Back on the blog after an intense summer of dissertating and teaching - pleasure-writing has been far from my inclinations for a while, but it's about discipline as well as desire, and September's back-to-school vibe seems a good point to pick up again. The work-weariness has also rendered my rants progressively less coherent, to the point where I can only shake an impotent fist at the offender, guiltily acknowledging thoughts of making cathartic use of it and then consigning all blog-thoughts to the receding to-do list. And in honesty I've not much new to contribute apart from the early autumn melancholy - always more palatable with chilly morning sun-shards and moist earth-smells, but we shall have to content ourselves with mere words for now...
Feeling a little glum after a brief (and temporally dislocated) glimpse of morning slagheap The Wright Stuff this evening. Discussion topic: Why Are Women Less Funny Than Men? I don't know what they were actually saying - the snatch of slackly moidering Catherine Tate was enough for Coc to channel-hop on - but it would have depressed me. I know it would. But it set me to thinking about the impact of the questions we ask, and how they inevitably set the parameters of discussion to an extent that we don't, I think, often consider. (For 'we' read 'I', there - pronominal inclusivity won out over self-reflexivity...) I suppose this must sound like a truism, and the assumption in this particular question doesn't require razor critical insight - but I do think that for gender especially, compared to other issues of identity, there is a much more widespread acceptance of fundamental difference beyond biology. Even my own students, modern, middle-class urban Masters types, came out today with the argument that 'women are emotional, so men are more reliable in a crisis', and 'women are weaker and so get more tired than men when they have to work long hours'. Most (non-academic) engagement with gender issues starts with an assumption of fundamental, immutable difference - 'women are this, men are that'. And while I can free myself from believing in my own feminine immutability, I can't free myself from these prevalent attitudes - and I don't like it. The other day I went to pick up my student card, and on saying I'd like to keep the original photo because I liked it, I was subjected to a friendly diatribe about 'ladies' (enough in itself to piss me right off) obsession with their looks. Liking my photo didn't just apply to me individually - this was female behaviour. But who doesn't like a good picture of themselves?
There's a lot of rage here and nowhere really to channel it. I've always tried to avoid tackling anything related to gender in my classes, because I don't really know how to address it in a way that avoids descent into deeply tedious men vs. women 'debates'. I think this probably has to change - I don't know how, but need to give it some thought. I need to find the ovaries to ACT on this anger somehow. Hm. Yeah. Will get back to you on that one.
Coc just asked me if I was challenging the Wright assumption by writing a scathing piece full of witty zingers, which I would have done if a) it didn't simply indulge the debate, and b) I could.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wouldn't know where to start, so much like you I kind of shake my head and hope I never have to find the words to join the 'debate'. I feel for you. Being a hermit is the only solution.
ReplyDeleteNot for me, sadly, Pilch (though after the madness of the summer it's increasingly appealing). Looking forward to visiting the Exmoor hermitage next month, and will try to keep the debate to a minimum - unless you want nostalgic re-hashings of fire-escape ramblings of yore...
ReplyDelete(LG) I echo your weariness, though am looking forward (and simultaneously hoping) to the September "new-ness" that comes with looking forward to new stuff (i.e. highlighters...I like new highlighters...sick isn't it).
ReplyDeleteMy own small two cents/pence/droppings would be product or producer? Sadly I think as much as I'd like to rail against the tide I believe in many ways I'm creating it a la thrashing in the water and making some mini waves or going with the massive one (surfing, drowning or otherwise). Is there another alternative?
I'm rambling here (dissertation style) so I will sign off and see you soon! x
From what I understand, studies of the mind all point to the necessity to create "Stereotypes" to order the multitude of things present in reality. I suspect it is more helpful than unhelpful.
ReplyDeleteFrom a very early age the mind processes things & associates certain events/objects in a stereotypical fashion so as to understand danger. I expect this continues with many things though life & if I may indulge myself: it is of little concern.
LG - yeah, I worry about that too. But I also think there are always alternatives, as many alternatives as there are people, and for that reason I continue to thrash!
ReplyDeleteRich - certainly I think we look for patterns in things, and theorise and generalise in order to make sense of the world. But traditional studies of the mind (basically anything with a psych- prefix) also carry the potential danger of characterising individuals as cognitive machines made up of differing components that can be independently 'fixed' (even social branches of psychology are predicated upon this), and have tended not to recognise people as socially and historically situated agents trying to negotiate the world. Obviously I think this recognition is important - it's what my PhD is about, after all - and bottom-up sociocultural approaches to the individual, as opposed to top-down psychological approaches to the mind, have greater potential for understanding people as holistic agents capable of influencing the world. Which I believe we are, in what we think and say and do, even within the power structures in which the world operates, and which are also responsible for creating and perpetuating stereotypes. I think it IS of concern if, for example, black people are stereotyped as wayward looting criminals (cf. Hurricane Katrina and Haiti), and stereotypes of women lead to their objectification and violation the world over. I realise this is a broader point than I was making in my post, but it's all part of the same problem, I believe. Does this make sense?
Yes it makes sense! My remark about "little concern" was entirely indulgent & you should ignore it I suspect.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, if the Wright Stuff show offended you you should tune in to F1!!! I saw it quite by accident & it was incredible to see young girlie model-types doing precisely nothing around the macho race drivers: you won't believe the extent of it until you see it. Amazing. I was simultaneously horrified & cheered by the entire thing.