| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 10:45 am: | 
|
Just finished Bakari Kitwana's book, The Hip Hop Generation: Young Blacks and the Crisis in African American Culture
For a review/article on the book click on
http://www.villagevoice.com/vls/177/chang.shtml
I thought it was pretty good, it showed that this generation is not the mindless mercenary group us Baby boomers think they are--the book, though, recognized the problems but seemed to me rather short on solutions to them.
In one respect, this is the fault of prior generations, which just thought that, say attending college would be a "good" thing without trying to formulate methods by which it would turn out to be so beyond the ability of those who did so to get better jobs. It was also not discussed, nor is it, how this benefits or can benefit those who are unable to avail themselves of a college education.
Perhaps that problem is due to the very successes of the Civil Rights or baby boomer generations--when the battles were against wide ranging foes some collective action was possible. When Black people were told to sit in the back of the bus that applied to all blacks, the doctor and lawyer and the janitor and maid. Now those legal barriers have been dropped, the battlefields have multiplied and fragmented.
For instance, here in St. Louis a group has attempted to mobilize widespread community support for an action against the Mass Transit system for failure to grant a fair proportion of construction contracts to black firms (in a city more than 50% black, only 4% of the contracts have gone to blacks).
They have not gotten much support. One could say that area blacks are apathetic, but realistically speaking, the group has not done any work toward showing blacks who are not in the construction industry how they will benefit from demonstrating, facing possible arrest, etc.
This goes further to a discussion of that animal called "The Black Community"--it seems to have been, in this era of integration, reduced to a construct black folk use or disgard for their own advantage--when MY ox is being gored, the black community should do something about it. When it is not being gored, or when someone states that something I am doing does not benifit this entity, I deny that it exists or that it exerts any control over me. |
sisgal
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 10:08 am: |
|
Chris, this is interesting. I recently attended a seminar where the topic of discussion centered around the Hip Hop generation, rap music. The panelists included, Kevin Powell, Rev. Conrad Tiller? (changed from Muhamad) Doug E Fresh, Mia X, and two other brothers, whose name I forget, but one was an attorney, and the other a Reverend as well, also and industry rep who clients include Missy Elliot and 50 cents. All and all this was a surprisingly passionate and inciteful discussion in which the audience was privy to. Who is responsible for the lack of respect with regards to black women in music, videos? Is it the industry, the artist, the patrons? and what are we to do about it? Or should we? Black music used to uplift, now it disses it women, celebrates violence and bling bling mentality, when in truth according to the industry lawyer and rep, these artists are broke and continue to be broke. I have to say I was most impressed with Kevin Powell. I remember him so well since his very early days, starting out on MTV's Real World, the angry black man with a conscious, well he has done well for himself and presented a more polished image, a super intelligent mind, not afraid to speak his mind, challenge the so-called leaders or get in the ditches. I see him as new leader for this generation, and on a side note (he is fine!!!). I happened to witness him after the show and I have to tell you it made me proud that the women on his arms, was blue black and beautiful, no hate for the lighter side, but it is a rare occasion to see a brother choose the darker hue, so i'm applauding. Bottom line, these brothers and sister engaged in a meaningful discussion about the future of this black generation and I felt like I witnessed history in the making, amongst all their opposing views and passionate beliefs they are willing to take a stance and support each other to save our black youth. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 11:59 am: |
|
sisgal,
I had heard about the seminar, but did not attend it. What were the final points and conclusions that resulted from the seminar? And what do you think will result from the gathering?
Also, sisgal, I too decry the misogyny that prevails in much of what we witness of the hip/hop culture. However, I ponder the following:
1) We often blanket the entire hip/hop culture with the female-hating labels when there are many people/factions within hip/hop that are quite respectful and supportive of women. But, it seems us ol' folk cherry-pick the negatives parts of what young people do to castigate and debase everything the youth are involved in.
2) Musical misogyny did not begin with hip/hop. R&B/Soul/Rock/Blues/Jazz all have included significant elements of woman bashing. So why does it seems we only take exception to such behavior as it applies to hip/hop?
3) Why do we hue/cry over males debasing females when if you listen to most of the hardcore/gangsta rap music, it's either about one black man doing harm to another black man or about the rapper himself dying violently? So why aren’t we expressing more concern about that? And if so many brothahs loathe themselves and each other, how can we expect them to value their sistahs? |
sisgal
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 05:29 pm: |
|
Oh, ABM, you mean you were there and I missed you...the infamous ABM!!! Okay, here goes...They decided to put together a list of 10 points on what needs to be addressed and how and not wait until next year to go over the same stuff again. Now as for your 3 points:
1.I agree we've got some positive images, positive messages being spoken, but the negative images and messages dominate the industry are the most damaging because the youth of today idolize their words, messages, images etc. I see it everyday! It's okay to bump your head to the beat, dress the part, hell I like some of the music myself, but it takes on a whole different thing when you think you can call me or any other women out of her name bc of the music. It's not a good thing to see young black women, degrading themselves in public by trying to out do each other on who will wear less, or shake their ass more. Hell, why go to the strip club, they are stripping in the streets. Women want to be hoes, men want to be pimps, and the rest of the women are b%$@!@'s. They have no respect for their elders, men or women, thats how I see it, daily.
2. See above, yeah but we didn't go around calling all how young women b's, on a daily basis either, just bc a few women get together don't make it freaknik.
3. Oh, this is most definitely included! The violent portrayal or praising of our black men killing each other is foremost my/our/their main concern, up there with women bashing. It needs to be addressed as well. How do we get them to value their sisters...sisters love brothers, got to keep loving them, but ain't too many good sisters gonna love a man who has no respect for them. So where do we go from here? I like that the young brothers are at least posing the question, attempting to reach out and make a change. One thing at the end of the seminar Doug E Fresh, who at first to me was making no sense at all, came thru and delivered a poignant message, he says it's already changing, check out spoken word, the positive messages being spent there, the rappers are now attending spoken word events and listening and changing.
I'm old school, but I like the music, I just don't like how it affects many of our youth, maybe those who don't see any other positive images, who don't have parents, or mentors help to steer their way, who are impressionable and sometimes hopeless, it's not doing them any good. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 09:16 pm: |
|
ABM and sisgal:
1. yes, abm. Sisgal, i don't think much has changed accept for the words chosen to degrade women and the style of colors. Men have always called women something other than what their mama named them. Similarly, women don't wanna be hoes, though they may dress with very little clothes and use the language. Most of the critiques against the "hip hop" generation are indeed generational, class, and conservative critiques. BTW, i'm not trying to characterize anyone of the posters.
2. yes...same as the above!
3. yes...I think we need to redefine how we define gender behavior. This can be done through raising and teaching ourselves and children "responsible" notions of manhood and womanhood.
For example: A few weeks ago, i suggested how ABM's and mentioned how Chris' language could often be interpreted as sexist. No one commented! Now, i do think ABM is consciously sexist, but not misogynist, same with Chris(maybe less than ABM, however- though i don't know either of these men, so I apologize in advance 4 using you 2 as an example-so bare with me and address my point not my probable mis-characterization). Of course, women affirm these behaviors by teaching it to their sons, define their womanhood by men doing these "manly" things to them, etc...so it is really a community problem not a male issue. The point is that gender beliefs are embedded in our actions, language, etc...and so if we are to really address these young men and women, we need to "raise" ourselves and address our language, actions. Though they may not be publicized in videos nor as extreme, we have to start with ourselves. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 11:26 am: |
|
You know, Yukio (My persistent, pet.). You are right: I am profoundly sexist. Helplessly so. But ok. Since you decided to call me out, I will allow you to more deeply plumb the depths of...ABM.
Admittedly, on a basic level, I see all females as delightful little playthings for me to enjoy feeling up, flirting, cajoling, teasing & playing with. Yep. I'm that boy who tried to slyly glide his hand under your yellow and white sun dress while we sat together on a bench in Sunday School on a bright summer's morning (Sometimes, you yelled "STOP-IT", sometimes you...didn't.). Still, ironically, I enjoy fond, (seemingly) healthy/gratifying relationships with women (Though, I could be delusional. Yes?).
My wife says ALL the time you are such a chauvinist that I am amazed that I have stayed with you for so long. I don't know. I guess it is because I am also quick-witted and modestly successful.
I am unabashedly chivalrous. I ALWAYS open doors for and offer my hand to women when they appear to be in need of assistance, whether I know them of not. I ALWAYS compliment how good women look, especially when they appear to be wearing a new outfit or have re-styled their hair and make-up. And someone once told me I have the rare ability to show appreciation for a woman with just the right blend of overt respect and implicit sexuality. (Mayhap his tongue bespeaks of gallantry whilst his eyes beckon her boudoir.)
I am almost utterly self-deprecating, generous and contrite. I am just as likely to make myself the butt of a joke as I am to laugh at another. I give to others until (& often it does) hurts. And I am quick to apologize, even when/if I am not completely at fault (& how yawl ladies love to hear/see a brothah beg.). So, I suppose those are why it is hard for women to stay mad at me.
And yes, (obviously) I am an arrogant know-it-all who is due several 100 intellectual tongue-lashings (the thought of which strangely turns me on sum'um kinda fierce). But, I am also probably the first guy most of women that I know would call if they were in a physical, emotional or financial scrape.
Oh, and don't forget: I am enormously funny! (Right? HEHEHE!!!)
PS: Yukio & sisgal, I am curious. Tell me. Seriously. "Do I make you horny, 'Baaybee'? Do I make you randy?" (Austin Powers) |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 11:52 am: |
|
Yukio:
You're totally off base. I ain't sexist and I ain't misogynist. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 04:28 pm: |
|
Ok. Now I know I should be cautious here. But here goes.
ABM: THE SEXIST
Would I hire or select a man over a woman for ANY educational, financial, business, social opportunity, strictly or primarily on the basis of gender? Certainly NO. Would I innocently flirt with and fantasize about possibly nailing an attractive female co-worker, business partner, coed? Likely YES. So, if the latter is what you mean by "sexist", I say: "Guilty as charged, Your Honor."
Yukio, you say that I am sexist. Of course I am. Few, it any, men are not. Men see, feel and live differently from women. Those differences are the product of physiology, sociology, culture, religion, mores, etc. and will likely be made manifest in ways that often confuse/offend females.
But, you know, ladies, the pendulum swing both ways. Because, just as I might say/do something that some women might find off-putting, I am much more likely to do for/by them in ways that I might hardly consider doing for a man. If I hold a door open for you, place your chair under you as we sit for dinner, stand when you enter/exit a formal gathering, pick up the check during a platonic lunch date, take/pick-up your yungin's from pom pom practice, shovel the snow from your driveway, carry your garbage to your curb, water/trim your lawn, etc. - all of which I regularly & happily do for several female friends/neighbors - am I being "sexist"?
I find that you women, Black/White, are quick to label men as "sexist", "misogynists", "chauvinists", etc...unless, of course, you are getting something outta us. Then, amazingly, you gals seem to adjust quite comfortably to the backward ways of us pre-Homo Sapiens blokes.
WHO YOU CALL A B@#$%
I don't in anyway condone, minimize or ignore physical, mental and verbal abuse of females. I think anyone who administers any kind of abuse - be it child, sexual, domestic, etc. - should be forcibly chained to a rampaging express train chocked with dynamite that is bound straight for hell.
But let me ask you: Do you know who and what your daughters are these days? Because, if you did, you might have more of a an understanding of why many of them are "...bein' called outta deah names." There are females out here so fierce that will scare brothahs into wondering who will be screwing whom.
And ladies, let's be fair her. There are A LOT of sistahs out here who are STRAIGHT clownin' when it comes to dealing with brothahs. There are myriad of sistahs who are the Dr. Frankenstein’s of the very thugged-out monsters that they now decry. Most of the thugs are posers who know there are many women who would broad jump a 20 decent guys for the company of 1 thug, real or even fake. Heck. The reason why the mildly talented rapper 50-cent is so popular right now is he's one of the FEW hip/hoppers who appears to have actually lived the kill-or-be-killed life that he so brashly exclaim in his music.
I am stunned by some of the things I witness new-minted teenage girls say/do. Honestly, these days, I am often more weary of the girls than I am the boys. The females are often loud, rude, grossly profane and even confrontational. I have unwillingly overhead high school juniors blare out everything from them cursing out their mommas, to the gang jumpin' that they painfully administered to some hapless fellow female student to "creapin" with some other young girl's boyfriend. I have even heard some young Black girls, 15 year old TOPS, casually admit to being involved in shockingly lurid and lustful lesbian secks acts.
And the girls from some of our more educated/affluent family are as bad if not worse than those who dwell in the 'hood. I recently helped chaperone a houseparty for my 15-year-old niece. I was astonished by how so much more sexually aggressive the girls were than the boys. There were so many feminine pheromones flying around in the that teeny bop affair that, had he been there, R Kelly would have soaked his pants.
My brother-in-law and I had to repeatedly pry some fast-tail girl from lustfully grinding her backside against some astonished boy's groin. I saw girls curse out boys who were too afraid to engage to "juke" dance with them. And, as soon as a fake wannabe crew of baby-thugs showed up at the party, the girls got so sexually-charged, we had to cut the shindig off for fear of unwittingly facilitating a local spree of teen pregnancies.
And most of the lassies who attended my niece party are the products and beneficiaries of college-educated parents, 6-figure household incomes and private school education's. In fact, the most lascivious of doz hot-yun-thangs was the amply breasted & bottomed 16 year old scion of a snotty & arrogant, PhDEED...Child Psychologist (YIKES!!!).
Now, none of the above licenses brothahs to call females b@#$%. But as you champion the virtue of our women, you might want to acquaint yourself with whether such still exist. Because honestly ladies, when you fairly look at what some of you all are freely engaging in, one might think that calling you a b@#$% is, relatively speaking, actually a somewhat benign adjective.
I am not saying sistahs should be slavishly support men who think/speak callously toward you. You are as much the light of GOD as is we. But I don't think we can address the issue of fractured male/female relations by separating and prioritize one ailment of the condition over another. Yes, brothers should act and speak more respectful of/toward females. But simultaneously, women should act like and respond MUCH more favorably to a man who would call her his "belle" than he would his "b@#$%". |
sisgal
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 06:39 pm: |
|
Okay, ABM
The pendulum swings both ways. A lot of young girls today act the part, like the part of playing hoe. Is it generational? No. Young and old alike have succumbed to this gotta-be-a-hoe to get a man mentality. Luckily, I've been blessed to raise a daughter who values herself enuf not to succumb to the hype, not everyone is so lucky. Anyway, as I said earlier a large part of this is a product of the videos, the bling-bling mentality, boys wanting to be big-ballers and girls wanting to be with them. It's a viscious cycle that needs to be addressed, in the homes, in the schools and in the industry. THe big time publishing companies, record moguls don't care about our children, or how these negative images affect our community, so they won't do anything about it, unless it affects their money. I ain't that old that I can't appreciate 50 cents, or any of the other rappers, or their videos, but I am old enough to know the difference between a fantasy image on screen, and reality. I tell all my girls, young and old, daughters and neices, you want to bling bling, you want a baller, do it yourself, don't buy into the hype and I show them great examples of people who achieved so much more by educating themselves, and going after their dreams, instead wasting their time dreaming about being some ballers girlfriend. Don't get me wrong I had my time, in my day that I may have wanted to hook up with the pro-ball player, who don't want to the hook up? But, I also was smart enough to know that I could do it all by myself.
I don't think you are particularly sexist, you are funny, and flirty and witty...but not necessarily offensive. I enjoy reading your exchanges with Snake girl, Cynique and Yukio, boy but what would your wife say.
No you don't make me randy...you make me laugh. Now isn't that much better.
|
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 11:31 pm: |
|
ABM and Chris H:
The post was less about you two and more about the point that our language can be interpreted as, and often is, sexist and even misogynist. In this sense, i'm agreeing with ABM, where he states that most men are "sexist" and much of black music have include "woman bashing." If this is true then sexism and misogyny are part of the black community and larger general population. Also, i attempted to state, and as i reread my post i see i didn't make it clear, that since gender roles are socially constructed(as ABM states by sociology, mores, religion, etc)not biological, then we can redefine these roles so that they are more responsible to the community. Consequently, we need to work on ourselves(since we are not innocent of such behavior though on a "lower" scale) as well as the young men and women in the videos and in the community that we have labeled as hoeism, violent, etc...
P.S.
Some women think chivalry is sexist, because they are that it is based on the assumption of gender inequality. So although some women like men to open doors for them, help them with their groceries, others take as a man assuming that the they actually need him to do these things. In other words, it does go both ways. The men's behavior reinforces what it means to be a man, but it also reinforces what it means not to be a man or a woman, so that woman can reinforce what it means to be a man when they tell their sons not to cry and be "man!"
Sisgal:
When i stated that it was generational, i meant it within the context of the other point i made, which was that women and men have always behaved "hoeish" and like "gangstas," so that although older women behave that way, it is and has always been mostly the younger women who do and mostly the older men and women who comment on these folks behavior.....Lady Day and Zora Neale Hurston are two that immediately come to mind, as well as Sula. The point I was trying to make was that in all time people have always chastised the young and not so young for not working within acceptable and "representable" gender roles, so that the present behaviors are not new in terms of their presence only different because their commodified and glamorized by videos and the money some of these rappers are making. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 01:23 am: |
|
Btw, sorry for the poor writing! |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 10:29 am: |
|
Chris,
Here are some the biggest reasons why minority businesses have such difficulty garnering fair portions of the government contracts:
1) Minority businesses often wait too long in the process to get in on what opportunities are coming down the pike. Most governmental entities are required to annually provide for availability to the public, details of their current, mid-term and strategic capital plans/budgets (e.g., via a planning & programming function). Some most post their plans for as long as 10 - 20 years even. I think if minority companies better acquainted themselves with the long-term objectives of the of the governments, and perhaps even, when possible, influence/steer - either directly or via action at the legislature/executive/judicial level - the pre-bidding decision making, they will improve their chances of getting government projects.
2) We both know that many criteria of the vetting/bidding/selection processes are often inherently biased against smaller (often minority) businesses. In some cases, the proscriptions are justified (e.g., Can a mom-n-pop $300K/year construction company adequately manage a $50M contract?) But often, the requirements are often of minimal, almost arbitrary, value and worth, and very well may exist completely to exclude small - maybe even minority - companies. Or sometimes projects that could be vetted individually are combined under the often fallacious auspices of effecting more efficient management/administration/financing. I think local minority companies should assemble and establish - with the assistance of engineers, CPA & attorneys - methods of seriously reviewing & questioning for and eliminating some of the unfair selection methods and vie to establish fairer, more open contracting policies/procedures.
3) Minority businesses seldom formulate solid/organized joint ventures, strategic partnership, etc. that white companies often do when they are individually deficient in providing some of the resources/skills necessary to fulfil contracts. Therefore, they limit their potential profits solely to what they can only do themselves. This is especially limiting now when you consider how the complexity of everything is growing at often such (geometric) levels, which further diminishes the chances that 1 company can provide everything that's required. That's why you will often see companies as lucrative/powerful as a Microsoft and an Apple, long-time and often bitter rivals, forming cozy joint ventures. Simply, if we are going to play in the big leagues with whiteboys, sometimes we going to have effectively get bigger ourselves.
Protesting will help some (and those sincere and legitimate efforts should be financially-backed via minority businesses), especially where there are glaringly overt biases. But for the majority of people, Black/White who are fairly secure in where/how they stand with their job/finances, the issue of construction contracts will not personally resonate (Although I profoundly feel that it should.). Because, to use the example you that you cite, folks don't really care much about who fixes your Mass Transit system, so long as when they are using it will efficiently and safely get them to where they are trying to go to in and around St. Louis. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Yukio,
I hope that your don't misconscrue what follows to be a personal attack of you, because is not in ANY WAY intended to serve as such. It is all just my opinion.
You are obviously a very well-educated person. I almost always find what you say to be persuasively informative. But it would be nice if you would on occasion, without equivocation, directly state where you personally stand on an issue. Because I think the problem you appear to often endure here is that you come off as being an aloof academic who is more interested in coolly assessing and reciting the rote results of studied behavior and phenomena than you are in empathetically sharing how what you have learned and experiences influences who & what you are.
But, to be fair: I ask if other posters disagree with or resent my comments about Yukio, please share your views. If you, however, agree with me, I would appreciate your abstaining from posting as I fear such might infortunately denigrate into anti-Yukio commentary. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 01:05 pm: |
|
I've always regarded Yukio as the cool voice of reason, the one who puts things in perspective. Her practice of employing the hypothetical to make her point is what serves to inject objectivity into a debate. Fine with me. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 01:40 pm: |
|
ABM:
I don't take your comments as a personal attack, but a personal criticism(criticism as in critique not as is often connoted as a moral or ethical issue), which is fair.
You stated:
"But it would be nice if you would on occasion, without equivocation, directly state where you personally stand on an issue."
I often, if not always when required, state where i stand on issues. In this particular thread, i stated in point #3 what my personal opinion was and then i started off the next section with an example, albeit poorly written, contrived and underdeveloped. Neither you or Chris,nor anyone for that matter, addressed my points as stated tersely in #3. Indeed, i reiterated the point in the second to last sentence of the SAME post:
"The point is that gender beliefs are embedded in our actions, language, etc...and so if we are to really address these young men and women, we need to "raise" ourselves and address our language, actions."
You further state:
"Because I think the problem you appear to often endure here is that you come off as being an aloof academic who is more interested in coolly assessing and reciting the rote results of studied behavior and phenomena than you are in empathetically sharing how what you have learned and experiences influences who & what you are."
I think there is something missing in your comments. I'm not clear about what the problem is that I endure. It seems that if there is a problem, then it is yours: since you are suggesting that I identify a position. In addition, i'm not interested in talking about myself and how what i have learned has influenced my life(though i have done so as it pertains to my cultural politics), only in using what i have learned to inform when necessary, exchange and share my opinions and perspectives on literature and the bevy of issues that have been discussed in the forum(which includes, of course, where I "personally stand on an issue"), and, as illustrated in my initial post in this thread, this is done through making a point(s) or position(s) and if possible and necessary providing an example.
Finally, I have no problem with clarifying my point, because i don't edit sometimes, but "it would be nice" if people read all of what i have written and consider what has been written when they post comments directed towards me. In this consideration, please consider ABM that before your and Chris' response i stated my point and even lamented that it was probable that i mischaracterized you and Chris, emphatically apologizing, ensuring, hoping, and emphasizing that my points were considered not the probably mischaracterizations, "though i don't know either of these men, so I apologize in advance 4 using you 2 as an example-so bare with me and address my point not my probable mis-characterization," still you commented on 2 occasions about the possibility and/or presence of sexism within YOU (as well as the fact that you are chivalrous...lol!).
P.S.
It is still interesting how no one has yet to address my points on gender politics. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 02:22 pm: |
|
Here is an example of how language can be interpreted as sexist:
"Yukio, Serene may have been cheated, but that doesn't excuse the behavior. And yes, getting cheated happens in sports. It's an unfortunate part of the game, but it is part of the game nonetheless. Ask Chris Hayden about Game 6 of the 1985 World Series. If he can't tell you--well, let's just say I'd be real disappointed..."
Now, the comments, "And yes, getting cheated happens in sports." could be interpreted as suggesting that females don't understand that cheating is part of sports, as well as, and more likely, that cheating is simply part of sports. And of course, the suggestion of asking Chris H., is also dubious, since it could be interpreted as needing to ask a man about sports since a woman wouldn't, as well as asking a person(again more likely) which the poster knows has specific knowledge about Game 6 of the 1985 World Series(BTW, i think the poster's intent was the latter on both points. Again, this I'm trying to illustrate an example to address what stated in #3 of my initial post).
Now, the point is not about intent, but about how certain gender assumptions are embedded in language, and how their presence needs to be eradicated in order for us to redefine gender roles. Other examples are when parents domesticate their daughters and not their sons or when women and men define manliness by the presence and obsence of sensitivity, decisiveness, etc...the question is, Do these things really telling us if a person of the male or female sex are really "men" and "women?" If a woman knows more about a particular sport than a man, is he less manly? Why do some male posters address what men say and engage their ideas, while these same men often affectionely tell women that they are smart strong intelligent black women and then they MAY address what these women have addressed? If one's gender has nothing to do with a post, Why does the person's gender enter the dialogue?
Anyway, these "practices" lead us to reinforce limiting gender roles that are often exaggerated in videos and within the community. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 03:28 pm: |
|
Yukio;
Balderdash and Poppycock! |
ABM
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 03:43 pm: |
|
sisgal, Yukio & "whoever";
I agree the ways/means/reasons for the marketing of the hoochie-coochied visage of the Black woman are troubling. Certain popular elements of hip/hop reinforce and embellish negative imagery of the sistahs. And many young women foolishly fall for and are ultimately damaged by the misogynistic profiteering of greedy hip/hop artists, record labels/distributors and TV/Radio and assorted other media.
But, let's be fair/honest. We know that how/what a girl wear does not always have direct correlation to her intending emulate some hoe-looking chick in a video flick. Nor are females always intending to incite the libidinous urges of randy young (& old) men. Often (maybe most) times, yawl just want to do much more innocent things like look cute for yourselves and your friends. Or maybe you want to make female rivals begrudged how such much better you look in your "daisy dukes" than they do in theirs. Also, if a girl is incredibly well-proportioned, almost anything she wears, short of standard issue nun gear, may make her look like she is beckoning the boys.
So, I think we should be careful not to falsely/unfairly attribute how/what young women wear to signify that they are willing/available for getting into trouble. We should be careful to avoid labeling instances of a girl bearing her midriff to mean trying to score a date thug. Because that will only unfairly cast aspersions on her, but also confuse/incite/encourage more wannabe "Tupacs". No matter how risqué females may dress, you are not necessary intentionally traipsing about town with a "Do me 'til ya satisfied!" sign on your back.
And we should be careful not to unfairly reproach ourselves as parents/guardians. You know, sometimes, having to watch/regulate what/how your daughter dresses is a insidiously tricky thing, because we often continue to view our children as these perpetually innocent, childlike, non-sexual being...even when their T&A maybe poppin' out everywhere.
Recently my 13 year old wore what to me appeared to a fairly innocent faux baseball uniform, with moderately fitting, short-sleeved top and a - whaddayah call it - combo skirt/short bottom. At first, the outfit appeared to be innocent enuff. The top was not too clingy. And the skirt bottom, though "short", had shorts beneath the skirt, so I didn't think much of it. It was only when I saw my friend's teenaged sons sweaty-hot-n-heavy initial reactions to seeing my lil' girl that I said, "Hey, Baby. Uh...daddy thinks you need to change into something else."
And, like you, sisgal, I too tell my girls that whatever material possessions that they want in this world that I and my wife are unable/unwilling to provide, they better be prepared to git'em demselves. Otherwise, they will either be waiting in vain, or to get them, they might end up rudely laid, callously played then irreparably dismayed.
But finally, I think the greatest positive change among our people, old/young, will occur when bling bling, being a ballah, flexin' and the other requirements and results of this neo-ghetto ethic, whether acquired via a mate or via even one's on efforts becomes less important. I think things will only truly change when we can successfully reinforce, even "popularize", truly positive traits among our and out children. For instance, if we truly want our children to be smart/educated - and not just via the perfunctory Sheepskin route - we have got to attribute an esteem to being smart, intelligent, informed and wise that transcends the mere tangible/financial/material fruits of such. For it is only then; free of the deceptive, transient, vapid, and often ruinous delights of exciting lights/things/sounds; will we be able to develop the requisite enduring human capital as individuals & a collective that will effect the best interest of all of us, as both a person and a people.
PS: I believe and have often said to women, young/old, that if the sistahs TRULY wanted smart/educated Black men, and started very early in their lives to genuinely & assertively make their friendship, dating, sexual, coupling & marital decisions accordingly, the prison scrolls would precipitously drop and SAT scores of young Black men all of the country would ascend 25 - 50% inside of 5 years. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 04:16 pm: |
|
ABM and Others:
"But finally, I think the greatest positive change among our people, old/young, will occur when bling bling, being a ballah, flexin' and the other requirements and results of this neo-ghetto ethic, whether acquired via a mate or via even one's on efforts becomes less important. I think things will only truly change when we can successfully reinforce, even "popularize", truly positive traits among our and out children. For instance, if we truly want our children to be smart/educated - and not just via the perfunctory Sheepskin route - we have got to attribute an esteem to being smart, intelligent, informed and wise that transcends the mere tangible/financial/material fruits of such. For it is only then; free of the deceptive, transient, vapid, and often ruinous delights of exciting lights/things/sounds; will we be able to develop the requisite enduring human capital as individuals & a collective that will effect the best interest of all of us, as both a person and a people."
I especially agree with these last comments, but i also want to emphasize, as i've done in the initial post as well as in the last, that WE need to police OURSELVES not just on how we raise our children but inorder that WE become better humans beings!
My posts have fundamentally been about adults first and how we see gender politics. The fact that Chris says "Balderdash and Poppycock!" to me is evidence of his reluctance to consider the validity (not right or wrong or an abstract truth)of my points and his reluctance to acknowledge that i apologized and stated that i wanted readers to focus on my points BEFORE his reply. This is all readily available for all 2 see!
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 04:55 pm: |
|
Okay, Yukio,
Here's the thing: I like you and I value what you say. But it is sometimes difficult to fully grasp the points you are trying to make and the issues you are trying to raise when you often cloud/surround your detached commentary in a myriad caveats and qualifications. So, I guess I thought that if at least if I knew something about you - and I'm certainly not talking your the name, Social Security number and breast size hear - I thought that I could perhaps use it as a reference point to contextualize your views some so as to possibly better grasp and appreciate the overall gist of what you are asserting. Any linguist or communications specialist would support that. But now, if you choose not to share anything about yourself, that's cool. There no offense or affront intended on my part. That's you/your's biznaz.
But I think it interesting that many of the points that you mostly earnestly assert are often either misunderstood or ignored (& don't believe me, look over many of YOUR OWN posts). I think that's a clear sign that it's often difficult to fully appreciate what you are saying and why. And, frankly, I find to be ironic that someone who is as apparently learned as you has been misunderstood/ignored. Admittedly, I genuinely WANT to fully grasp what you are saying and I was trying to effect a mechanism, with your assistance for effecting such. Otherwise, I'd simply ignore you, efficiently making mute/unnecessary this entire thread.
I don't mind you (or any 1 for that matter) calling me a sexist, misogynist, chauvinist, et al. Maybe I am strangely unique. But that doesn't bother me. Because the truth of the matter is I am very likely in many ways all of those things, for the reason that I have previously asserted. I am not necessarily proud, not even very much ashamed, of that. To quote that great American Literary philosopher Popeye the Sailor: "I yam what I yam what I yam, and dats all dat I yam!"
But guess what, Baby: It's entirely probable that you in your own ways are as equally "sexist" as I am in mine. Maybe YOU immediately, even unconsciously read/see masculine malice in people/places/things where there is neither bias in either substance or style. Do you turn down every convenience that you likely enjoy daily generated via your gender? And if you don't, does that make YOU a sexist, a willing cog in the machinery of feminine oppression?
Now, what a think are your points of "gender politics", I ask you this: What is your point?? Is your point that what we say to/about each other as men/women negatively impact how our relationships develop and ensue? If that is true, I say ask first that you be specific about what particular things are being erroneously said/done. And what do YOU suggest that we do about the problem that you observe. Because it's hard for me to begin to address the issue you cite when I am not even sure what the problem is.
I guess what I am saying is: Give me something to work with here. Are you saying any/all gender-inspired gratuity/convenience men/women bestow upon each other are inherently and punitively "sexist"? And thusly, should we, aspire to all be androgynous, or asexual beings, without any consideration at all for our differences and how they might facilitate more effective/efficient relations? Or should be all be bisexual, freely exchanging love/sex across gender. That way, we may grow to see each other fully as equals that can be share/bare/bed with ambidextrous convenience. Because I proffer that as long as women provides something for men - sex & child-birth - that can't the or won't receive from other men, men will likely continue to see/treat women differently, irrespective of how enlightened we my choose to presume to be.
Lastly, you know what, Yukio, as I think about this, I agree with you that this is likely more my error than it is yours. I mean, who am I to dream to fully fathom the prose of another residing only the other end of a vastly growing cyber ether. I can barely keep clear what I am feeling, thinking and writing for myself. Hell, who knows. Maybe my problem with what you write simply means maybe I need to borrow my 8-yr-old's Hooked-on-Phonics tape...again.  |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 06:35 pm: |
|
"What we have here is a failure to communicate," and ideas are drowning in a sea verbiage. Me, I think men and women are different and Viva La Difference! I supposed I would be considered a traitor because I think brawn prevails, and if a woman can't pull her weight, she doesn't belong in physically-challenging situations. I don't think women belong on the field of battle, or on construction crews or in a boxing ring. I also don't think they belong in break rooms at police and fire stations nursing their babies. Yes, women are the intellectual equal of males but their brains are wired differently and their physicality lends itself to that which is less strenuous, all which defines their roles in the scheme of things. I agree, that young girls of all races and from all walks of life are on a collision course with diaster because they are bedazzled by materialism and emamoured with the bad boys, and are determined to make themselves attractive to these thugs. Most of them learn their lessons the hard way, but if they can survive their 20s, they usually get on the right track. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 08:41 pm: |
|
ABM:
1.I haven't been ignored, only twice have my points not gone unaddressed. In both cases they were related to gender politics. Misunderstanding, on the other hand, is natural. It is the nature of this form of exchange.
2. Again, the post was not about you! I tried to use you as an example since many of the posters have an idea about your behavior from your posts. I also said that it was probable that i mischaracterized you! I've said this many times!
3. You ask:
"Now, what a think are your points of "gender politics", I ask you this: What is your point?? Is your point that what we say to/about each other as men/women negatively impact how our relationships develop and ensue?"
I wrote days ago to your number 3: "3. yes...I think we need to redefine how we define gender behavior. This can be done through raising and teaching ourselves and children "responsible" notions of manhood and womanhood."
You further ask:
"If that is true, I say ask first that you be specific about what particular things are being erroneously said/done. And what do YOU suggest that we do about the problem that you observe. Because it's hard for me to begin to address the issue you cite when I am not even sure what the problem is."
Heres something about me! I believe in self-evaluation. It enables me to confront the positives and negatives about myself, which i may not be able to appreciate. If this occurs, i'm, whether it's negative or positve, fooling myself. Now, i believe that through self-evaluation you can address these issues, sexist, misogyny, racism, self-hatred, etc...and through understanding yourself you can be better able to confront your own issues and help others confront theirs. In other words, only you can really identify THE particulars that pertain to you, ya family, friends, and your immediate community. And together with these people you can redefine gender roles, ideas about "race," blackness, etc...
ABM and Cynique:
1.As i said above tues, 11:31, gender is socially constructed. In other words, gender roles are human made from society, history(the past), religion etc...If this is true then we can unmake these roles and redefine them.
2. Sex on the other hand is biological. This is where the issue of strength, war, childbearing, etc.. are revelevant. I'm not talking about this, however. Cynique, you are correct women's inferior strength does share gender roles, BUT much of it is not!
3. Returning to my first point, ie gender as social construct. WOmen and men are reared and trained into their socalled "male" and "female," roles, so it is not just an issue of strength or intelligence. BOys are taught how to be boys and girls are taught how to be girls! So, not is is not about sexual preference, etc.., but it is about differentiating sex from gender, and not limiting people to problematic gender roles. Again, this is up to the person to decide. Simple things liking boys aren't suppose to cry or when being extensions of their father, husbands, boyfriends, etc....not individuals with their own integrity and identity....just such and suches daughter, or such and suches girl friend.....these things have nothing to do with strength! |
yukio
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 09:34 am: |
|
Sorry:
The last section should say:
Simple things liking boys aren't suppose to cry or women being extensions of their father, husbands, boyfriends, etc....not individuals with their own integrity and identity....just such and suches daughter, or such and suches girl friend.....these things have nothing to do with strength!
ABM:
I think this is a "failure to communicate." And, i do think BOTH of us are responsible.
ABM you stated:
"But it is sometimes difficult to fully grasp the points you are trying to make and the issues you are trying to raise when you often cloud/surround your detached commentary in a myriad caveats and qualifications."
1.Why do U require one need to insert themselves into a discussion? (this pertains to me being "detached") I'm attached to most of the things i say; i try not to use the "first person." Still, i'm telling you what I think about issues using my reason, passion, culture, etc..to espouse my perspective. I'm not "coolly assessing and reciting the rote results of studied behavior and phenomena."
2.Perhaps the caveats do "cloud" my points. The purpose of the qualifications are for precision. It is IMPOSSIBLE to FULLY GRASP knowledge! Whether it is something you read, something someone says, or something you watch. Knowledge is always mediated. Consequently, I don't assume that I or anyone can really be interpreted as precise as the communicator conceptulizes the idea in their heads, so i try to qualify information sometimes in order to make the message/comment/information more comprehensible(obviously it doesn't always work), especially since the receiver of the information uses their culture(s),race, class, sex, sexual preference, age, education,religion, etc...to evaluate the information. As the receiver, i will ask questions and i also expect the communicator to correct my interpretation with suggests and clarifications.
Example of point #2:
I'm not sure why you discussed chivalry, but i assumed that you mentioned it to illustrate that you are not sexist. So, i mentioned that not all women believe in chilvalry and some even think it's sexist. The point being that many of the things we say and do do not operate in a neutral zone where we all attach the same meaning to our own or other's action/words/comments. It is contested terrain, since the meaning is not always self-evident. If this is so, you could tell a person you are chivalrous til ya blue in the face and they're like, "And you think thats a good thing!?"
If what we say and do is a "sign," then the question is what does the sign or symbol signify? If we are able to attach multiple and even valid meanings to the same sign or symbol then language is slippery....each reader can have the sign to refer to whatever....so hence the qualifications or the communicator clarifying or the receiver asking questions, etc....constant process of dialogue...
good day! |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:09 pm: |
|
COOLY CLOUDED COMMENTARY
I thought I had admitted before that you are right here, that I should not require you to personally interject yourself into the discussion. For that, I freely admit to being in error. But again, I had trouble fully discerning what you were trying to say. And sometimes knowing a lil' bit about where your are personally comes from helps me to follow where they may be headed. But that's my thing, not necessarily anyone else. And as I think about it, maybe the "coolly assessing..." quip was more just our having a difference in style.
So, on those points, "I give!" Okay?
TASTY EQUIVOCATING CAVEATS
Ok, Yukio, here is where we differ. Because I think, short of GOD, Birth, Death & maybe Taxes; everything else is at best of suspect certainty, validity and authenticity. So, though as bright as I think that I am, I am also much too humble to presume that I am COMPLETELY certain of much of ANYTHING.
If I definitively exclaim something only to be later roundly disproved, I can live with that. There's no shame is being wrong. For it is within the dark that we can come to most clearly see the light. I would rather assert my opinion and someone proudly tear it down (and even laugh at me while they are doing) than meekly stew in uncertainty because I care more about appearing wrong than I do about actually being right.
Now, I know there are often qualifications/limitation to mostly any position. And I, like everyone, include a fair share of them. But, there are also likelihood’s, probabilities, relative certainty, that can be freely asserted, especially when conducting discourse among discerning parties. Also, if you over-qualify and equivocate, you unnecessarily obscure and diminish the impact and authority of your (usually learned) viewpoint.
Look. Obviously, I don't really know you. But I can glean enuff from what you do here that if you are vigorously asserting a point you very likely have read/studied it to some discernable degree (Yes?), certainly as much as (if not more so than) most of us who hang out here. So why not "Go for what you know, 'Flo'!" And if some smartass (like "yours truly") traipse into the picture with a contrary view, "tune me up"...if you can. I don't mind!
HARKEN I TO CHIVALRY!!!
First, I mentioned my choosing to observing certain etiquette conventions with women not to necessarily disclaim myself of being "sexist" (which, you should recall, I freely admitted to being), but to suggest that issues involving the recognition of gender differences may for women reside delicately on a doubled-edge sword, and that the prospects of ridding our society of all gender-based social practices might carry some costs that many women might prefer not to suffer. And I mentioned that because I enjoy appearing "traditionally" polite and gallant to women. I enjoy the glint in a woman's eye, and the gleam of her smile and the warmly appreciate "Oh, Thank You so much!" when I hold open a door, carry for her a bulky package, change her flatten tire or push her car free from snow. Now, I'm sure that some (perhaps you) will construe that to be my subtly exerting some unyieldingly masculine, female-inhibiting power. To that I can only say: Oh well. Forgive a humble gentleman for wanting to assist a lady.
Second, if I offer a woman a gratuity that she finds belittling or degrading, all she need say is "No Thank You." , and I will politely say "Ok" and casually walk away (which SELDOM happens). No big whoop. Still, I guess I would buy that there are an appreciable number of women who reject the notion of chivalry...if there weren't so many of you smiling at and thanking me for my courtesy.
????
Yukio: "If what we say and do is a "sign," then the question is what does the sign or symbol signify? If we are able to attach multiple and even valid meanings to the same sign or symbol then language is slippery....each reader can have the sign to refer to whatever....so hence the qualifications or the communicator clarifying or the receiver asking questions, etc....constant process of dialogue..."
Okay, Yukio. Here is an example of what I have talking been about. I have NO IDEA what you mean by this as it relates to what you posted above it. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:54 pm: |
|
This is not necessarily in response to what you and yukio are discussing ABM, but it is something to consider. If we make the distinctiom that sex refers to male and female, and gender refers to masculine and feminine, then we can see that masculine and feminine are nothing more than labels. (This is one of the points, Yukio alluded to.) So, to wear a dress has been established as as feminine behavior. But if way back when it was the custom for men to wear dresses and this syle persisted down through the ages, then wearing a dress would be thought of as being masculine. A dress is an inanimate object which has been arbitrarily assigned to the feminine category. Likewise, crying has been labled as a feminine trait and toughness as a masculine one. No allowance seems to have been made for personality. Sexism is a different matter, but it is really nothing more than an attitude that is condescending. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 02:45 pm: |
|
Cynique, what you suggest is at least in large part true. Much of what we see/think/do - good, bad & indifferent - is passed on to us from prior generations via (often archaic) customs. And, certainly, many of those practices may have lost their relevance as the times/requirements for surviving and prospering have changed. Therefore, I agree we should review/discuss such customs, cull from them the wheat and toss the shaft.
But we all know there still are REAL profound differences between women and men. And those differences are going to manifest themselves SOMEHOW in ways that will likely cause a woman's behavior/thoughts to in many areas materially differ from those of men. This doesn't mean that via one's genitalia, someone is better or worse, greater than or less than or more or less important. Just different.
For instance, being a man, I will never know what it feels like to carry and birth a child So, it would be untoward of me to suggest that a woman who complains of problems/complications results from childbirth are minor or do not exist (What the hell do I know?). Nor would I. Rather, I would likely (rightly or wrongly) extend to a woman who is with a child consideration I would never even dream of doing to a man because men will never be prenatally-inclined. Would I be "sexist"? And if there are a myriad of social constructs created to facilitate/enable expectant mothers, pregnancy & childbirth, are they inherently "sexist"?
Or are they simply the natural consequence of a society seeking to provide ease, comfort and safety to a person who is for the better part of a year is made to carry another person on her bladder?
I understand and appreciate your and Yukio's concerns about how gender-related mores help to enforce certain biases perpetrated against females. They are very valid and justified. For example, my wife is self-employed. She's a very smart, creative, strong-willed and accomplished person. But whenever she's going to do some especially lucrative business negotiations, she includes me in them primarily because she and I know that many men (& women) myopically want/need a man to provide a seal-of-approval on a deal.
But would her prospects for wooing the full respect of a potential business associate improve if I have she, instead of me, took out the garbage every Wednesday and trims the lawn on weekends?
I am not in anyway advocating women being continually relegated to subordinate societal status. But must we change EVERYTHING that has some tinge of gender bias/preference in order for us to advance some utopian fantasy of freedom for all men and women? And, might we go so far to balance the terms of gender that we regrettably lose some of what we genuinely enjoy and appreciate about being what we are to each other and ourselves?
PS: On a related note: Are the assorted gratuities conferred to older people [e.g., preferential parking, cheaper theater tickets, etc.] actually belittling & disabling tools/forms of ageism? |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 03:54 pm: |
|
Thank You Cynique...as usual, your brevity is more effective than my verbosity...lol!
Now ABM:
In your response to Cynique, you interject issues with sex with those of gender. Again, i was talking about gender. Pregnancy is sex not gender, though it does shape gender roles.
Few things are natural...society, history, culture, etc...makes things as they are...things don't have to be as they are....
It is not about changing everything, but acknowledging the presence of gender bias, and if it is a problem, then redefine and/or reevaluate how you think or behavior...thats all! It is about what you do for yourself.
It's not about some utopian fantasy, it is about being a better person, and limiting people to certain gender roles prohibits you and them from appreciating and living a fuller human experience. Consider that most of the hoopla we see in videos are male rappers espousing what they think it means to be a man!
ABM:
Chivalry was an example of my point, not the subject(like you and chris were examples not the subject of my point(s)). I could have chosen another example, but you used chivalry, so did i since it was readily avalable.
The point was to identify a problem pertaining to gender and then redefining a gender role that you feel is problematic. So if you met a women who didn't appreciate you being a "good" man by being chivalrous, then you could either do as you mentioned, " I will politely say "Ok" and casually walk away ," or like other men, "what kind of woman are you? I was only being a "gentleman"!"
The point is not whether it happens to you or whether women prefer chivalrous men! The point is that there are different ways of understanding gender roles? In the example, you politely say "ok." i'm not sure what that means. While the other guy, questioned the woman's gender(womanness) since she didn't accept his behavior. Was she loud?...not the point...the point is that this hypothetical man had a very rigid understanding of womanhood and manhood!
Now, as it pertains to my last point on "signs." Well, let me explain:
Our actions and speech are signs/symbols that can be read/interpreted. So, for example if you open the door(sign) for a woman, how will she read it? In other words, How will she interpret/read your sign(opening the door)?
She can happily accept; reluctantly accept; choose another door, etc...how do you read her sign(choosing another door for example)?
1.If there are multiple ways to read the same sign, then we need to appreciate that possibility.
2. We should attempt to think about the subtext of the sign, ie if your wife enters a lucrative negotiation by herself(the sign being showing up without you) and the men treat her with respect and the deal is sealed without any problems. The subtext is that her gender was insignificant or less significant. Yet, if we have a young mother tell her girlfriends that her babyboy is going to be a "player." The "sign" being, "my son is gonna be a playa!" Then it is possible to read/interpret this "sign" as a woman who may actually be complicit in her son exploiting women. This is only hypothetical and my reading one possibility.....Again..what we do and say are signs...to be read....when ya wife walks into the bedroom silently, looking over, beside you, but never at you....what does the sign say? And what is the subtext? |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 04:58 pm: |
|
Eureka, Yukio! I think we are getting 'there'...
Still, I think to finally wrap this baby up, we need to agree upon what does 'gender' mean. Because I guess when we can agree there, we can probably in part resolve where/why we differ. My Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'gender' as "sex"; and or a "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex". So please explain to me how my essays have strayed from those definitions. If you have some have something else, let me know.
I agree we should acknowledge that biases do exist (which I think I had done) and do what we can to minimize and eliminate that which does harm. I am GLAD that you said that there are people who interpret gender roles/responsibilities differently. You are right, we do. And I admit that there are likely many things that I say/do that some women (yourself included) might consider grossly sexist. But for me, they might the only or most effective way that I know of how to handle things. So, for me it can get dicey balancing niceties/courtesies with trying to get the job done.
Okay, I'm digging your "signs" talk. It's about supporting tells, signals and context or subtext. You're right. I never forcibly assist anyone, man or woman. But I agree that some men resent having their gratuity denied, even when ladies do so politely. Touché, Yukio.
Oh, To address your coda, "...when ya wife walks into the bedroom silently, looking over, beside you, but never at you....what does the sign say? And what is the subtext?" I say: It depends on whether or not she's nude. If she's dressed, I'm probably about to get mine handed to me. If she's not, I'm probably about to get mine handed to her. HAHAHA!!! |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 05:32 pm: |
|
ABM:
This is a loose definition: Gender is socio-historical constructs that define sex differences. So the behavioral, cultural, and psychological "traits" (traits is a terrible word since it makes it seems like these characterisitcs are biological, ie part of our gene make-up....though i've once heard that over thousands of years characteristics may actually become part of a lifeforces gene make-up) that are typically associated with sex ARE NOT within our gene make -up, BUT are made by humans through society and history. Consequently, gender roles can change, unlike out genetic make-up, so that men can be "sensitive" and women can be "assertive," at least thats the rumor..lol!
The "sign/symbol" is about reading the subtext of speech/actions....they are signs because they can you tell u something, like stop, yield, slow down, etc....but the issue here, is that they can be interpreted differently. So that if ya wife is nude and you are about to get yours handed to her, and then she doesn't respond positively....it is possible that though u know and love her and can often read her...this time you couldn't read the sign correctly! Is it that you can't read, "ABM, you don't know how to read me yet!" and you say, "Baby, you didn't the same thing last month, and i responded the same way and there wasn't a problem then!"...."if u loved me you could read me!".....familar to anyone? Maybe? Maybe NOt? Signs(actions/speech) difficult to read...good luck and good evening!
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 03:32 pm: |
|
Yukio,
So then are you saying that ALL gender criteria are fabricated? You do not believed that men and women are naturally predisposed to certain behavior characteristics as is so commonly reputed?
For instance, you don't believe any of the following:
A) Men are more prone than are women to violent, even murderous confrontation.
B) Women are inherently more talkative than men.
C) Women are more emotionally attached to their children than are men.
D) Men are more sexually aggressive and motivated than are women.
You believe that these and the myriad other gender-based manifestations are ENTIRELY the result of men/women over countless generations consciously DECIDING that we should and must behave thusly?
Are there ANY uniquely social male/female behaviors that transcend the artifice of gender? If there are, please cite an example. And if such does exist, what can or should we do about such differences?
HAHAHA!!! Your astute projections of the emotional complexities and pitfalls that the (perpetually) horny husband might confront are both humorous...and often painfully true. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 09:01 pm: |
|
Sorry ABM:
Just returned from a wedding!
Anyways,
NO, i'm not saying that they are ALL fabricated. We have a general dilemma with these statements/questions. If we did a sociological study, all of your assertions would be affirm this premises, since these assertions accurately describe the general gender and sex relations. HOWEVER, since humans MAKE history, the question becomes, If we had a different history, would these premises remain valid? The problems is that we just don't know. If you look at history from behind(incorrectly), events seems to work harmoniously. However, for those participating in history, it was never so clear that things would turn out as they have. Clearly, once men gained control, and women assimilated to the power relations, men and women perpetuated these particulars gender roles until women were able to gain power to change contemporary gender relations. Also, i'm sure if that there are studies available that discuss how women have never completely accepted these gender roles and that gender relations were always contested.
The general point is that gender roles are partially the result of sex differences(biological and genetic) as well as the result of a particular history, where men were/are the power brokers. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 02:28 pm: |
|
Yukio and ABM:
I don't see how you get around the matter of individual desire, i.e., treating a person like they want to be treated. This is a problem the feminist movement has run into (to such an extent that some commentators are calling this era Post-Feminist)--there are women who want men to treat them in a traditional manner, to open doors for them, etc, that many "liberated" women of my era found insulting--some times, anyway. (This also runs into your situational problem--if a woman has both arms full of groceries is it sexist for me to hold the door for her? Does it demean my manhood if she holds the door for me?
It will be difficult to develope a code or manner of dealing with people when situations arise where people reject it for psychological or personal reasons---on another thread I refer to people liking to play their little games. The late Katherine Hepburn was often portrayed as the very image of the fiery, independent, liberated woman--a laugh. She was a doormat who let a drunken Spencer Tracy walk all over her who went for the old, "My wife won't give me a divorce" okey doke.
That said, are there not situations where all of us will reject any construct or system of behavior where it conflicts with some emotional desire?
When we seek to construct strict methods and manners of behavior, aren't we just deluding ourselves? |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 01:27 am: |
|
Chris Hayden:
"This also runs into your situational problem--if a woman has both arms full of groceries is it sexist for me to hold the door for her? Does it demean my manhood if she holds the door for me?"
It is mostly personal and situational, depending on ther person's individual politics. It is a great possibility that a woman that didn't believe in chivalry would gladly accept a man carrying her groceries if she really needed his help. It could be sexist if a women believes that you are solely opening the door because she is woman. You could be doing it because she needs a hand, as you would a man whose arms are full of groceries. It could demean your manhood if you believed that manliness is illustrated by being chivalrous(which would be quite a limited and rigid notion of manhood).
This is only part of what i've been talking about however. A code or manner of dealing with people is not the answer, in my opinion. One of the points that i've tried to make is that we need to acknowledge and appreciate a variety of gender definitions and part of this appreciation is not reproducing rigid gender roles(ie, a woman holding a door for a man...leading a man to question his manhood).
"That said, are there not situations where all of us will reject any construct or system of behavior where it conflicts with some emotional desire?"
Yes, assuming that we have the fortitude and courage to do so....
"When we seek to construct strict methods and manners of behavior, aren't we just deluding ourselves?"
Yes! Yet, ABM and my discussions have never been about strict methods, but about acknowleding that there are different ways of understanding gender than those that have been traditionally accepted, as well as questioning whether characteristics differentiated the sexes are really socially constructed gender roles(nuture) or embedded in our genetic codes(nature).
|
|
Email This Page