Apparently, Doctor Villanelle's last blog post was not enough to contain her ire about dipshit academics in love with the phallus, because that bitch be textin' me. It was gloriously rage-filled, so read on, friends:
Doctor Villanelle: You ever read Age of Wonder?
Lily Pistil: I have. But very quickly. I found it kind of annoying.
DV: Thank you! I posted a not quite coherent response to it last night (don't blame me, blame the plague) and I was in hopes that I wasn't the only one that found it aggravating...
LP: So in the tradition of great man of history ball-licking. I don't know why everyone likes it.
DV: Seriously, I lost my shit when I was reading it... Why is it that when Keats talks about the soul he's a touching and inspiring genius, and when Mary Shelley talks about the soul she's a pregnant woman who may have learned some shit from her husband?? WTF yo!
LP: I know!!! It will be interesting when this guy comes out with his next book about the lost women scientists of the 19th century. I wonder which body parts he will attribute their discoveries to?
DV: Certainly not their minds..... And please tell me he's actually going to write about some female POETS and not just write off all the lady folk as silly novelists. Gawd! I just about screamed when I was reading his chapter on Frankenstein.
LP: I think this one will only be about scientists.
But ladies can't be poets, silly woman. Poems require genius. Ladies aren't geniuses.
DV: Well... That ought to be interesting... I certainly hope he makes sure to acknowledge their male chaperons and inspirations.
LP: Oh I am sure.
DV: Oh my gosh! You're right! I forgot for a moment that the category of woman was used to designate a life form purely dedicated to the creation of children and the male genius (which aren't always that far apart)! My bad!
LP: Here is a line you might appreciate I just read in Burke: "If beauty in our own species was annexed to use, men would be much more lovely than women..."
DV: Wow. I mean... Yep... That's just awesome... God bless the menfolk, huh?
LP: Bless their tiny, self-aggrandizing hearts, they can't help it.
DV: Because they're too worried about their tiny non-actualizing manhood?
LP: So I understand.
Showing posts with label things that give me the rage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label things that give me the rage. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
You know them ladies... always thinkin' with the ovaries...
Why is it that when a man sits down and begins to address the nature of the soul and the origin of consciousness, he gets talked about like this...
"Such questions [of the nature of the soul], traditionally the province of theologians and philosophers, were now increasingly considered by physicians, science writers, and those who studied what Coleridge called the science of the mind.' They had already been the subject of ingenious scientific experiments in Europe, which gave rise to increasingly fierce debates surrounding the work of Luigi Galvani in Italy and Franz Anton Mesmer in France" (314). (1)
Such strong statements, such ingenious scientific experiments being engaged in by men ACROSS THE CONTINENT!! with FIERCE DEBATES!! and POETRY!! They were like POETS! But SCIENTIFIC POETS! poets of the MIND!!
Don't see what I mean? How about this, you'll like this one...
"But for them [young poets] it still seemed more a psychological than a physiological question. Coleridge in his conversation poems was exploring the metaphysical notion of a 'one Life' that unified all living forms; while Wordsworth in 'Tintern Abbey' wrote tentatively and beautifully of a 'sense sublime/Of something far more deeply interfused/Whose dwelling is in the light of the setting suns.' Both writers, at this most radical point in their lives, were trying to avoid an explicit reference to God, while retaining their intuitions of a 'spiritual' power -- whatever that might be-- both within man and within the natural universe. It was a balancing act, that, perhaps, could only be performed in poetry" (316).
Just gives you the warm fuzzies, huh? Imagine Wordsworth, at a most radical point in his life, grappling with the question of the divine and the origin of the soul, beautifully and tentatively making his way to his conclusions in a demonstration of balance, poise and grace that one could, perhaps, only imagine in the world of late romantic poetry.
Just... *tears up* Just give me a minute here... I think I'm gonna cry.
*takes a minute*
*gets over it*
Aaand moooooving on... one last one, just to make my point.
"Keats [in the Lamia poem] never lets his reader forget this traumatic birth, and what it costs the serpent to become a human being. His extraordinary invention, perhaps the most brilliant and thought-provoking of all his narrative poems, engages many of the moral issues surrounding Vitalism, the nature of life, and the notion of human consciousness. Above all, perhaps, it asks if the beautiful Lamia has a soul" (325)
That's just... beautiful. Heart-wrenching really. Such genius, such thought-provoking narrative... such engagement with moral issues and the really tough questions of like, consciousness, and the soul. Really, just... touching...
So yeah. the dudes. The dudes had it going on. So what about the lady folk? What were they up to? Well, Mary Shelley (thanks to the helpful helperness of her husband Percy Shelley, never forget the helpful helperness of her husband) was penning a little ditty known as Frankenstein. It's written that,
"Mary's brilliance was to see that these weighty and often alarming ideas [of science and psychology] could be given highly suggestive, imaginative and even playful form. In a sense, she would treat male concepts in a female style. She would develop what William Lawrence [the hero of the first part of the text and a scientist] had dismissed in his lectures as a 'hypothesis or fiction'" (327).
So yeah, ladies were writing, and they were writing in lady style. 'Cause lord knows that fiction (not poetry, never poetry) was the creation of what real scientist would call derisively a hypothesis-- the antithesis of real science, of real fact finding, of THINGS. (2)
Don't believe me? Well, in case you didn't get that female genius comes filtered through their ovaries, let's take a later example from the text...
"As her novel developed, Mary Shelley began to ask in what sense Frankenstein's new 'Creature' would be human. Would it have language, would it have a moral conscience, would it have human feelings and sympathies, would it have a soul? (It should not be forgotten that Mary Shelley was pregnant with her own baby in 1817.)... Here again it seems that [Percy] Shelley, who was attending medical consultations with Lawrence throughout spring 1817, and may sometimes have been accompanied by Mary, made an opportunity for all three of them to explore these specialist themes" (331) [author emphasis].
Oh yeah, ladies totally think with their bits and their babies. Now Keats, Keats had "extraordinary invention," and questions about the soul of a beautiful woman.(3) Shelley, well, she may have tagged along to some science debates with her dude and, well, she was preggers, so let's not go reading too much into her "female style" and her "highly suggestive" and even "playful" form. Nope, nothing to see here but some women talking about things their reproductive system thought up while in the presence of her husband and, I hope you caught this, the VERY SAME DUDE that called (derisively) what Mary wrote a "hypothesis or fiction."
Now, it is totally possible that I am misreading this text, but I think it highly suggestive (*snort*) that when the author here discusses the poetry of Wordsworth, he places the responsibility of the thought and imagination of the speaker firmly within the mind of Wordsworth. Meanwhile, in his discussion of Frankenstein, the author places the brilliant connections and allusions within the grasp of the characters themselves. It's like... they're like... totally real dude.
Exhibit A: "In a sense, both [Frankenstein and his creation] have lost their own souls. Drawing on the Miltonic imagery of Paradise Lost, both see themselves as fallen angels, doomed to eternal solitude and destruction" (333).
Yeah, 'cause, ya know. The characters have will. And action, and the ability to, like, write their own narrative, yo. Mary's lady bits probably hadn't read Milton, but man, her characters sure as hell did. Now Keats, man, he really knew how to explore some issues, to dive into narrative... and Mary, man, she's just lucky her characters were so well read, huh? Maybe they picked it up from her husband? After all, he was pretty well written, yeah? And Mary, well, she only wrote that one book... right?
Right?
I mean, wait. It's not like she wrote more than one novel huh? It's not like she wrote, like 14 novels or some such thing... (4) or she was big into multiple genres like poetry, biography, or any thing like that... that's crap...
Right?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Nobody? That's right, 'cuase she totally did. Hot damn, her ovaries got around... I mean, like, can you image all the work they had to do? All the work everyone around her had to do? All the dudes who had to facilitate her "specialist themes"? (5)
Damn. Guess I need to take my lady bits and go think somewhere else, who knows, maybe if I meets the right man, they'll write my dissertation for me!
Dr. Villainelle.
1 The Text at Hand is Richard Holmes The Age of Wonder, which isn't really all that bad of a text... if you excuse what I find to be a crap reading of Frankenstein and a frankly overblown approach to the whole era. Yeah, I like the poetry, too. It's awesome. But it's also problematic. And I know that you've got it out for William Lawerence, but if you title a chapter "Dr Frankenstein and the Soul," and then spend the whole time talking about how Mary Shelley got lucky that everyone around her (including her characters) were so damn smart, and all you really wanted to do was set up a punch line about how William Lawerence was the one who lost his soul (oh ha, ha, ha. yeah, you really got me there Richard), then title the damn thing "William Lawerence and the Miracle of the Female Reproductive System when Impregnated by Smart Men and their IDEAS." But I guess that doesn't have quite the same ring, now, huh?
2. Okay, okay, okay. Yes, I know, the novel gets quite a bit more problematic than this, and it's not right of me to make broad sweeping generalizations about the novel in the late Romantic/early Victorian time period... but my point is, does anyone else find it odd that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS CHAPTER DOES? The general trend of this chapter (can't talk about the whole book, sorry, author fail) is that men are POETS and SCIENTISTS and women write FICTION which is the antithesis of SCIENCE which is an awful lot like POETRY.
3. Okay, okay. I'm totally being a bit unfair. The beautiful woman was actually a bit of a snake and the whole thing is very beautiful and tragic... but don't you get the messed-up-edness of it all? That Keats is a genius when he talks about a beautiful woman/monster/thing, and Mary Shelley was unduly influenced by enveryone around her when she writes about an ugly man/creature? Yeah, maybe not, but it's my post and I DO what I WANT!
4. This website is pretty much crap, but it's better than Wiki, and it spend a bit more time talking about Mary than Percy, so I'll count it as a win.
5. That's totally what she said.
"Such questions [of the nature of the soul], traditionally the province of theologians and philosophers, were now increasingly considered by physicians, science writers, and those who studied what Coleridge called the science of the mind.' They had already been the subject of ingenious scientific experiments in Europe, which gave rise to increasingly fierce debates surrounding the work of Luigi Galvani in Italy and Franz Anton Mesmer in France" (314). (1)
Such strong statements, such ingenious scientific experiments being engaged in by men ACROSS THE CONTINENT!! with FIERCE DEBATES!! and POETRY!! They were like POETS! But SCIENTIFIC POETS! poets of the MIND!!
Don't see what I mean? How about this, you'll like this one...
"But for them [young poets] it still seemed more a psychological than a physiological question. Coleridge in his conversation poems was exploring the metaphysical notion of a 'one Life' that unified all living forms; while Wordsworth in 'Tintern Abbey' wrote tentatively and beautifully of a 'sense sublime/Of something far more deeply interfused/Whose dwelling is in the light of the setting suns.' Both writers, at this most radical point in their lives, were trying to avoid an explicit reference to God, while retaining their intuitions of a 'spiritual' power -- whatever that might be-- both within man and within the natural universe. It was a balancing act, that, perhaps, could only be performed in poetry" (316).
Just gives you the warm fuzzies, huh? Imagine Wordsworth, at a most radical point in his life, grappling with the question of the divine and the origin of the soul, beautifully and tentatively making his way to his conclusions in a demonstration of balance, poise and grace that one could, perhaps, only imagine in the world of late romantic poetry.
Just... *tears up* Just give me a minute here... I think I'm gonna cry.
*takes a minute*
*gets over it*
Aaand moooooving on... one last one, just to make my point.
"Keats [in the Lamia poem] never lets his reader forget this traumatic birth, and what it costs the serpent to become a human being. His extraordinary invention, perhaps the most brilliant and thought-provoking of all his narrative poems, engages many of the moral issues surrounding Vitalism, the nature of life, and the notion of human consciousness. Above all, perhaps, it asks if the beautiful Lamia has a soul" (325)
That's just... beautiful. Heart-wrenching really. Such genius, such thought-provoking narrative... such engagement with moral issues and the really tough questions of like, consciousness, and the soul. Really, just... touching...
So yeah. the dudes. The dudes had it going on. So what about the lady folk? What were they up to? Well, Mary Shelley (thanks to the helpful helperness of her husband Percy Shelley, never forget the helpful helperness of her husband) was penning a little ditty known as Frankenstein. It's written that,
"Mary's brilliance was to see that these weighty and often alarming ideas [of science and psychology] could be given highly suggestive, imaginative and even playful form. In a sense, she would treat male concepts in a female style. She would develop what William Lawrence [the hero of the first part of the text and a scientist] had dismissed in his lectures as a 'hypothesis or fiction'" (327).
So yeah, ladies were writing, and they were writing in lady style. 'Cause lord knows that fiction (not poetry, never poetry) was the creation of what real scientist would call derisively a hypothesis-- the antithesis of real science, of real fact finding, of THINGS. (2)
Don't believe me? Well, in case you didn't get that female genius comes filtered through their ovaries, let's take a later example from the text...
"As her novel developed, Mary Shelley began to ask in what sense Frankenstein's new 'Creature' would be human. Would it have language, would it have a moral conscience, would it have human feelings and sympathies, would it have a soul? (It should not be forgotten that Mary Shelley was pregnant with her own baby in 1817.)... Here again it seems that [Percy] Shelley, who was attending medical consultations with Lawrence throughout spring 1817, and may sometimes have been accompanied by Mary, made an opportunity for all three of them to explore these specialist themes" (331) [author emphasis].
Oh yeah, ladies totally think with their bits and their babies. Now Keats, Keats had "extraordinary invention," and questions about the soul of a beautiful woman.(3) Shelley, well, she may have tagged along to some science debates with her dude and, well, she was preggers, so let's not go reading too much into her "female style" and her "highly suggestive" and even "playful" form. Nope, nothing to see here but some women talking about things their reproductive system thought up while in the presence of her husband and, I hope you caught this, the VERY SAME DUDE that called (derisively) what Mary wrote a "hypothesis or fiction."
Now, it is totally possible that I am misreading this text, but I think it highly suggestive (*snort*) that when the author here discusses the poetry of Wordsworth, he places the responsibility of the thought and imagination of the speaker firmly within the mind of Wordsworth. Meanwhile, in his discussion of Frankenstein, the author places the brilliant connections and allusions within the grasp of the characters themselves. It's like... they're like... totally real dude.
Exhibit A: "In a sense, both [Frankenstein and his creation] have lost their own souls. Drawing on the Miltonic imagery of Paradise Lost, both see themselves as fallen angels, doomed to eternal solitude and destruction" (333).
Yeah, 'cause, ya know. The characters have will. And action, and the ability to, like, write their own narrative, yo. Mary's lady bits probably hadn't read Milton, but man, her characters sure as hell did. Now Keats, man, he really knew how to explore some issues, to dive into narrative... and Mary, man, she's just lucky her characters were so well read, huh? Maybe they picked it up from her husband? After all, he was pretty well written, yeah? And Mary, well, she only wrote that one book... right?
Right?
I mean, wait. It's not like she wrote more than one novel huh? It's not like she wrote, like 14 novels or some such thing... (4) or she was big into multiple genres like poetry, biography, or any thing like that... that's crap...
Right?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Nobody? That's right, 'cuase she totally did. Hot damn, her ovaries got around... I mean, like, can you image all the work they had to do? All the work everyone around her had to do? All the dudes who had to facilitate her "specialist themes"? (5)
Damn. Guess I need to take my lady bits and go think somewhere else, who knows, maybe if I meets the right man, they'll write my dissertation for me!
Dr. Villainelle.
1 The Text at Hand is Richard Holmes The Age of Wonder, which isn't really all that bad of a text... if you excuse what I find to be a crap reading of Frankenstein and a frankly overblown approach to the whole era. Yeah, I like the poetry, too. It's awesome. But it's also problematic. And I know that you've got it out for William Lawerence, but if you title a chapter "Dr Frankenstein and the Soul," and then spend the whole time talking about how Mary Shelley got lucky that everyone around her (including her characters) were so damn smart, and all you really wanted to do was set up a punch line about how William Lawerence was the one who lost his soul (oh ha, ha, ha. yeah, you really got me there Richard), then title the damn thing "William Lawerence and the Miracle of the Female Reproductive System when Impregnated by Smart Men and their IDEAS." But I guess that doesn't have quite the same ring, now, huh?
2. Okay, okay, okay. Yes, I know, the novel gets quite a bit more problematic than this, and it's not right of me to make broad sweeping generalizations about the novel in the late Romantic/early Victorian time period... but my point is, does anyone else find it odd that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS CHAPTER DOES? The general trend of this chapter (can't talk about the whole book, sorry, author fail) is that men are POETS and SCIENTISTS and women write FICTION which is the antithesis of SCIENCE which is an awful lot like POETRY.
3. Okay, okay. I'm totally being a bit unfair. The beautiful woman was actually a bit of a snake and the whole thing is very beautiful and tragic... but don't you get the messed-up-edness of it all? That Keats is a genius when he talks about a beautiful woman/monster/thing, and Mary Shelley was unduly influenced by enveryone around her when she writes about an ugly man/creature? Yeah, maybe not, but it's my post and I DO what I WANT!
4. This website is pretty much crap, but it's better than Wiki, and it spend a bit more time talking about Mary than Percy, so I'll count it as a win.
5. That's totally what she said.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Violence Against Women is HILARIOUS!
Tis the season! As I was (poorly) wrapping some Christmas presents, I had the TV on in the background. Since I don't have cable, the two tv channels available to me are Fox and NBC. Double yay. NBC's multi award winning show 30-Rock was on, and I wasn't really paying attention, because I find Tina Fey's single-women over 30 are pathetic act annoying, but then, to my delight, I saw that one of the characters, played by Tracy Morgan, was screening a documentary at a Women's Shelter on x-mas, to maintain a "serious" image to help his chances at winning a Golden Globe.
What followed was comedic genius! Tracy's character walks into a room full of hollow-eyed, frightened looking women, and says "Listen up, a Man is speaking" and then goes on to say that his film will mirror their own sad lives. OH HO HO HO! My sides, they burst with the hilarity! Wait, why aren't you laughing? Maybe you don't get that this is a satire? You see, the women are in the shelter probably because they've been abused, most likely by their male partners (and some of them have their small female children with them as well) and so when Tracy's character says what he does, he's poking fun at the fact that not listening to men is what got them there in the first place! And their lives...hahaha, so sad! It's funny because it's true!! He's insensitive!!
Seriously, why aren't you laughing? God, you feminists have no sense of humor.
This makes me absolutely sick. I'm going to opt for the radio from now on, and I'm also planning on sending a letter to NBC about this. They won't give a shit, but perhaps if enough people complain, they'll feel the sting of those lost advertising dollars.
What followed was comedic genius! Tracy's character walks into a room full of hollow-eyed, frightened looking women, and says "Listen up, a Man is speaking" and then goes on to say that his film will mirror their own sad lives. OH HO HO HO! My sides, they burst with the hilarity! Wait, why aren't you laughing? Maybe you don't get that this is a satire? You see, the women are in the shelter probably because they've been abused, most likely by their male partners (and some of them have their small female children with them as well) and so when Tracy's character says what he does, he's poking fun at the fact that not listening to men is what got them there in the first place! And their lives...hahaha, so sad! It's funny because it's true!! He's insensitive!!
Seriously, why aren't you laughing? God, you feminists have no sense of humor.
This makes me absolutely sick. I'm going to opt for the radio from now on, and I'm also planning on sending a letter to NBC about this. They won't give a shit, but perhaps if enough people complain, they'll feel the sting of those lost advertising dollars.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Honk If You Love Abortion!
Seen, while walking down a busy, pedestrian-heavy city street: A shoddy red pick up truck with the sidewalls of the truck bed replaced by cheap wood panels which read "Had an Abortion? Jesus will forgive you!"
Great! Abortions for everyone! Get in line, ladies! As we all know, feminists have an abortion quota which must be reached before the onset of menopause, otherwise you get kicked outta da club.
Oh, hold up--does this mean Jesus will only forgive abortions done in the back of that truck? Will the (male) driver cover the cost since many insurance companies won't? Will he get a life and stop wasting his time harassing people who'd like to have a say over what happens to their body?
My kingdom for a world free from invasive religious propaganda with designs on controlling the female body...
Great! Abortions for everyone! Get in line, ladies! As we all know, feminists have an abortion quota which must be reached before the onset of menopause, otherwise you get kicked outta da club.
Oh, hold up--does this mean Jesus will only forgive abortions done in the back of that truck? Will the (male) driver cover the cost since many insurance companies won't? Will he get a life and stop wasting his time harassing people who'd like to have a say over what happens to their body?
My kingdom for a world free from invasive religious propaganda with designs on controlling the female body...
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Womance All-Call!! Step right up for a bit of UltraViolence
So, while I sit here and slowly write my response to Lady Pistil's most excellent questions about my last post and try and sort through my emotional response to visiting LA this past weekend, I thought that I would ask a question that has been bugging me for quite a while.
Specifically, when is violence the answer?
I mean, we've all been told a thousand times to turn the other cheek, take a deep breath and be the bigger person, but I want to know about the moment that all that falls away and all that is left is the requirement for action... messy, violent, icky action... with chainsaws...*
So yeah, where do you draw the line? And I'm not just talking the big stuff here, I want to know it all. We all have those moments, those little spaces in time, in which the world whites out and we come-to with bruises on our knuckles... Whether it's in front of your computer incandescent with fury as a pre-teen shouts "TITS or GTFO!" or trying to get the goddamned coffee pot to work in the morning, I want to know what it takes to get you take that final step...
To start things off, I've put a random list of five (Lord knows there are more, and their importance tends to vary according to their proximity) for your edification. Please feel free to respond at will, as I'm looking forward to what you have to add.
DrV
THE LIST (for now):
1. Spiders. (no explanation necessary).
2. I have a problem with people who hit their girlfriends... and people who don't take 'no' for an answer... like, a serious problem... like... chainsaws... yeah... with fire.
3. Malfunctioning electronics. Like the DVD player, my alarm clock... or the heater in my classroom.
4. You know that guy? The one at the club? You know, the one whose "cell phone" has been digging in your back for the past half hour? The one who won't leave you alone, or take no for an answer? Yeah. Him.
5. Otters. Yeah, yeah, I know, I know... "But Doctor, otters are so cuuuuttte!!" Yeah, well, so were those little lizards in Jurassic Park, and we all know how that ended, now don't we??
*WARNIG: RANT-Y FOOTNOTE AHOY!! Now, to be sure, this probably has more than a little to do with the fact that I'm currently riding the downdraft of a truly righteous rage spiral, but it also has to do with my general impatience with the way that women and queers are told to wait patiently, kill 'em with kindness, and work through the rage until you find your way to a higher state of being. The way that violence is imbricated within modern masculinity, in a way that is traumatic for boys and men as well as the people around them, and the way that passivity and patience are said to be benchmarks of femininity. I just get so frustrated waiting for a future in which everything will be better... must we always be martyrs to a time that may not contain us? Why must we always sacrifice for children who we do not know and will not love? I know that violence isn't the answer, but I'm not sure that it isn't the answer...
Specifically, when is violence the answer?
I mean, we've all been told a thousand times to turn the other cheek, take a deep breath and be the bigger person, but I want to know about the moment that all that falls away and all that is left is the requirement for action... messy, violent, icky action... with chainsaws...*
So yeah, where do you draw the line? And I'm not just talking the big stuff here, I want to know it all. We all have those moments, those little spaces in time, in which the world whites out and we come-to with bruises on our knuckles... Whether it's in front of your computer incandescent with fury as a pre-teen shouts "TITS or GTFO!" or trying to get the goddamned coffee pot to work in the morning, I want to know what it takes to get you take that final step...
To start things off, I've put a random list of five (Lord knows there are more, and their importance tends to vary according to their proximity) for your edification. Please feel free to respond at will, as I'm looking forward to what you have to add.
DrV
THE LIST (for now):
1. Spiders. (no explanation necessary).
2. I have a problem with people who hit their girlfriends... and people who don't take 'no' for an answer... like, a serious problem... like... chainsaws... yeah... with fire.
3. Malfunctioning electronics. Like the DVD player, my alarm clock... or the heater in my classroom.
4. You know that guy? The one at the club? You know, the one whose "cell phone" has been digging in your back for the past half hour? The one who won't leave you alone, or take no for an answer? Yeah. Him.
5. Otters. Yeah, yeah, I know, I know... "But Doctor, otters are so cuuuuttte!!" Yeah, well, so were those little lizards in Jurassic Park, and we all know how that ended, now don't we??
*WARNIG: RANT-Y FOOTNOTE AHOY!! Now, to be sure, this probably has more than a little to do with the fact that I'm currently riding the downdraft of a truly righteous rage spiral, but it also has to do with my general impatience with the way that women and queers are told to wait patiently, kill 'em with kindness, and work through the rage until you find your way to a higher state of being. The way that violence is imbricated within modern masculinity, in a way that is traumatic for boys and men as well as the people around them, and the way that passivity and patience are said to be benchmarks of femininity. I just get so frustrated waiting for a future in which everything will be better... must we always be martyrs to a time that may not contain us? Why must we always sacrifice for children who we do not know and will not love? I know that violence isn't the answer, but I'm not sure that it isn't the answer...
Monday, September 27, 2010
Cultural Cancer
I was driving with my Womance ladies the other day, and I saw a bumper sticker that said “Save the Ta-Tas”. This is one in a series of like advertisements geared towards raising awareness about Breast Cancer, and potentially raising funds for a cure. And the whole thing pisses me off. What’s so offensive about a pink shirt that says “Save the Boobies,” if the end result is money for cancer research? Namely, because once again women’s health issues are being sexualized, and a whole person reduced just to her breasts. Why not save the woman—the person? Besides, whose “boobies” are we supposed to be saving, anyway? Young-ish white women? What if those cancer afflicted “boobies” belong to an African-American grandmother? (And breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis for African-American women). Since hers won’t conform to what our culture idealizes in breasts (i.e. youth, firmness, whiteness etc) are they not worth saving? When are we as a society going to value women as people, and not just as an assembly of sexualized body parts?
Of course, such a thing doesn’t exist for men, or if they do, they’re far less prevalent than the “save the ta-tas” bullshit. I have yet to see a “save the nuts” bumper sticker (and we can’t use proper names for said body parts, we have to use cutesy nicknames, even further reducing the gravity of this disease). That’s because men’s health issues are the default health issues—the norm, and they’re certainly not sexualized in a mass campaign. It’s also important to note that this campaign isn’t solely designed for getting men involved in a women’s health issue (though that certainly is at play, horrifyingly enough)—for every man I’ve seen wearing a “save the boobies” shirt, I’ve seen two young women wearing one, because young women are also being socialized into believing that their breasts are what’s important.
I don’t know too many people who haven’t had their lives impacted by cancer. I’ve lost three of my four grandparents to this voracious disease, and I participate in the Relay for Life every year, because cancer is going to keep killing people—people, not breasts.
Of course, such a thing doesn’t exist for men, or if they do, they’re far less prevalent than the “save the ta-tas” bullshit. I have yet to see a “save the nuts” bumper sticker (and we can’t use proper names for said body parts, we have to use cutesy nicknames, even further reducing the gravity of this disease). That’s because men’s health issues are the default health issues—the norm, and they’re certainly not sexualized in a mass campaign. It’s also important to note that this campaign isn’t solely designed for getting men involved in a women’s health issue (though that certainly is at play, horrifyingly enough)—for every man I’ve seen wearing a “save the boobies” shirt, I’ve seen two young women wearing one, because young women are also being socialized into believing that their breasts are what’s important.
I don’t know too many people who haven’t had their lives impacted by cancer. I’ve lost three of my four grandparents to this voracious disease, and I participate in the Relay for Life every year, because cancer is going to keep killing people—people, not breasts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)