I think it's a bit simplified. She's trying to point out that people are widely varied and that variation doesn't have to do with biology, but she can't get past the idea of two categories. Most people that I know would not easily (would barely, in fact) fit into a category of either feminine or masculine, regardless of their biological sex. My boyfriend has several masculine traits as well as several feminine ones, but if I were to categorize him I wouldn't put him in either place. I think if we really want to move past the stereotypes associated with men, women, masculinity and femininity, we need to move past all these binaries and look at people as human beings with a range of emotions and traits. 

Our society is so worried about names. I fall victim to it too. Even now, I almost wrote something about getting rid of categories all together, and my first thought was "But what would people be then?" How could we easily describe someone if we didn't have simple categories like "man" or "woman" to fall back on? I don't know. I also think it's unrealistic to imagine our society making a change like that; language would be difficult to completely re-do. But I think it's an interesting idea to think about ways in which we could change the ways we think of men and women so that we don't have one group against the other, or one group as the opposite of the other, and so that we could allow for the millions of tiny traits, behaviors and quirks that make one human different from all others.




**For extra reading, this article discusses how we socialize children (specifically female children) to fit into their gender roles, even when we don't realize we are doing it, and don't mean to do it.

Dolls and McDonald's

I witnessed a sad moment today, sad and far too common. I was (and still am) baby-sitting my half-brother. He's four and a half. I took him to McDonald's for dinner so he could play in the playhouse. He kept running back to the table and then into the playhouse again. One time, he ran out to point out a little boy.
"There's a little boy playing with a doll!" he said.
"I see," I said, wondering where this was going.
"He's not supposed to play with dolls!" he cried.
Shit. I thought. I stopped him and told him that little kids could play with whichever toys they wanted to play with, it didn't matter if they were boys or girls. I don't know if he really heard me, but he at least didn't say anything to the other boy's face.

It can be so discouraging to see how quickly gender socialization becomes ingrained into children. My brother is only four, and, considering that his parents are about 45 and 58, hasn't been around a whole lot of other children. I like to think that my dad and my stepmom would never say to him "little boys can't play with dolls" (after all, I don't think he has a doll but he does have a vacuum cleaner, which could definitely be considered a "girl toy"), but I don't know for sure. I'm sure he's heard those kinds of rules enforced among other children, and possibly other parents. It just broke my heart to see my brother accusing a boy of doing something wrong, when he was clearly having so much fun with his doll.

And I think that's exactly what gender rules do: they label behaviors as wrong, and limit the ways in which people can express and enjoy themselves.