Thought this was funny and it fits both with gender and the corporations Nick was talking about today.
LowLowKerry is sick or stereotypical health and diet ads that resort to cliches in order to make women buy their products.
The lecture’s I have been watching mention Judith Butler, found this extract called gender troubles, she’s a feminist and she mentions in one of her personal video journeys that ive been watching (6 part video on youtube) that she is gay, and that she refuses to be named that first, because most people introduce someone (with a sexuality other than hetrosexual) as their sexuality, which she feels does not make a person she is other things before she is a gay. So she has a book called gender troubles which backs up some of her points in her video’s too. She is feminist, and she is gay, it maybe bias in someways possibly? but its good to get another point of view so from about page 16 she talks about sex,gender, identity and desire.
so i realized just now after reading through what i had previously posted that i am very interested in gender roles within art and so i will be investigating this area more.
this is a quote from a pdf i found online the link looks a bit like this Chapter 4.10: Art and Gender – WW Norton & Company
Our assumptions about gendered roles are
often based on cultural stereotypes. For example, the ancient Egyptians and Greeks developed formal methods for representing the ideal
human figure in art, with males being presented as strong and athletic, while females appear demure. Similarly, in our modern society we construct our own ideas about what men and women should look like and how they should behave. Artworks depicting men have historically referred to their powerful bodies or leadership roles. In contrast, women have tended to be shown in artworks either as passive, eroticized subjects who exist solely for the viewer’s pleasure, or, alternately, in the role of nurturers in domestic scenarios. There are, however, numerous examples of artworks that consciously counter these stereotypical representations and show images of men as vulnerable and women in positions of power.
Segment from Paul Fry’s lecture at Yale University.
Talks about Michel Foucault and looks at sexuality using his methods.
This text i found kind of helps to understand it, I had to watch it like 5 times and read this loads but its quite interesting really, i think the point he is making is that:
Sexuality, according to Foucault, is constructed out of society and culture. and it cant exist without it, and that it exists through discourse? he doesnt really speak about it as an act or anything? he speaks about it like an ‘IT’ like its just a whole subject? or maybe just the discourse in general. reading foucault’s piece he splits it into 4 sections, which are;
the hysterization of womens anatomy, pedagogization of child sex pedagogization (coined by a Dutch philosopher I think) comes from the term pedagogy and it means:
1. the function or work of a teacher; teaching.
2. the art or science of teaching; education; instructional methods.
I’m still trying to figure out what it means in this context?
socialization and finally psychiatrization (read the reading below for more explanations on the terms)
So what Foucault goes on to say is that sexuality cant exist without these core aspects? Im not going to argue with the man but its hard to get that in your head I think? i feel like it would exist without but its maybe amplified by this? hhhmmm..
Reading from CULTURE SOCIETY & SEXUALITY
Foucault identifies four centers that have related power and knowledge to sex. First, the “hysterization of women’s bodies” has led us to think of the female body first as highly sexual and second as an object of medical knowledge. The female body, as a center for reproduction, has also come to be considered a matter of public interest and public control. Second, the “pedagogization of children’s sex” sees children as highly sexual creatures, and sees this sexuality as something dangerous that needs to be monitored and controlled. Third, the “socialization of procreative behavior” sees reproduction and therefore sex as a matter of public importance, and disapproves of non- procreative sex. Fourth, the “psychiatrization of perverse pleasure” is the result of studying sex as a medical and psychiatric phenomenon. It highlights divergences from normal sexual behavior and identifies them as illnesses that need correcting. Foucault emphasizes that these four centers do not “repress” sexuality; the concept of sexuality does not exist except as it is framed by these discourses.
Foucault distinguishes between what he calls the “deployment of alliance” and the “deployment of sexuality.” The former is a system of kinship ties that exists in almost every culture. It consists of a number of spoken or unspoken rules regarding marriage, family ties, ancestry and so on. The latter, which has increasingly come to replace the former in modern society, is far less regulatory and far more variegated. While the deployment of alliance essentially works to maintain the stable structure of society, the deployment of sexuality provides an ever-changing structure that allows us to interpret a range of phenomena in their relation to sex and pleasure. Foucault suggests that the deployment of sexuality evolved from the deployment of alliance, as the earlier emphasis on what sorts of relations were permitted was replaced by an emphasis on what sort of sensations were permitted.
All four strategic centers deal with family relations. Foucault concludes that the family does not repress sexuality, but nurtures it. The deployment of alliance focuses specifically on family relations, so it is in the family that the deployment of alliance and the deployment of sexuality have the most contact. Foucault suggests that the deployment of alliance maintains some control over family relations and thus on the deployment of sexuality by means of the taboo it places on incest.
The “deployment of sexuality” is the way that we use sexuality to join different concepts. It is closely related to the “deployment of alliance,” which is the way that alliances have been used to make connections within a society. All societies involve alliances at the family level. Foucault takes as examples the way property or names get passed down through families, or the kinds of protocol that exist between different family relations. An important application of the deployment of alliance has to do with sex: married people can’t have extra- marital sex, and people cannot have sex with their family members.
The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks – Distinguishing Sex and Gender
Sex refers to the biological characteristics distinguishing male and female.
This definition emphasizes male and female differences in chromosomes, anatomy,
hormones, reproductive systems, and other physiological components. Gender
refers to those social, cultural, and psychological traits linked to males and females
through particular social contexts. Sex makes us male or female; gender makes us
masculine or feminine. Sex is an ascribed status because a person is born with it, but
gender is an achieved status because it must be learned.
This relatively simple distinction masks a number of problems associated with
its usage. It implies that all people can be conveniently placed into unambiguous
“either–or” categories. Certainly the ascribed status of sex is less likely to be altered
than the achieved status of gender. Some people believe, however, that they were
born with the “wrong” body and are willing to undergo major surgery to make their
gender identity consistent with their biological sex. Sexual orientation, the
preference for sexual partners of one gender (sex) or the other, also varies. People
who experience sexual pleasure with members of their own sex are likely to
consider themselves masculine or feminine according to gender norms. Others are
born with ambiguous sex characteristics and may be assigned one sex at birth but
develop a different identity related to gender. Some cultures allow people to move
freely between genders, regardless of their biological sex.
Ive been looking at gender roles and and the main thing that arises from linguistic formations, or the way it is expressed in relation to gender, seems to be sexuality and sexuality is discursive because of gender, so im going to concentrate on that area, and narrow it down a bit, because prior I was looking at gender roles in different societies and what it meant to be a man and what it meant to be female, and what happens if it is not that way which can cross over into sexuality, that’s not to say it always does, for example I watched a program on sex changes, whilst watching it I wondered if sexuality had anything to do with the sex change process, I assumed that if a man wanted to be a women he might be attracted to men so in a sense it would make him a straight women, but factually a gay man? confusing right? so yeah, I assumed this, but after watching it and realising that they are 2 completely separate things and that sexuality is more of an aftermath as opposed to the initial idea of a sex change, it got me onto this track about gender and sexuality.
Ive been reading a some chapters from Human Nature (i think its called that) but its about society and sex roles specifically in hunting and gathering groups such as tribes and eskimos etc and she looks at how within these groups of people, they still have this idea of men being the more dominant sex despite lacking the knowledge and ideologies of todays culture and discourses on male and female genders within society. She looks into why this happens and why men are still seen as leaders, basically its because men are the hunter and provider and women are seen as subordinates because they survive of the mens catch and they can only make things such as clothing or rugs (from the caught animal) because the man had caught it (so women couldn’t survive without men) she looks at some groups that are more egalitarian such as the Washo’s who are more equal because men and women lead a more separated life and women do hunt and kill and provide, they can also marry a man of their choice, inlike eskimo’s which are kind of like gypsy with the whole “grabbing” to select your wife.
So she then concludes by saying that because of all these studies, men and women are shaped by a culturally defined division of labour based on sex, and that we still have some similar views in some ways today (not so much in this county) because it is a result of biological inheritance.
So, do you think that we are following a kind of tradition in views toward men and women? And are women still shadowed by men? Why?