| |
September 25, 2007 1:33 AM,
Colleen Shirazi said...
I agree that acquisition for the sake of acquisition is...kind of village. It's like, I want this fancy car to impress the other people in the village, or such-and-such handbag...the sole purpose is so that other people will know exactly how much you paid for them.
Young women tend to be very hard on each other though. They expect a lot. That changes as you get older, or at least it should change. You start to figure out some of the mechanisms of society...or at least...before I had my kids, I was treated pretty much the same as a man, in the field I was studying. It's an absolute field, either the program runs or else it cracks like a fresh egg. It doesn't matter who wrote the code, there is no way to tell whether a man or a woman wrote it.
All of that changed when I got pregnant. Suddenly you go from being one of the guys, to being something men can't relate to. And that's pretty much where all the support and recognition and money disappear.
I do wish to emphasize--disappear--it was something that was invisible to me before. When I was one of the guys, I didn't see it. It wasn't real to me.
I don't feel it's an impossible situation or that it will never change. To me it's a matter of economics. When it makes more economical sense, that's when women will become equal to men. I'm not actually holding my breath over it, but I feel it's inevitable.
In the meantime, you are going to see a system that tends to reward deviousness. I dunno, reminds me of The Jungle...here it is:
Jurgis would find out these things for himself, if he stayed there long enough; it was the men who had to do all the dirty jobs, and so there was no deceiving them; and they caught the spirit of the place, and did like all the rest. Jurgis had come there, and thought he was going to make himself useful, and rise and become a skilled man; but he would soon find out his error--for nobody rose in Packingtown by doing good work. You could lay that down for a rule--if you met a man who was rising in Packingtown, you met a knave. That man who had been sent to Jurgis' father by the boss, he would rise; the man who told tales and spied upon his fellows would rise; but the man who minded his own business and did his work--why, they would "speed him up" till they had worn him out, and then they would throw him into the gutter.
Can you believe that was written so long ago? If the system is corrupt, you're going to see more crap. If you have an actual level playing field, instead of an imaginary one, people will be...more on the level.
September 25, 2007 12:50 PM,
Dain said...
That's what I mean about "do not bitch", don't be so hard on each other.
And in any case, these are women in their late 30s to 40s. All a part of the fantasy.
SATC is very entertaining, in fact, I saw most of the episodes not knowing any better until I thought about it... and realized, it represented nothing of value. It seems that way, because you see women enjoying "the life", so you think at first that maybe these women are empowered. That's what pisses me off about that show. These women are shallow, and the show promotes being shallow. I mean, every time Carrie Bradshaw writes out one of her columns on the show, it's like, (1) there's no way a writer that shitty could afford the life she leads, (2) this is what she considers a problem?
I don't know... it's that whole freedom comes with responsibility thing. No longer do most American women need to worry about men making fools of themselves, though this is perhaps just a surface thing. What I've experienced with guys, and the close friends have been raped, I'm not sure all that much has changed in essentials. At the very least we shouldn't make fools of ourselves.
September 25, 2007 1:56 PM,
Colleen Shirazi said...
Weeellll...it's baby steps. I don't see Sex and the City as a culmination of equality, either, it just is what it is. If you have Nip/Tuck, where the lead character bangs anything that isn't bolted to the ground, and has all the accompanying toys...fancy cars, fancy house, fancy clothes...okay, he is a plastic surgeon, but it's pure conspicuous consumption. Sure, he is generally a shallow character, he doesn't try to save the world, yet there are aspects to the character that are heroic to men.
If all of the characters who have sexual freedom like that are men, it's depressing.
We are used to the idea that there is a bus, and that, at the end of the day, we have to sit at the back of it. I don't believe in this, to me it's patent nonsense. It is that way if we let it be that way, if we raise our daughters to think they have to come in second in a two-man race, or if we raise our sons to think they're somehow better.
September 25, 2007 2:52 PM,
Dain said...
I don't think we can ever be like men, though it hasn't stopped women from trying, such as in the 80s. Nor should we want to be. I'm happier to be a woman. I just don't think we should make fools of ourselves.
I feel like, Sex and the City, it's with the permission of men. Look, we protect you and refrain from the cultural attitudes that would never let you live a life like that. You should thank us for being able to live a life like that. I've heard this very sentiment expressed.
As long as we're silly about the choices we make, it will remain that way. We prove that even when given the choice, we choose to live like ornaments and treat men as accessories.
September 25, 2007 7:04 PM,
Colleen Shirazi said...
Hmmm...men are giving up something. If you grow up with absolute power, it's not always easy to give up some of it. I am conscious that things have changed, that there are some opportunities, that certainly weren't there before.
When I was growing up, professions for women included secretary, nurse, teacher (primary education more than college), ah... There were always exceptions, but in the main, you had to conform to these. Or you could always be a nun. :D
Well it looks silly, you're thinking, ah, you've finally made some serious cash, and all you're thinking about are frivolous things. But, are our frivolous things more frivolous than men's frivolity?
A man's first move is to buy a flashy sports car, but does that make him ornamental?
Men are accessories, you lost me there. lol
I don't know. I've often wondered what it would be like to be a man. The one aspect of being female that I cherish, are my kids. That is the thing. That is the only aspect I would hesitate to give up.
That, and never having to worry about sex. We definitely have the advantage there.
September 26, 2007 2:12 PM,
Dain said...
Well, I'd agree, there's no difference between the frivolity of men and the frivolity of women. Yes, consumerism is a part of it, but my objection to SATC is from a "bad art" point of view. Oh, I know, it's not art in the Picasso sense, you know, "good art" and it's certainly not trying to be, I mean art in the sense that images affect our perceptions and our culture.
The thing about being a minority group--and even this term I object to, we're most of the population!--you should never do anything to deserve condescension. The image that we uphold should be one to respect... and I think this is difficult nowadays because that whole angel-of-the-hearth thing is considered a stereotype that degrades women (insofar that it's the only option). And yet, mothers are such a central role, if we don't uphold the mothers, then...? The only way to do it, I think, is to avoid stereotypes altgoether and emphasize individual responsibility. It doesn't matter if you're a bed-hopping career girl or a worn-out mother of three, being a woman should be a cause for self-respect. Without that, how can we possibly expect respect?
September 26, 2007 9:59 PM,
Colleen Shirazi said...
Eh...that's what they did with blacks.
At first they were shown as cartoon characters, or servants. During the "blaxploitation" period they were pimps and hos...but there was a long stretch where I think they were afraid to be anything less than ideal.
So you had Sidney Poitier, Halle Berry, Denzel Washington, Louis Gossett, Jr., Morgan Freeman...and most of their roles were squeaky clean. To the best of my knowledge, none of them did outright bad guys until Denzel Washington did Training Day (not counting Pulp Fiction, since all of the characters in the movie were rough).
I agree it's not ideal; having four characters whose lives seem tied up in...clothes...that part I can't relate to. But there is a lot in it I can relate to. I don't think it's a good idea to hold women to a higher standard than men, it becomes the same double standard, where the same behavior that's accepted in men, is criticized in women.
It's particularly true for mothers. I've been amazed how people expect you to be this sort of machine...literally, a machine. You are supposed be this utterly selfless person, running around doing all these things for everyone else. It comes to the point that if you don't do it, people are quick to say you're a bad mother and a bad wife.
But what are they really talking about? Have they done the work themselves? It isn't how you think it's going to be, having observed it from the outside. It doesn't correspond to the work you do in school or in the workplace. The only people who know are the people who've done it.
FWIW, I've never known a man who put down the characters in Sex and the City. They seem a bit intimidated by the idea of the shoe being on the other foot (no doubt the main reason I like the show). :D
September 26, 2007 11:12 PM,
Dain said...
Nah, I don't mean a double-standard. Just self-respect.
September 27, 2007 1:22 AM,
Colleen Shirazi said...
Agreed. virtual high five
|
Colleen Shirazi
subscribe
in a reader
September 25, 2007 1:33 AM,
I agree that acquisition for the sake of acquisition is...kind of village. It's like, I want this fancy car to impress the other people in the village, or such-and-such handbag...the sole purpose is so that other people will know exactly how much you paid for them.
Young women tend to be very hard on each other though. They expect a lot. That changes as you get older, or at least it should change. You start to figure out some of the mechanisms of society...or at least...before I had my kids, I was treated pretty much the same as a man, in the field I was studying. It's an absolute field, either the program runs or else it cracks like a fresh egg. It doesn't matter who wrote the code, there is no way to tell whether a man or a woman wrote it.
All of that changed when I got pregnant. Suddenly you go from being one of the guys, to being something men can't relate to. And that's pretty much where all the support and recognition and money disappear.
I do wish to emphasize--disappear--it was something that was invisible to me before. When I was one of the guys, I didn't see it. It wasn't real to me.
I don't feel it's an impossible situation or that it will never change. To me it's a matter of economics. When it makes more economical sense, that's when women will become equal to men. I'm not actually holding my breath over it, but I feel it's inevitable.
In the meantime, you are going to see a system that tends to reward deviousness. I dunno, reminds me of The Jungle...here it is:
Jurgis would find out these things for himself, if he stayed there long enough; it was the men who had to do all the dirty jobs, and so there was no deceiving them; and they caught the spirit of the place, and did like all the rest. Jurgis had come there, and thought he was going to make himself useful, and rise and become a skilled man; but he would soon find out his error--for nobody rose in Packingtown by doing good work. You could lay that down for a rule--if you met a man who was rising in Packingtown, you met a knave. That man who had been sent to Jurgis' father by the boss, he would rise; the man who told tales and spied upon his fellows would rise; but the man who minded his own business and did his work--why, they would "speed him up" till they had worn him out, and then they would throw him into the gutter.
Can you believe that was written so long ago? If the system is corrupt, you're going to see more crap. If you have an actual level playing field, instead of an imaginary one, people will be...more on the level.
September 25, 2007 12:50 PM,
That's what I mean about "do not bitch", don't be so hard on each other.
And in any case, these are women in their late 30s to 40s. All a part of the fantasy.
SATC is very entertaining, in fact, I saw most of the episodes not knowing any better until I thought about it... and realized, it represented nothing of value. It seems that way, because you see women enjoying "the life", so you think at first that maybe these women are empowered. That's what pisses me off about that show. These women are shallow, and the show promotes being shallow. I mean, every time Carrie Bradshaw writes out one of her columns on the show, it's like, (1) there's no way a writer that shitty could afford the life she leads, (2) this is what she considers a problem?
I don't know... it's that whole freedom comes with responsibility thing. No longer do most American women need to worry about men making fools of themselves, though this is perhaps just a surface thing. What I've experienced with guys, and the close friends have been raped, I'm not sure all that much has changed in essentials. At the very least we shouldn't make fools of ourselves.
September 25, 2007 1:56 PM,
Weeellll...it's baby steps. I don't see Sex and the City as a culmination of equality, either, it just is what it is. If you have Nip/Tuck, where the lead character bangs anything that isn't bolted to the ground, and has all the accompanying toys...fancy cars, fancy house, fancy clothes...okay, he is a plastic surgeon, but it's pure conspicuous consumption. Sure, he is generally a shallow character, he doesn't try to save the world, yet there are aspects to the character that are heroic to men.
If all of the characters who have sexual freedom like that are men, it's depressing.
We are used to the idea that there is a bus, and that, at the end of the day, we have to sit at the back of it. I don't believe in this, to me it's patent nonsense. It is that way if we let it be that way, if we raise our daughters to think they have to come in second in a two-man race, or if we raise our sons to think they're somehow better.
September 25, 2007 2:52 PM,
I don't think we can ever be like men, though it hasn't stopped women from trying, such as in the 80s. Nor should we want to be. I'm happier to be a woman. I just don't think we should make fools of ourselves.
I feel like, Sex and the City, it's with the permission of men. Look, we protect you and refrain from the cultural attitudes that would never let you live a life like that. You should thank us for being able to live a life like that. I've heard this very sentiment expressed.
As long as we're silly about the choices we make, it will remain that way. We prove that even when given the choice, we choose to live like ornaments and treat men as accessories.
September 25, 2007 7:04 PM,
Hmmm...men are giving up something. If you grow up with absolute power, it's not always easy to give up some of it. I am conscious that things have changed, that there are some opportunities, that certainly weren't there before.
When I was growing up, professions for women included secretary, nurse, teacher (primary education more than college), ah... There were always exceptions, but in the main, you had to conform to these. Or you could always be a nun. :D
Well it looks silly, you're thinking, ah, you've finally made some serious cash, and all you're thinking about are frivolous things. But, are our frivolous things more frivolous than men's frivolity?
A man's first move is to buy a flashy sports car, but does that make him ornamental?
Men are accessories, you lost me there. lol
I don't know. I've often wondered what it would be like to be a man. The one aspect of being female that I cherish, are my kids. That is the thing. That is the only aspect I would hesitate to give up.
That, and never having to worry about sex. We definitely have the advantage there.
September 26, 2007 2:12 PM,
Well, I'd agree, there's no difference between the frivolity of men and the frivolity of women. Yes, consumerism is a part of it, but my objection to SATC is from a "bad art" point of view. Oh, I know, it's not art in the Picasso sense, you know, "good art" and it's certainly not trying to be, I mean art in the sense that images affect our perceptions and our culture.
The thing about being a minority group--and even this term I object to, we're most of the population!--you should never do anything to deserve condescension. The image that we uphold should be one to respect... and I think this is difficult nowadays because that whole angel-of-the-hearth thing is considered a stereotype that degrades women (insofar that it's the only option). And yet, mothers are such a central role, if we don't uphold the mothers, then...? The only way to do it, I think, is to avoid stereotypes altgoether and emphasize individual responsibility. It doesn't matter if you're a bed-hopping career girl or a worn-out mother of three, being a woman should be a cause for self-respect. Without that, how can we possibly expect respect?
September 26, 2007 9:59 PM,
Eh...that's what they did with blacks.
At first they were shown as cartoon characters, or servants. During the "blaxploitation" period they were pimps and hos...but there was a long stretch where I think they were afraid to be anything less than ideal.
So you had Sidney Poitier, Halle Berry, Denzel Washington, Louis Gossett, Jr., Morgan Freeman...and most of their roles were squeaky clean. To the best of my knowledge, none of them did outright bad guys until Denzel Washington did Training Day (not counting Pulp Fiction, since all of the characters in the movie were rough).
I agree it's not ideal; having four characters whose lives seem tied up in...clothes...that part I can't relate to. But there is a lot in it I can relate to. I don't think it's a good idea to hold women to a higher standard than men, it becomes the same double standard, where the same behavior that's accepted in men, is criticized in women.
It's particularly true for mothers. I've been amazed how people expect you to be this sort of machine...literally, a machine. You are supposed be this utterly selfless person, running around doing all these things for everyone else. It comes to the point that if you don't do it, people are quick to say you're a bad mother and a bad wife.
But what are they really talking about? Have they done the work themselves? It isn't how you think it's going to be, having observed it from the outside. It doesn't correspond to the work you do in school or in the workplace. The only people who know are the people who've done it.
FWIW, I've never known a man who put down the characters in Sex and the City. They seem a bit intimidated by the idea of the shoe being on the other foot (no doubt the main reason I like the show). :D
September 26, 2007 11:12 PM,
Nah, I don't mean a double-standard. Just self-respect.
September 27, 2007 1:22 AM,
Agreed. virtual high five
Post a comment (NO SPAM)
Links to this post:
Create a Link