Well the last few classes have kind of been all-over the place, bringing the concepts that we learned about toegether and connecting all the loose strings. Some of the things that I found to be the most interesting were 1. sociologically speaking married men are the happiest and married women are the unhappiest. This again completely contradicts what society pushes on us-based on stereotypes and 'norms' you would think that all married women are happy because they have a 'protector' and someone to look after, whereas men would be unhappy with their 'ball and chain' lifestyle. This statistic alone shows how completely unreal media portrayals are. This class combined with my message analysis and mass media class have all worked really well together to make me absolutely disgusted with the media, hah i mean all they show us are unrealistic portrayals of the 'ideal' in an attempt to make us so insecure with who we are that we base our sense of worth on materialistic things. Without the media's influence I think gender issues would be much less prevalent-especially in younger generations. I mean in everyday life i doubt kids would learn even a quarter of what they learn about gender stereotypes in a 1/2 hr of disney channel tv. the notions are so ingrained that children learn and practice them without question. Like "what a girl wants' showed, these media messages are affecting kids at younger and younger ages. Since when is it ok for 10-12 yr olds to be worried about what they look like or godforbid feel pressured to have sex? I think that's absolutely sick and makes me terrified to ever have children, because like we said I don't think there's anyway to shelter them from that and its only getting worse. i know this is pretty unrealistic but i really wish more people would just start living their own lives and basing success or happiness on their own standards instead of constantly comparing themselves to people on tv or in magazines. Granted this is probably just my own personal experience but I know that without the media i wouldnt even know half of the gender stereotypes that are out there, just because they simply don't really exist. For example, i wouldn't feel pressured to be a size 2, becuase in realife girls that skinny generally look unhealthy. The roles of people in relationships is also dictacted by the media- relationships don't work the way they do on TV but where else do we learn how they work? Unless you have good personal role-models people base their standards on TV instead of navigating the world for themselves and figuring out how it actually works. I know i don't have any answers and am just reiderating what we discussed in class, but i just cant get over how much people base their lives on, and trust the media with things that are so wholly personal.

Stereotypes 2

So after reading Valenti's chapter called 'Pop Culture Gone Wild' i realized that she was essentially saying the same things that i was thinking about masculinity. She talked about the unrealistic standards that popculture creates for women and all the contradictory messages out there. For example girls are suppoesd to be sexy  but virgins-obviously makes no sense. This plays into the masculinity debate though also. The messages and stereotypes created for men are completely impossible-never cry, be aggressive and sure of yourself allll the time-although the messages themselves arent contradictory-they challenge biological realities. So this seems to leave us all in a mixed message state of complete confusion. Like Valenti says, "How do you act like yourself when you're constantly putting on a show?" I think this ultimately boils down to the fact that people are scared to act the way they want because they know that who they really are doesnt measure up and meet all the expectations. I think its extremely sad that popculture has the power to define what we 'should' be, but outside of personal role models there isn't really any other source with the power to dictate what is 'right' or 'cool'. i dont really have an answer for what should or can be done, but i think it starts with a shift away from popculture. The media and popculture have way too much power and when their only goal is profit, that puts us in a dangerously vulnerable situation. They deliberately make standards unattainably high because if the 'ideal girl' was easy to be, girls might stop buying make-up or magazines that tell them how to get one step closer to really being pretty. Consumerism in itself is a terrible thing not only because of it's impact on the environmnet and our global health, but it has also put our self-esteems and images in the hands of corporations. overall i dont know what can be done, but i think knowledge and recognizing the fact that we are being constantly manipulated helps to break down the validity of the messages sent by popculture. Since i know that all they want is money, its easy to step back and be more critical of the messages they spew.

Masculinity

Well first of all, i think the concept of masculinity as a social construct is very interesting because its so accepted that we never even really question it. Feminism gets a lot of attention because its 'going against the grain' and is always in the forefront of gender debates. Anyone someone mentions gender conflict or movements we, or at least i, always think of feminism. However unlike feminism, masculinity is not something i've ever really encountered in an academic sense, or really sat down to pick it apart. i think the biggest concept that i got was the oz factor, or never letting her behind the curtain. I think this is the mentality that most men feel they have to live up to. It pretty much sums up the common attributes associated with masculinity-never showing emotion, staying cool calm and collected-essentially putting up a flawless facade and never showing anything else. Traditionally i guess showing vulnerability could have been a matter of life/death but i don't get why it has continued to be something so prevalent within our culture. Logically we know that everyone is vulnerable, everyone cries, everyone has emotions so why is it something we have to hide from so often? I liked one quote in particular from the newsweek article "conceiving of masculinity as something to be-a part to play-turns manliness into something ornamental and about as 'masculine' as fake eyelashes are inherently feminine". I think that really gets at the fact that masculinity for most is just a show. The wizard of oz i think is a pretty good metaphor. The image of the wizard represents masculinity-its just a facade, used as a means to an end, and even has typical masculine traits-intimidating, powerful and mysterious. whereas the man behind the curtain represents the reality of what men really are-just people who experience all the same emotions and feelings as everyone else. I think the pressure of having to live up to some unrealistic standard must be really hard. I know as a kid it was social suicide for a boy to cry about something, to them that was the end of the world. Granted it wasn't 'cool' for girls to cry but i mean if it happened, i dont think girls had nightmares about it. Also i think sometimes aggression stems from boys being so frustrated and tightly wound because something is bothering them and they feel like they don't have any emotional outlet so they let it out in a physical way. The whole notoin of rugged indiviualism, picking yourself up by the bootstraps, reinforces the thinking that its weak to rely on others-physically or emotionally. but at the same time, men do rely on each other just as much as women, its just portrayed in a different light. Being truly indivudal and not relying on anyone is seen as strange-so why is there such a stereotype taht only women rely on one another? I'm kind of all over the place with this, i just think the whole 'macho' ideal is such bullshit because its not based on any ounce of truth or reality. However like the newsweek article said, i think masculinity is starting to get a long overdue makeover-the men who can move beyond facevalue masculine ideals and embrace the reality that they are people with emotions and the ability to stay home wiht the kids and cook/clean are now starting to be seen as the ideal man, which i think is awesome. I know from my personal experience that the men who i respect most are those who are vulnerable and embrace the fact that they need other people- they rely on their families and take pride in the fact that their families mutally rely on them. I think that men who try to pretend that they are self-suffficient are very, see-through in a sense. For me anyway, guys i encounter who act like that come off as being extremely immature and arrogant and extremely insecure. they're not comfortable enough with the true 'man behind the curtain' so they put on the wizard front. Overall I think its really cool that society as a whole is starting to recognize and embrace the fact that men should not have to put on that front.

Ecofeminism

The second chapter that I read was on Ecofeminism. This chapter was a little more 'out there' than the others, but equally interesting. Their main train of thought is that females, like the earth are dominated and essentially ruined by men and male concepts. The parallels that they drew between women and the earth are ones that i had commonly heard but never really understood their signifcance. For example, 'mother earth' and girls being 'naturalized' by calling them 'chicks, cows,' and even bitch is really an animal term. This seems harmless enough but when you think about it women are always compared to or categorized with things in submissive positions. We think of domesticating animals and manipulating the world around us to benefit us.Although obviously 'mother nature' can often completley overpower man in general-this still fits into the feminine characteristic of being unpredictable, explosive, and illogical. Although all ecofeminists can agree that feminism and environmentalism are problems that go hand-in-hand, there are many divisions within the group. For example they disagree about whether it is beneficial or harmful to their cause to highlight the connection between females and the earth. Many say that this comparison automatically place women below men and there will never been equality as long as women are placed in this category. however, others believe that embracing the correlations would empower women more. There is also divisions between the idea of deep and shallow ecology-shallow ecology beleives that it is important to protect the earth because humans need it for their survival. Deep ecology says that we should protect the earth solely because of its intrinsic value and not because of its importance to humans. Overall i took ecofeminism to be a very broad concept with many different variations but their unifying idea of feminism and environmentalism being connected did strike a chord with me. In complete contrast with post-modern feminism, i think ecofeminism is too exclusive. Some of their  views were so extreme that it is unrealistic to try for a wide range of supporters. For example this seemed to be the most intensely man-hating chapter that ive come across. Furthering the division between men and women is exactly what they're against but also exactly what they're promoting. My idea of ecofeminism would be more of a mix between postmodern and eco- in that yes feminism and environmentalism are connected but it should and does pertain to everyone since we do all live on the same planet. Ideally i guess what i was thinking of before i read the chapter was that ecofeminism would promote equality for all things-men, women, plants, animals, rocks , grass--anything on the planet. Obviously thats extremely ideal and at this point i think safe to say impossible, but i was just a little taken aback by the extremeness and tangible anger that seemed to be in many of the spokesperson's veiws.

Post-Modern Feminism

So before this class, I never really questioned the idea of feminism, and like Valenti suggested, the term automatically brought all of the typical negative stereotypes to mind. Even after reading Valenti, my opinion was slightly changed but i still wasn't really intrigued by the movement-it just kind of seemed like common sense. However, reading Tong's book has significantly changed how i think about it. First of all I never considered how diverse something as seemingly simple as feminism could be. I specifically read the chapter on post modern feminism. My main concepts from the chapter were that they were mostly concerned with including everyone and avoiding divisions. Their broad definition was that there is no right way to be a feminist. I agree that i don't think there's any one way to do anything, but like the critics suggested i think thats too broad of a statement to actually unify a movement. Inclusion is important but so is action and I don't think they really focus much on action. However, i think they do focus on key concepts that other groups breeze over. The language aspect is one that I think they do a good job of emphasizing. The fact that the concept of gender is so wholly ingrained into our language makes change nearly impossible. Without having the words to describe something, its nearly impossible to explain the problem let alone the solution. Overall I think they have the right idea, and touch on incredibly important topics. but i have to agree with the criticisms in that they lack any real cohesion and it seems to be more of a philosophy than a real movement. However, i think that if incorporated into already solidified movements, they're ideas could be hugely influential.