Do I even know what is out there? Rambing thoughts on gender, perception, feminism, and idealism

I've recently come to realize I live in an idealized world when it comes to gender. It all should have been clear to me before, and when I look back, of course it was there all along, but still, i've got a new realization.

I have an idealized view: I tend to think of men and women equally, think concepts like "battle of the sexes" have been abandoned decades ago, and assume most of society thinks the same way. Now, looking back, how I thought the rest of society was thinking this way is a mystery to me.

Perhaps as an English student with a B.S. and and M.A., the concept of feminism has been so internalized in my mind that I accept its premises without thinking. I accept that differences between men and women are largely socially constructed (not that there aren't biologically inherent differences, of course, but that how we understand roles for men and women, and acceptable behavior and appearance for men and women, is entirely socially constructed). I work in a field with a generally progressive atmosphere and the strong presense of women in leadership positions. I am married to a strong feminist and we don't act like some jobs are for me and some jobs are for her, except to the extent that we actually apportion out jobs. Not that we don't act different, and not that we aren't influenced by both our biology and our existence in a society with particular roles, portrayals, and perceptions for 26 years, but that we don't fully accept them. We're aware, we analyze. And most of my friends and acquaintances, men and women, are progressive people who are conscious and aware of gender stereotypes and don't usually engage in them.

Equality for men and women is one of my strong and accepted values. The avoidance of stereotyping men or women is another. The freedom to be what one desires, not what one is told by society is acceptable for a specific gender role, is another. I feel fairly comfortable calling myself a feminist.

At the same time, I have recognized that the world doesn't work entirely this way. Every standup comedian falls back on his/her "men and women are so different" schticks with the same jokes about toilet seats. I know a guy that doesn't want to be seen holding his wife's purse (I wonder what he thinks will happen. Will people see that and forget he's a man? Will they think he's gay? What on earth is possibly the concern?). I knew a person who thought there was something inherently different between men and women that prevented women from really understanding football (seriously). But...I thought this was an old-fashioned idea. I thought the majority had moved past it. I thought most progressive people shunned such barbarian concepts as "battle of the sexes" or traditional gender roles. But how could that be? I'm AWARE that most people in society have these backward views that I specifically measure myself against...and at the same time I thought that most people in society had moved past these views.

So what are people out there thinking? When I hear cliched arguments, comments, discussions, or conversations about what movies men/women like or don't like, I'm bored by the predictability and assume the speakers need to move on. But this isn't the case. I laugh at sitcoms and their conventional gender roles and stereotypes (I often talk about how in sitcom marriages, the husband gets to act like an irresponsible adolescent while the wife needs to be responsible, so that the relationship is more of a son to mother relationship than a husband to wife peer relationship), but yet I thought most people didn't think this way? These sitcoms work because the majority accepts these stereotypes. I watch them with self-aware and critical perception, not accepting the premises even as I might laugh at the show. But most people ARE accepting the premise. I talk about how in commercials there are the strictest of the strict traditional, conventional roles. I criticize how advertisements portray the traditional and accepted roles of men and women. And I talk about how these portrayals and representations influence us as we grow up.

So, I see now I've been living somewhat blindly in an idealized world, even while aware that I wasn't, and even while being self-aware, critical, and conscious of just what was going on and how it was affecting me and others.

So there: I promised rambling, and I gave you rambling.

Toni Morrison and more

What makes Toni Morrison such an important American writer? She is better than anybody I've read at showing how racism and institutional oppression becomes internalized in the oppressed. In The Bluest Eye, there are examples of clear racism of whites toward blacks--but the focus of the novel isn't on these clear-cut examples of repulsive prejudice and behavior, but on the internal effect such prejudice and behavior can have. As I'm finishing up Beloved (not as good as The Bluest Eye, but as it is clearly about the legacy of slavery, many seem to see it as the more important book. I'm not sure it is...but I'm not sure it isn't), again I see that there are overt forms of racism and oppression being described--but the thrust of the novel seems to be on the effect of this oppression on black people, and the internal lives of those who suffer such experiences. And Morrison's style and insight does the trick of showing us the internal experience.

Is the ability to show internal experience the difference between entertainment and art? If so, then film is an inferior artform to literature, to "art art" (paintings and sculptures), and even, yes, television. Often in film, time limits require that great changes occuring in a character (and great changes in people often develop slowly over time) must be symbolized in shorter, quicker changes. In many films, the internal change a character quickly goes through can seem inauthentic--it must be shown too quickly. Novels can show this. TV series can show this. Visual art, perhaps, doesn't show the change, but tries to make physical and visual that internal, and the great artists succeed. And yet, a film is more likely to make me cry than any other film.

Speaking of crying during film, a second viewing of Brokeback Mountain helped me to understand the effect this film had on me. This is a movie about...

(here it comes)

THE EXPECTATIONS OF MASCULINITY IN AMERICA.

It's not just about the homosexual relationship; it's about all sorts of expectations and pressures placed on men in America. It is brilliant. I think on the first viewing I was able to feel how the movie presented this; after the second viewing, after much time and thought and the commentary of others, I have been able to think about it. The expectations involving work, family, physicality, expression of emotion, violence...it's all there. If you want to explore this further, do a little research into why the NFL didn't allow the filmmakers to use footage of their games during the Thanksgiving meal scene involving Jack Twist, his son, and his father-in-law.

Summer Topics

Summer Project: Biography and Luther
I finally saw the film Luther, and aside from the fact that it is essentially a Lutheran propaganda film, and the musical score's attempt to drown out many of the film's more powerful scenes, it is a very good film. Until seeing it, I hadn't really considered what great material Luther's biography could make for a film. Luther's biography, done right, isn't just a story of one tortured monk, but a story of princes, popes, cardinals, emperors, peasants--a whole host of social and political figures of 16th century Europe.

And I've decided on a reading project when I get settled into the new house. I haven't read Roland Bainton's Luther biography Here I Stand since I was a freshman in college; I haven't read Erik Erikson's insightful biography Young Man Luther since I was a senior in college. I'll be re-reading these books soon. I also have a more recent biography around somewhere that I never finished, and I have a collection of Luther's major theological writings, too.

Summer reading for me is usually a survey course; I pick up books from a wide array of authors, subjects, periods, genres. For at least part of my summer, I will make my reading a seminar course on a narrow subject. I'll take a look at Luther's writings, but the main focus will be on how his biography gets constructed. His life is what it is, but how do we interpret it? How do we make meaning of it? I'm quite aware of the man's serious faults, yet I still consider him a personal hero. What does this mean?

For all his faults, he willingly risked his life for a matter of conscience; he stood up to all power, authority, and tradition in an attempt to stand for truth. Can you claim to believe and stand for ANYTHING as strongly as he did?

Seinfeld and Me
When I was in high school, being a fan of Seinfeld said something about me. I was the guy who loved Seinfeld. Now, who doesn't love Seinfeld? If I say I love Seinfeld, if I know all sorts of things about it, if I make all sorts of references to it...I'm like a bunch of other white men in their 20s or 30s.

Bill Simmons
I suppose this could go on my sports blog, but I don't want to be just another anti-Simmons sports blogger. So I'm writing about it here (where nobody will ever know... ha ha...that's a joke...isn't it?).

I can't read him anymore. Partly it's because I can't continue to read one man's subjective tastes in sports, pop culture, and ethics written about as if it is objective truth. But part of it is the sexism. I know he's writing for comedic effect, and every standup comedian needs a "Men do X, Women do Y" fallback. But I can't read another article or even comment from him about how men and women are so essentially different. That's not a part of my worldview anymore. But that's the tone you get from him: men are essentially one way, women are essentially another way, and women can't possibly understand the essence of men, especially when it comes to sports. I only skimmed this recent article because I really just don't have the stomach for this sort of thing any more.

Thoughts on many subjects

The Book as Sacred Container of Knowledge
In preparing to move, I have already filled 10 boxes of books. I estimate 3-5 more boxes.

Many of these books I've already read and have no intention to read again (though as an English professor, I can't know whether I might use something for class, attempt to write an article, or go back to Grad School). Many others I have never read and have no desire or intention to read.

And yet, I cannot bring myself to give away, or sell, or throw away these books. They seem to represent some ideal, some idealization of knowledge, or a spiritual intellectual quest.


The Book Itself and Criticism
Reader-Response Criticism asks us to examine the reading experience itself. To do so does not strictly involve a relationship with the text (or rather, it involves a wider examination of the experience with the text than is typically given).

Is the paper clean and fresh, or is it yellowed and wrinkled? What is the style of the font? What is the size of the font? How many words are on a single page (or how much time passes between page turns)?

These non-text text issues have a bigger impact on our reading experience than we realize. The solemnity, the seriousness, the formality, the humor, the dignity of a text is often based on the font style and size, on the spacing of letters on the page.

Bias
I'm O.K., You're Biased, by Daniel Gilbert

I hate when people objectify their artistic biases. Some people essentially transform their subjective tastes on film or literature into objective systems for evaluating film or literature.

One reason I embrace Reader-Response Criticism is because it recognizes that the reader plays a role in understanding a work of literature. By accepting the reader's role, a Reader-Response Critic admits to biases in interpretation. Awareness of these biases leads to useful interpretations. Naively pretending that biases do not exist is not a helpful way to interpret art.

Adaptation: staying true to the spirit, not the letter
One of the most memorable scenes in the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest occurs when McMurphy gets Chief Bromden to play basketball.

This scene doesn't really occur in the book. McMurphy briefly gets the men on the ward to form a basketball team, but it is short-lived and doesn't feature McMurphy doing much with Chief Bromden.

However, this scene stays true to the spirit of the book, and simply makes the development in the novel visual. In the book, Chief Bromden gradually develops sanity, pride, independence, courage, and strength thanks to McMurphy. It is difficult to film the first person narration of Chief Bromden, thus difficult to show this slow development. The film simply includes this scene to make visual and brief the long development of the novel. In two scenes, we see Bromden (and all the men of the ward) grow and change.

Film adaptations must simply find ways to show us things that only the depth of a novel can truly provide. The novel offers an experience no other artform is capable of. Good adaptations (such as Cuckoo's) show this depth effectively; bad adaptations fail.

Gender construction
I spend an inordinate amount of time considering the meaning of gender identity and behavior. I believe that gender is largely socially constructed, but I also believe it would be foolish to ignore scientific knowledge of biology and chemistry. It is extremely difficult to separate social construction of gender from biological differences between men and women. Perhaps it is impossible. I've found Deborah Blum's "The Gender Blur: Where does Biology End and Society Take Over?" an interesting starting point to reflect on these issues.


Old themes are not new
I don't mind that movies like "Down in the Valley" get made, but do we really have to pretend that a film deconstructing the mythology of the Western is something new and edgy? You want to deconstruct the Western, you can start with The Wild Bunch and High Plains Drifter and Blazing Saddles and pretty much every Western made since. Let's not contend that such an effort is something dark and newly necessary.

Furthermore, let's not pretend that what Ed Norton has to say about the film is something new and edgy and dark, either. He says the movie

"is about the lack of a spiritual center, the lack of authenticity, and about a person needing a fantasy to escape the banality of modern existence. It's about a person saying, 'The way we live is so inauthentic, the spirit of things is gone.' It's the desire to escape the constraints of modern pavement."

Are we talking about T. S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" here? Or any number of movies made in the last 40 years? Seriously, start picking out movies you've seen that this passage could be describing.

Nothing irks me more than those who act like something derivative and done is something new and creative.