Jump to content

Feminism - Frightbats Galore!


karaddin

Recommended Posts

http://m.wimp.com/throwgirl/



I am posting from my phone so I apologize for the formatting of the link.



This is an interesting little video that is sponsored by Always. Although it is connected to a very large corporation and there is some advertising involved, I still think the message is important and am glad to see a corporation take a stance on this.



The video deals with the phrase "like a girl" and how it effects girls, especially through the transition of puberty. The difference in how these girls reacted to the phrase depending on their age is striking to say the least.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider myself an ally to the cause of women's rights but I don't know if that makes me a feminist or not. I was raised to believe in gender roles and to look to the Bible for how men and women ought to behave and believe me, I didn't need this forum to start thinking for myself but this community did help me become more comfortable with my changing attitudes.

But even to this day, while I advocate for women getting the same salary as men for the same work, and while I argue with people all the time over what I deem to be their sexist behavior, I still have a personal desire for the kind of relationship I was bought up to believe in.

So I guess the only thing that's changed is that I don't think everyone ought to be held to that standard, and I'd fight tooth and nail on that accord.

By which you mean what? A relationship where you are the primary breadwinner and your partner is a housewife? Or are you more referring to the biblical ideal of female behavior where your partner would be subservient to you in all things?

The latter of these is very problematic. The former isn't an issue provided that's what you both want as far as I'm concerned. I don't think feminism takes the stance that women shouldn't be housewives or stay-at-home moms if that's what they really want. As long as the understanding is there that it isn't her only option, and there's no pressure from you to keep her in that role should she ever desire something different, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

Not my thing personally, but everyone's different.

Maybe my attitude is problematic in a feminist view too though, and this sort of thing shouldn't be encouraged at all, I'm not sure :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By which you mean what? A relationship where you are the primary breadwinner and your partner is a housewife? Or are you more referring to the biblical ideal of female behavior where your partner would be subservient to you in all things?

The latter of these is very problematic. The former isn't an issue provided that's what you both want as far as I'm concerned. I don't think feminism takes the stance that women shouldn't be housewives or stay-at-home moms if that's what they really want. As long as the understanding is there that it isn't her only option, and there's no pressure from you to keep her in that role should she ever desire something different, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

Not my thing personally, but everyone's different.

Maybe my attitude is problematic in a feminist view too though, and this sort of thing shouldn't be encouraged at all, I'm not sure :dunno:

I was definitely referring to the former. My last relationship was sort of boring because she was much too subservient for my tastes; she wouldn't oppose anything I did. My personal ideal marriage would be as you mentioned, where I'm working sixty hours in a career I love and she's at home with the children, or vice versa. I'd love being a stay at home dad while she works. All depends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider myself an ally to the cause of women's rights but I don't know if that makes me a feminist or not.

What are "women's" rights? I know I'm being a bit facetious as I'm no stranger to this reference, but I'd like to know what rights you believe are informed by sex/gender? The nomenclature when incorporated in practice may be nugatory but it is, nevertheless, very suggestive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are "women's" rights? I know I'm being a bit facetious as I'm no stranger to this reference, but I'd like to know what rights you believe are informed by sex/gender? The nomenclature when incorporated in practice may be nugatory but it is, nevertheless, very suggestive.

That's a fair question. I'm not going to share my full answer to this question because I have some views that are relevant that I'm not comfortable sharing. But I will say that one of the rights I mean to mention when I refer to a woman's rights are the costs of child care: it is my belief that the sexist culture America has dwelled in for all these years has contributed to expensive child care and I think that's absolutely unacceptable. I think that's one right that, for the most part, specifically pertains to making life easier for women. I say for the most part because I don't want to seem unaware that there are single fathers who'd benefit from fighting against this as well.

I am, of course, opposed to unequal wages for the same level of education, seniority and position. So that's an issue I care about. And really, those are the big two for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like, I can kinda see what he's pointing out, it's just that I don't think it actually matters.



Not every work of fiction needs a ton of well rounded characters of every single possible type.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the show, it's on my summer to-see list but i have seen the trailers so I know the general concept. If what the article says about male portrayal is true and if those male characters aren't just background characters but play semi-significant roles even in one or two episodes then he makes a very good point. Especially, I would say, when some characteristics of the show are taken into consideration (main characters' backstories, intended audience etc).

Also, the main point of the article isn't so much the lack of representation (or character depth) of (imprisoned) men but the "bad" (negatively stereotypical) representation of (imprisoned) men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does OITNB portray male prisoners with a racial bias as the article claims ?

Well as far as I can recall there is ONE male prisoner that is given a speaking role (and he appears in 1-2 episodes). That prisoner is black, I guess you can make an argument that's showing a racial bias but it's really pretty flimsy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think there's a valid case of racism there, I think if it had been a white male prisoner this guy would have written the same article and called it whitewashing.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think there's a valid case of racism there, I think if it had been a white male prisoner this guy would have written the same article and called it whitewashing.

Exactly

and arguing that a show set in a women's prison doesn't devote enough time to male characters is just stupid.

Oh if only there had ever been a popular show set in a men's prison...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The show is set in a womens' prison. There are no opportunities for male prisoners to be around at all except for the handful of transport scenes in 2x01 (when groups of prisoners are put onto a plane). The male and female prisoners are still segregated during this time and not allowed to speak. There's no feasible way that a male prisoner who is not a belligerent troublemaker would interact with any of the show's characters.

It is a fair point that the one representation of a male prisoner character is pretty extreme (scary rapey hitman) to the point where I thought it hurt the story. It definitely shook my suspension of disbelief.

"tragic lack of love" is laughable as a summary of how the prisoners in the show got there. Yeah, people who do desperate shit often are in desperate situations, that's how life works. But it doesn't fit for Sophia, nor the nun (despite the article bizarrely claiming it), nor Yoga Jones, nor Rosa, nor Piper and Alex, and that's just off the top of my head. It doesn't even really fit Taystee, whose tragic lack of love is an indictment of the foster system; who gets preyed on by Vee (who we can assume was hanging around the orphanage befriending random kids for a reason - she's exploiting the broken system herself). Who gets released and is forced back into prison because she has no support system outside, which could be a "tragic lack of love" - but is again really an indictment of the system.

The scenario the article paints as typical for prisoners ("hey baby, do you mind if I leave my shit here") is pretty much what Piper is in for. I remember another one from S1 too, vaguely. Daya maybe? I like how this shows the woman as a victim and the man as at fault, exactly the stereotype that the article's original thesis is against propagating.

and, uh

Female prisoners on the show are treated very differently. They may be violent and may be queer, but they are, for the most part, presented as sympathetic.

fuck you, guy. Queer isn't actually the opposite of sympathetic - except it is to you, now, because we know that you're an asshole and you don't get any of our sympathy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and, uh

fuck you, guy. Queer isn't actually the opposite of sympathetic - except it is to you, now, because we know that you're an asshole and you don't get any of our sympathy.

I had the same thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is probably a point to be made that the prisoner's stories are... romanticized? Dramatized? But then again, that kind of critique can be levelled against any work of fiction. (It is, after all, not a documentary)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...