Gender and the Military

           

The only person I know that was in the military is my neighbor, who is a Vietnam veteran.  He never talked to me personally about his experiences, but now that I have been studying gender and pop culture for a few months, it would be interesting to learn more about his service. My boyfriend, however, does have friends who have served in the U.S army. In their experience they were expected to act like “men” and be tough.  This is similar to other jobs where men and women could do the same job but the job is associated with masculine terms such as tough.  Gender plays into the military through the stereotypical gender roles present in our overall society.  Men are typically expected to behave very masculine in the army.  Common phrases that can be heard in movies or other forms of media include things such as telling the men not to wimps, sensitive, or other “feminine” qualities.  Movies tend to show going into the army a rite of passage for men in families and showcase the army “making a man” out of the “boys.”  On the topic of military husbands and wives, military husbands aren’t talked about as much because it’s a much less common situation.  Throughout all of history, it has always been men going to war, being drafted, or volunteering to serve their country.  Military wives tend to be stay at home moms taking care of the home while the husband is away.   

In today’s media, I believe men and women are shown to be more equal.  However advertisements don’t typically show the whole truth and I would not be surprised if women need to work much harder and be much tougher to obtain a truly equal rank to a male soldier.  Some media outlets still showcase a criticism to females in the army due to them not being able to perform to the same physical standards as men on average.  This poses a tough line to draw as females and males in the army should be equal and treated as equals but of course there are natural physical differences.  The Washington Times article discusses the new policies surrounding transgender individuals serving in the military.  The policies were set in place to ensure that every soldier, regardless of how they identify, will be treated fairly and with the respect that they deserve.  

Fighting Fire with Fabulous

In response to the Westboro Baptist Church’s infamous protests and hate towards cultural diversity, two Dambacher brothers wanted to celebrate this diversity in their project, “The Freaka in Topeka.”  They thought of no better place to hold this festival than in the home of the Westboro Baptist Church.  The interview titled Fighting Fire with Fabulous discusses the music they will perform, as well as their musical influences.  Dave Dambacher states that the Westboro Baptist Church’s front runner, Fred Phelps, is rumored to be passing on the leadership to his daughter, who is reportedly “wackier” than her father.

Another article assigned this week, Sound & Fury: Fred Phelps and Life Inside Westboro, detailed the timeline of events surrounding Fred Phelps.  His insanity, his abuse towards his family and others, and his involvement with the Westboro Baptist Church were the main focal points of the article.  To summarize, Phelps would repeatedly beat and abuse his children throughout their childhood.  After becoming dependent on and abusing amphetamines, he tortured his family by making them run up to 10 miles every day.  He then forced his children to go door-to-door selling candy as the family’s main source of income.  After enduring abuse from his father his whole life, Nate Phelps left the WBC, and his father, permanently.  All of the information in the article was revealed through Nate.  

The WBC is said to protest “pretty much everything,” so when asked what he thinks would happen when they perform in Topeka, Dave said “it would be a plus if they protested the show.”  There is a possibility that the event will be free to the audience, and all costs to produce the show will be covered by fundraising.  The brothers go as far to say that if they do not raise enough, they will fund the show out of pocket.  The goal of the show is to educate people on the hate being spread by the WBC.  The tagline of the show, “fight fire with fabulous,” speaks to the fight against the intolerance.  The brothers completely disagree with thee hate that the WBC spreads and to protest the hate, they will be celebrating the freedom and expression that everyone has.  They want to effectively spread their anti-hate message through art, primarily in the form of “The Freaka in Topeka” event.  

Boys, Girls, and Toys- Oh My

In any toy store today, the boys’ aisles are often filled with bright, powerful colors such as yellow, reds, and oranges.  The girls’ aisles are usually pink, white, and purple themed.  Whenever I went toy shopping as a kid, I sometimes felt a little intimidated by the boys’ aisles, as if I wasn’t supposed to be shopping in that section.  Even as an adult, I sometimes hear parents say to their daughters, “no, you don’t want that, that’s a boy’s toy,” and vice versa for their sons. And while yes, that toy was marketed towards boys, why can’t a girl buy it?  Some examples of gendered toys are pictured here:

These two photographs show the stark differences between toys marketed towards boys and girls.  The boys’ aisle contains toys that usually involve themes such as building and constructing, while girls’ toys portray ideas like dressing up and appearances.

My first reaction to that video is how correct (and adorable) the little girl is in her statements.  It did not seem as if her parents put her up to it or forced her to say it.  She was speaking her mind in a very determined tone.  At a young age she was able to notice the gender separation between “boys” and “girls” toys, and seems to be frustrated over it.  She says that “some girls like superheroes, some girls like princesses, some boys like superheroes, and some boys like princesses.”  This very simple statement is one that some adults cannot seem to grasp.  Every child is different and is captivated by different interests.  Grouping children together based on gender is essentially limiting their interests and controlling their creativity.  While there may be a majority of girls who want to buy “girl” toys, and boys that buy “boy” toys, there are also children who maybe want to buy more than just what’s marketed towards them based on their gender.  Instead of having separate boys’ and girls’ aisles in stores, why not combine all of the toys together?  It would allow children to broaden their horizons a bit and look at other toys they may like, instead of limiting themselves to what their gender “should” buy.  Today, I believe there are more parents who are growing tired of the limited toy options for their children.  And this video showed that it is not only the parents frustrated over the gender separation anymore, it’s the kids too.

Halloween Observations

            The Halloween season is a time of having fun and creativity, where everyone can dress up and have a good time with their friends.  But sometimes costumes only further perpetuate the gender stereotypes present in society.  While costumes range for each age group, the gender stereotypes are still there.  These articles were written to shed light on some of these stereotypes based on gender, anything from a young girl wanting to dress up as a superhero, to adults wearing offensive Caitlyn Jenner costumes.  While I may not agree with all of the statements in the articles, I can agree that there is definitely an unreasonable separation between “girl’s” costumes and “boy’s” costumes.

The four articles, “Boys and Girls, Constrained by Toys and Costumes,” “Girl’s Halloween Costumes Promoting Gender Bias,” “Halloween costume showdown: Superheroes beat princesses this year,” and “Mom takes Party City to task over ‘sexualized’ costumes for little girls,” all dealt with the same issue: it is important not to limit children.  They already have such vivid imaginations and deep curiosity for all things, so why is society trying to limit this?  All of the articles boiled down to this key problem; children should not be limited based on what society dictates.  And it’s true, no one should be limited by what people tell them they can accomplish and what they cannot.  While I completely agree with this fact, I do not agree with some other statements made in the articles.  For example, one mom noted that if her daughter asked to dress up as a nurse, she would “counter” her daughter by reminding her that her aunt works for NASA so that “the child expands [her] view.”  I understand it is important to encourage children to aspire to any career path, however, I don’t think the child fully sees the connection her mother is trying to draw.  When I read the article, my first instinct led me to think that perhaps the young girl admired the nurse at her school, and wanted to be like her.  Or maybe she just liked a particular costume she saw in the store.  I was not thinking that this young girl would be limiting her future career options by choosing to be a nurse instead of a doctor for Halloween.

Since I was at school for Halloween, I was not able to see some of the younger children dressed up in costumes.  When I was home, that was always a fun experience because some trick-or-treaters in my neighborhood used to have some pretty creative costumes.  Looking back on previous years, I can say that there was an apparent gender stereotype present: the girls were often princesses and the boys were Power Rangers.  But when I think back on my childhood, my parents were not usually involved in my Halloween costume decision and let me choose to be whatever I wanted.  For example, some years I was a stereotypical “girl” character, such as Glinda from the Wizard of Oz.  I remember feeling very excited over wearing a big, poufy dress, instead of feeling as if I was limited to being a princess for Halloween.  Another year I was a pirate when the Pirates of the Caribbean series was new.  My parents never tried to persuade me into dressing up as one character or another.  We always made our own costumes though, so my sisters and I were not exposed to the stereotypical gendered costumes at the stores. 

The most exposure I had to Halloween costumes (besides from a few of my friends) was from social media.  There is nothing wrong with posting your costume online, it’s actually fun to admire everyone’s costumes, just as it is when you see people in costume trick-or-treating on Halloween night.  But sometimes social media turns something as simple as Halloween costumes into a competition.  I noticed that as we have gotten older, costumes for both men and women have become more sexualized, and while this is empowering for some, it may also be intimidating to others.  Costumes this year ranged from movie characters to animals to more “traditional” costumes such as witches and zombies.

Even if I do not agree with every single argument in these articles, I did agree that the way some costumes are marketed is a huge problem.  For instance, if a teenage girl wants to be a police officer for Halloween, instead of being labeled as a “Cop” costume as it is for men, women’s costumes are usually labeled “Sexy Cop.”  One article pointed out that since both men and women police officers wear the same uniform, both costumes should essentially be the same.  However, based off of my experience, more girls will be inclined to buy the “sexy” costume instead of wear one that is technically more accurate.  Some girls feel empowered by wearing outfits that make them feel sexy and others may want to dress more reserved.  But what is most important is allowing people to dress in a way that makes them feel the most comfortable and happy with themselves, instead of feeling pressured to appear as something they are not.

Speaking from my own personal experience, I always wore costumes that I chose myself and was not pressured by my peers or parents to fulfill a gender stereotype.  By limiting children’s Halloween costumes, society is hindering much of their creativity and expression. The holiday itself should be more about having fun by dressing up, than trying to worry about competing with others and their opinions. 

Election Essay

As we have discussed in lecture following the three presidential debates, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have become caricatures in this election.  It almost seems as if they are no longer human beings, but instead characters that are frequently plastered all over the news.   Television shows such as Saturday Night Live have been taking advantage of this current political state.  Two key issues that have resonated with me are immigration and women’s health.  Clinton’s stance on these two issues has been crucial for me in deciding which candidate will receive my vote in this upcoming election.

            My father’s side of my family emigrated from Italy in the 1970s in an effort to create a better life for themselves, essentially chasing the American Dream.  Although it was a difficult and lengthy process, they succeeded in their goal of citizenship.  In the third debate, Clinton quoted Trump when he said “all undocumented immigrants will be subject to deportation,” and while I agree that some immigrants could be a threat to the safety of our country, they should not all be painted as criminals.  Clinton stated that her plan includes border security and deporting only the “violent persons.”  Although I do believe that immigration should be more regulated, I agree that this country thrives off of different cultures of others, and I do not agree with Trump’s notorious plan to build a wall around our borders.  Even though Clinton’s plan for immigration reform laws, I appreciate that her stance still encourages what America was founded on. 

In the case of women’s health and more specifically abortions, I could not even entertain Trump’s argument in the third debate.  I am not a “one-issue voter” however this issue was at the forefront of my decision in deciding which candidate to vote for.  I grew up in a rather conservative, Christian home, however, with this issue, I am primarily and solely influenced by science.  I completely disagree with Trump’s beliefs about abortions and women’s health.  His “argument” in the third debate was blatantly using scare tactics against voters that had no supporting factual evidence or knowledge.  Furthermore, after the final debate, doctors have stated that a “9^th month abortion” does not exist.  As he has previously mentioned in interviews, women who get abortions and doctors who perform them, should be administered some form of punishment.  This is utterly disturbing to me since it should be no one’s choice but the woman’s in that situation.  I do not understand how this private and personal decision should be influenced by the government to this extent.  When it was Trump’s turn to answer the question about abortion, he continued his usual ramblings, only this time using fear to incite a response.  Clinton’s response on the other hand, was passionate, direct, and powerful.  She displayed knowledge and empathy towards this issue, which was in line with my views.

What was most disconcerting and frustrating about the debates was the sheer lack of substance in the first two debates.  Both included a substantial amount of name calling and squabbling over irrelevant details.  However, all three of the debates showcased each candidate’s level of preparation.  Clinton performed well, as any politician would.  She came prepared with facts and data to support her arguments and was able to formulate her responses in a coherent manner.  As Trump flaunts himself as a businessman, I would have thought he would be more skilled in persuasion and arguing with a purpose.  Instead, his arguments frequently included ad hominem attacks littered throughout the first, second, and third presidential debates.  I admired Clinton’s professionalism and tact while she was interrupted by Trump throughout all of the debates.  After watching the debates, I agree with Clinton’s stances on these important issues and believe that ultimately, she is the best option for the next president of the United States. 

Sources

Three Presidential Debates

The Pornography of Everyday Life

Chapter 39, The Pornography of Everyday Life begins with a comparison between the way men and women are often posed in advertisements.  Jane Caputi offers the reader an example to make her case: a photograph taken by American soldiers that shows the abuse of Iraqi male prisoners.  The prisoners were posed in various “sexual displays,” which lead to many viewers’ shock over the behavior in the photos.  Caputi then points out that while men are presented in this way in a humiliating fashion, women are often posed this way, sometimes worse, and receive little to no backlash.  Instead, these women are perceived as “sexy.”  She goes on to write about this “habit of thinking” that sexualizes and degrades both genders (374). 

In her first section, Caputi discusses gender pornography, such as instances where the man is presented as strong, intelligent, and powerful.  The woman in these cases is often posed as vulnerable, younger, and weaker.  This comparison is only enhanced with clothing choices- even when both people in the situation are nude, the man still appears to be dominant.  She suggests these illustrated hierarchies begin with the imbalance of power and inequities between people in everyday life.  Moving forward with these ideas of power and hierarchies, she then introduces the idea of violence porn.  This type of pornography focuses on the domination aspect in sex.  She writes that “to prove manhood, men, one way or another, have to assert domination” (376).  She ends this section with a particularly powerful statement: when sex becomes violent, and “the penis is represented as a weapon, rape becomes its purpose” (377).

Rape porn is habitually portrayed in ads and leads to many of the double standards present in society today.  This goes back to her argument that shows the differences between how men and women are portrayed.  Both sexes could be posing nude, but it usually the women who get the brunt of the objectification.  Objectification is the act of treating a person as a literal object.  Sexual objectification sexualizes this possession and may convince women to believe they need a number of products and services to live up to the impossibly high standards set by society.  Caputi ends this piece by describing the “Goddess,” a sexual divinity that was suppressed by patriarchal religions, and states that the Goddess should come back not as a pornographic symbol, but a natural “life force” (382).

Intelligence vs. Icon

Reading the article about Marilyn Monroe really surprised me.  I was unaware of her passion for learning and intellect before I read it.  She was curious about learning, and yearned to be more educated.  Actually, I believe this aspect of personality has faded from many people’s personalities today.  Regardless of whether or not she was intelligent, she was always striving to “better herself.”  Her quote about her persona that the article used was especially powerful to me.  She said, “I’ve let people fool themselves. They didn’t bother to find out who and what I was.”  Instead of people discovering the woman behind the façade, they judged her on the role she was playing as a dumb blonde.  To judge people purely on their appearances and fronts they put up is an aspect of society that we have never really grown out of.  My best guess as to why she “hid” her intelligence is because it was what the society wanted at that time.  An overly-sexualized dumb blonde was able to attract more people’s attention than an intelligent woman.  Unfortunately, I think this fact still lingers in society today.

            A modern day celebrity that may be hiding part of her intellect is Kesha.  This may be common knowledge at this point, but I think she is essentially holding back on her intelligence in order to further her career as a pop singer.  Although I do not particularly like the music she produces, I can respect how smart she is.  Sources say she earned an almost-perfect score on the SAT, and was accepted at Barnard College.  However, instead of completing her time at Barnard through graduation, she chose to drop out and pursue her music career instead.  Her songs can often be described as having “dumb” lyrics with no substance, but many people would probably also say that her songs are catchy.  She may be producing this kind of music though because unfortunately, it is what sells.  The songs that people will play at parties and on the radio are always the catchy, upbeat ones, not the ones with the most meaningful lyrics.  In order to sell more of this music, she would have to physically depict the persona she is selling in her music.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesha

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/celebrities-sat-scores_n_4078848.html