>>now, why on earth should anyone have to explain any of this to any of you?
>
>If Brett is feeling the same as me, and I suspect he is, his problem
>with Katha's argument is that it's not very well elucidated. All that
>I could figure out--and I read her posts a couple times and consider
>myself a relatively able reader--was that lots of older men have
>younger girlfriends, and judging by her tone I gathered that this was
>"bad."
well, as katha said, she's having a hard time figuring out why any of this has to be explained at all. depending on the circles one travels in, this kind of discussion doesn't happen because the men katha and i might tango with already understand how representations of women/men in the media interact with a gender unequal division of labor. how these images reinforce stereotypes, how--perhaps despite an objective reality of more opportunities for women--these kinds of images continue to shape our ways of thinking and interacting with one another.
why is it hard to understand that there is something troubling about it? if human beings are free to do as they please then you'd expect just as many older women/younger men couples as men/women couple no? the existence of stats suggesting a disproprotionate number of the latter is an indicator of gender inequality
[we could do the same with the numbers on interacial marriage and 'cross-class' marriage for lack of a better term. that is, the research shows there, too, that people generally couple within their class and within their race]
so, here we have a problem about our various feminist consciousnesses and their stages of "development" on this list. katha and i are expecting a level of consciousness, i guess, that folks who've piped up don't have. now, it could be that katha and i need a good spanking to be set straight because we're wrong. i don't think so. the original point was about representations of idealized physical beauty. you will agree that the media favors the young in our society, no? you will also agree that when you look at adverts, t.v., film you see many more older men than you see older women, no?
that's just the numbers. now consider substance and the range of roles older men play as opposed to older women --when they have those roles.
are there any older unattractive [by media standards] women leads at all? romantic leads? how many older, unattractive [by media stds] lead men are there and how often do you see them with younger women in a film? skipping age for a mo', how many goofy looking guys end up as romantic leads or romantic comedy leads, as opposed to goofy looking women?
the truth about cats and dogs is about the only film i can think of where a woman has a rel with an attractive man -- and that was a movie about the issue itself.
now, these things have consequences whether we like it or not. we can all agree that the idealized images are, themselves, problematic, yes? when these images reveal these vast disparities in the range of 'attractiveness' we have to ask why. my argument was that, historically, men have been able to define the terms of the situation and haven't had [til recently] to concern themselves with what they look like. women, however, have generally had to do so because they were seriously dependent on men for their incomes. seriously dependent. the focus on and demand for attractiveness has intensified with the development of the mass media. content analysis of these images back me up far better, so you can find the research and see for yourself.
as i indicated elsewhere, these images have real effects [epidemics of bulemia and anorexia among women which are now hitting men, first mostly among young gay men, but now also among het men] in turn there has been some discussion of 'addictions' to exercise [which is i guess what you could say i had as a kid]. they also simply have the real effect of reinforcing the power men already find they possess simply by virtue of having testicles between their legs. i have, myself, tried wearing a pair of stuffed trophy testicles around my neck in order to insure equitable pay, but it never worked!
Why? Because it's some barometer of the immorality of today's
>men? Because it indicates some gross hypocrisy in our society? I
>suspect it has something to do with the latter, but as I've
>indicated, I haven't been able to read between the lines (if it's
>something like the former, I will exit the conversation now). And I
>think this is what Brett was saying: I'm not sure what you are
>getting at, but I'm willing to listen.
that's good. i realize you think i was being a snit. i'm not. t his is a theoretical point. my example of bill gates should have hit it home, but looks like i only managed third base. the question as to why women shouldhave to do the work of explanation comes from the work of feminists of color who have continually pointed out that they are called up to explain racism to whites. their argument, the one i drew on, was that this is simply reinscribing inequitable social relations once again. that is, it takes all of us to change here and i expect that part of what's needed is that men are willing to do the work: read, listen, look at the world with different eyes, try hard to get it, etc and so on. i could forward a piece by gloria yamamoto [spillling?] but i'd have to type it out and well...i just don't want to do the work. at any rate, do you see the point at all? don't you tire of educating folks on this list about their classist assumptions? i do. i'm sick of repeating myself over and over. i'm tired of pointing out that, on this list, it is perfectly acceptable to speak of "working class whites with the euphemisms "the masses" or the "workers" or even "the people" --the euphemisms is always a cover for white working class and things are said about their level of intelligence, their capacity for revolutionary consciousness, etc and so on that would never get said were folks speaking about poor and working class people of color.
the position--please start doing the work yourself--is theoretical then: it's about knowledge, and coming to knowledge and thus it is connected to political practice in the sense that it's probably more productive to actively do the work rather than passively sitting there expecting women to do the work educating you. further, since women and people of color have historically served white men then it has another point as well: we're pissed off and we're not going to be hand servants any longer.
i realize that there are problems with this position. how are those of us who are privileged supposed to learn then? well the answer from gloria anzaldua and cherrie moraga, among others, is that part of your job is unpacking privilege. look at your own participation in structures and practices of oppression. stop asking how it feels to be black or be a woman. stop expecting them to educate you and open your eys, stop expecting them to pull up all the evidence and the arguemtns and start doing it yourself.
For me, I certainly don't need
>things "explained," in the larger sense, but if I don't understand
>someone's argument, it doesn't bother me to ask them to clarify it. I
>would love for both you and Katha to do that. I'm !
>kind of slow sometimes.
again, though, do you see why it was exasperating even to learn that you don't understand? had i typed about representations of relationships between races, no one on this list would have imagined it was about hypocrisy or moral failings. if katha had said, why is it that whites only ever date and marry other whites in films etc, it's just apalling, you could hardly have objected. now, as brett maintained, is is *really* reducible to class? really?
here's a simple exercise. pull up the singles ads. note how many [looking for ltr] from het men say that they desire responses from women that are younger than them. note how many of them explicitly state that they want attractive women and sometimes even refer to the type they are looking for by ref to "courtney cox" type. then look at het women. do you see as many that declare that they are looking for attractive men? how many specifically refer to an actor? when they do, is the reference to the character type of the actor or to the physical features?
i have my students do this. they find it a real eye opener.
>>[this is #precisely* what butler is talking about so those of you who
>>consider yourself marxists adn think katha and i are nutters, then put
>>yourself right into the conservative left crowd as far as i'm concerned]
>
>Well, if Butler is right then "we" will also find Katha Pollitt
>there. But this is Butler's most distastful trick: labelling people
>who quarrel with you, or even those who fail to comprehend you, with
>some deragatory term. And what more deragatory term on the left than
>"conservative." Apparently this makes her authentic.
that's too bad. i think that those who say things like, "it's really class in the end " have a limitaton in their analysis. it's not just class, it's not just about material [monetary] conditions, because class is gendered and raced. to say, as brett did, that it'll all go away once we fix capitalism is precisely a kind of conservatism that i have no patience for. it's indefeasible for one thing. precisely how will a socialist production system change 'culture'? similarly, eric, do you think that classist stereotypes and attitudes will go away? to me, when someone says that it's a way of putting the convo to an end. "look see, it's all quite simple. the problem is capitalism. fix that and no worries. so shut up"
i don't think i've not explained myself in the least. i've typded a shit load today and yesterday and, as far as i'm concerned, if you don't get the argument then i can't type any more in a way that will help. folks who don't get it will have to go out and read.
i apologize to brett for branding him with that one. however, aside fromt the "ugly" name the charge still applies. he's advocted an "it's all reducible to class" argument that is untenable in the very first place since gender oppression was around way before capitalism. there are arguments against my position. he's welcome to make them. but by argument. not assertion.
kelley