Female Aggression

Very interesting class discussion today on female aggression. I like how, in all the examples with the exception of Buffy, the women that was being aggressive was considerably different from the way a man would be aggressive. Not so much in the way they were being perceived though. For example, the deep voice, the amount of space the aggressor was taking up, these are all very manly things about the aggressor in these instances. However, the way in which they were all being aggressive was very different from the normal "bad guy" that a man would play. The Step Mother in Snow White for example was a super human that could change shape and concoct potions. Not only that but she was always planning something. She wasn't just going with the just go around and shoot everyone attitude and ask questions later.

The only thing I really still come back to after seeing these things is that does the movie actually influence us as much as we like to think in class? I would have to say not. I mean I can barely even remember a lot of the story plots in the Disney movies. How is that shaping how I view women today? And not only that, but let's say i re-watch the movies today, or even that I can remember the movies plots today, I think I'm old enough and smart enough now to realize that Snow White isn't anything like a woman of today, and no one really acts like her in real life. I mean even if a little kid is watching it, do they really have the capacity to make the same connections we make in class with women, men, evil, not evil? I'm not so sure..

Testosterone and Male Aggression

I don't really understand why it is that conclusive evidence can't come from the fact that testosterone increases aggression. Now, does that mean men are more aggressive than women? Absolutely not, I'm not saying that at all. However, as we've discussed in class, the difference in aggression between men and women below the age of like 25 was it, or maybe 30, is quite different. After that certain age, the kind of aggression that both male and female use is quite similar. However, before that, men are more physically aggressive and women are more passively aggressive. A common example would probably be the way women outcast someone for being different, where as men are more likely, notice I said more likely, to have a physical altercation. The big thing here that I'm trying to get across is that before that certain age, men are basically at their "peak" years. I would think that their bodies are able to perform the best that they will be able to perform all their lives, and this is a direct result of the amount of testosterone still able to flow through their bodies. The physical aggression also starts, take notice, at the beginning of puberty, when the testosterone is the highest in a man that it will ever be in his entire life.

Another thing, the argument that men just perceive the ability to get angry and blame testosterone, I think, is a terrible argument. When taking steroids for example, it is well documented that the increased testosterone causes "roid rage." Now this is viewed by people in the steroid community (yes they have those, they have forums and all kinds of crazy stuff... lol) as a negative side effect. If it is viewed as extremely negative, I would think that most people would try to avoid being overly aggressive while taking steroids if it was a possible thing to do. Not only that, but seeing as how steroids are illegal, I would venture to say that being overly aggressive and getting huge really quickly would be an easy indicator of who is on roids. Not something that I would want to advertise to a lot of people.

Hemegonic Masculinity

From what we talked about in class today, from what I've read, and from what I've experienced, I can't say that I completely agree with the theory of Hemegonic Masculinity. There really is just one simple reason for this. When you talk about the people in the movies, the Marlboro Man, etc., these people are not realistic. Everyone knows they aren't realistic and that no man can truly be like those men. The thing is there is a huge number of people out there that are obviously trying to be like these men. Whether it's working out, learning to shoot a gun or whatever, a lot of men will most likely try to emulate these men. But I don't think it has anything to do with feminism, or the want to be ultra masculine. Why does the conclusion we jump to be that men want to be in charge and masculine and "Alpha" all the time?

Why can't these just be heroes that, while we know it is impossible to achieve their status, these men emulating are simply trying to improve themselves. Now improve themselves based on what? Ok, yea I concede here and sure maybe it is society. But I mean it still comes down to a personal choice that, if you really take a look at American Society and realize the amount of obese people, I'd have to say the personal choice is way stronger than the societal "norms." If the movies and society was such a huge influence on the way masculinity was perceived, I'd have to say that we would be looking at a different America, and most certainly a more fit America.

Sweat Shops

In the piece on Multi-Cultural Feminism, there is a part that talks about women in the workplace. In this sense, the workplace being referred to is the sweat shop. I have an interesting case to make about the sweat shops that I think can be brought up in class, and with some economic help (ehmmm AMIDIA!) I think I can explain why the sweatshops, while being an opression of not only women, but also children, are in fact a good thing.

Harsh I know, sweat shops are a good thing?? Well I would have to say that they are indeed a very good thing for millions of people around the world. Yes they are paid slave wages, and yes they work in terrible environments, however what are the alternatives to working in the sweatshops? Dumpster diving. Yea that's right. If they aren't getting paid the pennies an hour they are making in the sweat shops, they aren't able to be hired any where else in the country. They don't have the skill, or the company employing people just straight up doesn't have the money to employ people at normal wages. So by leaving the sweat shop, it enables people to stay out of the dumpsters, and stay out of the streets begging. Is it truly a  good thing? Obviously not. But it certainly is the lesser of two evils.

This point brings up another interesting thing. The fact that we, as Americans, think we have the right to go over to other countries and tell their people that they can't work in those conditions for that pay. This is certainly not our right to do. For example, I saw a news clip after a sweat shop was shut down in which a younger boy that worked in the shop was interviewed. He couldn't figure out why the United States hated him so much that they would take away his job and force him to beg on the streets... Just an interesting thought.

Marxist Feminism

I think that the best ideas for feminism and equality for women come from the Marxist Feminist. This is evident in the way that women are treated in the workplace today. It is certainly no secret that women experience unfair amount of pay when compared to a man for doing the same exact job. This is really the story of capitalism. In capitalism, the rate of pay is really never fair, no matter who is competing, or has the same job. With Marxism, women would be treated the same exact way as men in the workplace, regardless of job title or job in general. Everyone would be getting the same pay. I feel as though this would lead to a lot of the problems that feminism in general has today to disappear. Also, I believe women are held in the domestic house hold as a direct result of this unfair pay rate. Let's say the man of the house can go out and get paid 20$ an hour to do construction work. A women can go out and get paid 16-18$ an hour. It makes no sense to send the women out to the work place to make less money than the man if one of the two have to stay home to care for children. This division is an obvious reason for why women are kept in the home today. Also, with Marxism, the domestic work that a women would do would become public. ie, the women would be able to get paid to do what they are already doing basically for free. (Free as in material monetary value) This would most definately bring the women's status up to the men's in a lot of cases, and may even make many men decide to stay home and do domestic work and let the women go out in the work environment.

I still don't understand the critique in how a revolution would not make men and women equal. I feel as though a revolution is a revolution because, after the revolution takes place, the new leaders in society are able to shape their new society in any way they please. Does this mean that it is so ingrained into the male/female psyche that men would ultimately tell the women that, "No you really aren't equal to us."? I'm really not so sure.

The only real critique of Marxist Feminism is that Marxism really just can't work in general. The human greed factor, the want for power, etc., is the reason that this form of government would never work, and thus, men and women could never gain equality through these means.

Today's video

Today's post is going to be relatively short, as I don't really know what I think about the video in class today. What I do know is that when we talked about the "inferences" science has to make sometimes pale in comparison with what the movie talked about today. At least with science, the majority of the things that are inferred are later proven or dis proven. For example, at the beginning of the movie, he talked about the number of males assaulting women vs. the number of females assaulting males. It was something like 95% of males vs. 5% of females. First of all, how many women are even able to commit acts of physical violence against men. For example, if some girl is walking down the street, I'd say she has a very limited amount of male targets, if any, on that same street which would be someone she would want to mess with. Vs. the male aspect, which is that any average male, would most likely have no problem with an average female. This is still not a good thing and still definitely shows a masculinity problem, however the percentages of attacks are just not the way to get the point across in this instance. Not only that, but as another problem of masculinity, how many males are even going to report a statistic of being attacked or raped by a woman? In the case of rape, I would argue that the .2% of the people that reported being raped by a woman would probably be the only .2% of the male population that would even report being raped.

Another thing I strongly disagree with, and think was taken way to far and out of context was the distinction of Rocky fighting Apollo Creed. In no way was that a black vs. white deal. Rocky was by no means a middle class working citizen in his fights. In his fights against Apollo Creed, he was a thug off the streets that collected money for the loan sharks. Apollo Creed was the rich upper class citizen. Not only that, but even after the first fight they were friends, not publicly at first, but when no one was around they were. I think that was a HUGE inference made that was not reflective of the movie at all.

Lastly, and I'm sure we're going to talk about this is class is the issue of testosterone. As Celia said, once it hits the brain it's estrogen. Ok. Why is it that when someone experiences roid rage, its a result of high levels of testosterone? Why is it that the most violent, most aggressive animal on the planet is the bull shark, which also has the highest level of testosterone of any animal in the animal kingdom? I really can't wait to have this discussion and talk about why these facts aren't really relevant to the difference in aggression and violence from male to female!

Liberal Feminism

In the chapter titled Liberal Feminism in our book, I found many things that were very interesting. First of all, I sort of got the feeling that Liberal Feminism is like the mother of all feminism. It was basically how feminism started and the beginning of all the types of feminism that go on today. I found that the root of liberal feminism lies in the industrial revolution of the US. This is because, during this period, more and more men were moving their families into the cities and leaving the home during the day to go work on the assembly lines and do all the new jobs that were afforded by the industrial revolution/assembly line. This led to the fact that the men were now making the money for the family on their own and the women were at home taking care of house chores and the children. Basically, the women weren't making any actual money. This led to the increase in thought that that is what the women were supposed to be doing, which led to the thought from women that they deserved to go out and make money too!


In the book, it says that liberal feminism isn't against patriarch-ism but is more for a change in society that gives women more rights and economic equality. I feel like this should be the focal point of all women. Why? Well because I feel like the more women that can become equal to men on an economic basis, the more women will have the power to say, yes we are equal to men. And not only that, but it will encourage more women to go out and make just as much money as men and increase the probability of women staying with jobs and not getting frustrated with men that make more than they do at the same type of job. Here is where I disagree with the critics of liberal feminism. They say that all liberal feminists do is compare a woman to a man. Well in a society where men are the focal point, where men make the most money, and where men are even sometimes viewed as superior, why wouldn't women be striving to be equal with that? Do you think that men will ever want to bring themselves (and I'm sorry to put it this way, but based on the assumptions of this class and society) down to the level of what females now consider themselves?? I don't think so. And so, women must compare themselves to what society views as the higher gender/sex. Another critique is that the movement was for white middle class american women. I get the feeling like that is an older stereotype and really no longer applies, as is evident in the essay that Amidia wrote.

Science vs. Culture

I am sorry that I am going to talk about class again but I just really cannot get my head around some of the things we talked about. Humans have been evolving from our most primitive state for around like 2.2 million years. The modern Homo Sapiens have been around and evolving for like 250,000 years. It just seems to me it is IMPOSSIBLE for culture to have such a large impact on psychological things that humans partake in. For example the parental investment thing. The only logical thing that I could think of that might change the way women are "picky" is the modern scientific invention of birth control and the fact that it may change some hormones. Aside from that, women can be pretty sure they are not going to be pregnant and so I feel as though that might change the "pickiness". But when choosing someone that you are going to bear children with, the fact that we do not want for food is a really recent invention. Compared to 250,000 years. And so, the fact that a woman will naturally want to pick a mate that gives her offspring a better chance to survive is natural.

Then we got into the discussion of whether the humans only reason for being on earth is to reproduce, be a grandparent, then die. I mean that is a really negative way to look at things. But when it comes down too it, there really is no species on earth that is going to breed itself out of existence. Then we went on to talk about how, if a woman really wants to go get married, a woman can easily go out and get married without much dificulty. Well, I think the economist game theory here kind of comes into play. Women can get a man because, ultimately, other women will take other men and eventually, I would venture to say, all there would be a man for the women who is looking. After this post, I am going to try to write a lot more about the readings, but sometimes I feel as though I have my own thoughts about class that I want to get out in this blog because it is sort of easier to post here than to bring up some ideas in class. And I figure it is ok because I write a lot more than a lot of people about the class and try to actually reason some of the stuff out. Also, its hard to justify some of my opinions with the readings with get, although there are some that help. (Side note: Evangelical Christian notions are absurd...)