Gender Confusion March 21, 2007

This weeks readings were interesting.  If I ended this post with that, everything would be hunky dory.  Instead I am going to put my foot in my mouth and chew until my toenails become purple.

First off, I was a little annoyed with the Ingham article.  The subject matter is fine.  The topic is important and changes are needed in female portrayal  across the board in mass media.  The author makes too many conclusions however that do not follow logically from the premises she presents.  She also sites numerous statistics without giving mention of their source or the way this information was gathered.  Statistics can say just about anything the person that made them up wants them to.

Getting to the subject behind the article, I think just as Ingham does that there is a serious problem in the way women are portrayed in the media.  These stereotypes demean us all, and do need to change to reflect equality between the sexes.  I do think however, that some feminist thinking goes a little overboard.  For instance, sometimes in promoting the idea that women should have equal opportunity in the workforce–an idea for which I am in enthousiastic support, women who choose to stay in the home are sometimes ignored or almost demeaned for this choice.

I like to contrast this article with the advertising reading by Jhally ,who sited studies that show greatest happiness is garnered through interpersonal relationships.  Wouldn’t this mean that mother’s would find greater happiness in the home developing strong relationships with her children rather than spending time working.  And not to be gender biased, wouldn’t the same thing go for men.  So instead of most of us spending most our time out selling, developing,or supporting products which bring no lasting happiness, wouldn’t it be better with respect to personal fulfillment to stop defining ourselves by our jobs and possessions and instead by deepness of our relationships.  I mention this as I musingly reflect on an ironic article I read from the 50’s that said by the year 2000, because of technological advancements, we would only need to work a 20 hr work week to enjoy the same comforts as they had then.  The goal then was to work less and enjoy family more.  The objective now seems to be get more people working longer.  Hmm?

Moving on . . .

I liked the Friends article.  Those episodes are very memorable, but I offer the conjecture that they were funny because the first several seasons of this series were spent establishing the unquestionable heterosexuality of the characters.  This then allowed the writers to explore quirks of the roommates’ relationship without any implications of homosexual attraction.  A funny contrast could then be made with those feelings that arise in a heterosexual relationship (ie. Jealousy, personal independance vs interdependance, ect.) 

I thought earlier Friends’ episodes were funny because theystood out in stark contrast from gender sterotypes usually shown on TV.  As a male, it was nice to see real feelings men have but generally hide because of learned acceptable male response–reinforced and propogated in the mass media.  It was also nice to see this from characters that were not confused about their sexual orientation.