Beth
ps- sorry it took me a little bit to get to this --- the holidays are upon us
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:56:15 -0500
> From: kelley <oudies at flash.net>
> Subject: Re: ignore this, it's about women and sexism and worth reading
>
> >>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
>