Halloween Costumes

I was shopping at the mall this weekend when I observed some interesting behavior. So interesting in fact, I sat on a bench while waiting for my sister and further observed this behavior. The behavior I’m referring to is the gender typing of children.

Halloween is tomorrow. This weekend at the mall children and their parents (usually their mothers) where shopping for costumes. Of course we all know that the best part of Halloween besides the candy is dressing up like someone of something we aren’t. Halloween is a holiday (today in America) built upon children’s imagination. Almost anything a child wants do be they can. What is of interest is why they want to be these characters.

At the mall what caught my attention were the pleas of children. Girls begged their mothers for princess, fairy, and butterfly costumes. Boys begged for anything with swords, blood, goo, or fangs. The correlation seems quite simple. The girls generally gravitated toward soft, gentle, and “pretty” costumes. The boys generally gravitated towards strong, harsh, violent, and “ugly” costumes. The mothers’ reaction to their children’s choices was also very interesting. I found that often mothers would encourage their daughters’ choice of more feminine costumes by saying things like “oh how beautiful and cute.” They would also encourage their sons’ choice of more masculine costumes by saying things like, “oh how scary, strong, yucky.” For the older children this clearly had an influence on their decisions, they would smile at their mothers’ reactions.

While watching these families shop for their costumes I was reminded of my own costumes. I surprised myself by remembering everyone. I was equally surprised by how varying they were in terms of stereotypical gender from a dinosaur, vampire, and witch to a princess, space girl, fifties girl, and gypsy.

I was a:

Dinosaur
Princess
Witch
Vampire
Space Girl (like from the Jetsons...)
Fifties Girl
Gypsy/Fortune Teller

Can you remember your costumes? What do you think they say about you?

What needs to change...

I was reading an article this morning for my sociology class from the American Sociological Review. The article is called "Antiblack Discrimination in Public Places," and it gives personal accounts of situations and experiences that African Americans have had that showcase the oppression they face in their everyday lives and how they deal with this discrimination. One section really caught my attention because it reminded me of something that we have talked about before in class (and in the blog!), relating to the oppression of women. The section in the article that I am referring to focused on the personal account of a middle-class African American woman who happens to be a professor at a major all-white university. Here is a chunk of what she said:

"…Because I’m a large black woman, and I don’t wear whatever class status I have, or whatever professional status [I have] in my appearance when I’m in the grocery store, I’m part of the mass of large black women shopping. For most whites, and even for some blacks, that translates into negative status. That means that they are free to treat me the way they treat most poor black people, because they can’t tell by looking at me that I differ from that."

The last sentence is what really caught my attention because, as writer Joe Feagin explains later in the article, when she says "they can’t tell by looking at me that I differ from that," she is talking about her status as a professor. I felt that her statement was strange because she is almost trying to separate herself from her race and from her fellow African Americans by saying that she is different from them and that she basically doesn’t deserve to be lumped into that category.

This reminded me of an earlier discussion we had about the oppression of women and how there is no way that we are ever going to be able to overcome oppression if we keep picking on each other and pointing out our differences. This woman is an African American, whether she realizes it or not. I know that being a professor gives her more status than the "poor black people" that she refers to, but I think she needs to join forces with the poor, rather than try to separate herself from them, in order to combat the oppression that they are all facing because of the color of their skin.

@ a Loss for Word...Fashion Ideals it is!

Okay, you guys basically covered everything I wanted to say about Kate. She’s an awesome speaker!

So I was having a really hard time figuring out what to write about this week so I’ll work from a quote I used in my research paper.

“From the mid-eighteenth century there was a gradual loosening of underclothing, culminating in the complete abandonment of stays in favour of the “Grecian” or “Classical” look. [..] But from the 1820s the waist again began to feature. By the 1830s, aided by invention of the metal eyelet which allowed greater force to be exerted, the era of tightlacing had arrived. Until the late 1890s, almost continuous and severe construction was edict of fashion”

This quote is a clearly depiction of fashion trends and how the come and go in our society, often leaving their mark behind. From the Elizabethan era to, as the quote states, the mid 1700s corsets and unnatural figures and bodily ideals were in. For about 70 years leading up to the 1820s the “Grecian” natural look was fashionable. Then from the 1820s to the turn of the century corsets were back and more extreme then before. Up until the Great Depression stick thin was in, think of the flappers. Finally natural and curvy made a comeback until the mod era of Twiggy in the 1960s. Since then we’ve been in the super thin waif era. What’s next for the female body ideal? Are we to continue our centuries old rollercoaster ride between natural and extremes, or is something different in store? I don’t know about you, but I feel a change coming with the BMI regulations coming about in Europe I think its only time until the waif are out of style. In essence it just bothers me how we all try to be this ideal instead of being ourselves.

Two thoughts...

Yesterday’s class was amazing. Kate Bornstein made me think of new issues that relate to the idea of gender, and I feel like my mind has been opened even more than it was before. Prior to listening to her speak, I had never heard of anyone who was born a male, had gender reassignment surgery to become a female, but was attracted to women the entire time. This makes complete sense though because as she explained, she never felt like she was in the “right” body. I thought it was interesting how she doesn’t relate herself to one particular gender and how she strongly believes that she is neither of the genders. When she said this, I was curious to know how she would classify herself in the sex portion of a test or survey, where you are only given two choices and you have to pick one — male or female. I know that Kate prefers people to use the pronoun “she” when they refer to her, so maybe this means she would classify herself as a female in one of those pick-and-choose scenarios.

Now on a completely different note…

In my sociology class, we have been talking about gender inequality and today the topic of female genital mutilation came up. A person began talking about how some (if not all) of these mutilations are done to prevent the female from experiencing any sort of sexual pleasure (e.g. clitoridectomy). My professor then brought up the point that this is normal in the cultures that practice it and that females who aren’t circumcised are viewed as dirty by the rest of their community/society. He then asked us if we thought there was any difference between female genital mutilation and various types of plastic surgery that is performed in the United States, such as breast enlargement. I thought that this was an interesting comparison and I don’t know that I would have ever thought to connect the two. Many females in the class said that the two are completely different because choice is involved in plastic surgery. My professor had a good comeback to that comment by saying that in our society, women often don’t have a choice because of the pressure that is placed on them to conform to the "ideal" body image. He also added that, much like genital mutilation, women who get breast enlargements then aren’t able to experience any feeling or pleasure in that part of their body.

How do you feel about these comments? I’m not sure which side of this debate I agree with because we are comparing two different cultural practices and I feel like I have a bias to say that one is worse than the other. Do you think that these two practices are in anyway similar? Would you have ever thought to compare them to one another?

Racial Hierarchies and Categorizations

After reading the “Introduction” and the first few pages of “Shifting the Center” of Race Class and Gender I was reminded of the question I have encountered so many times in my life I could never attempt to count. Everyone has encountered this question, and if they haven’t they must either surround themselves with people who simple do not care or people who are very similar to themselves. The question I am referring to is: Where are you from?

This is addressed in the first few pages of “Shifting the Center” and much like the author I’ve grown tired of being asked this question. Now that’s not to say I think asking someone where they’re from is a bad thing. It’s not, but I do think one should ask what your heritage is, or where are your ancestors from instead. What I do find “bad” is why people ask. Some people ask just because they’re curious, nothing else, and that’s fine with me I welcome such questions. It’s the other people who ask because they need to categorize you, that bother me. And those seem to be the people who ask me the most, especially when I was a younger sunbather when my more “exotic” (Filipino and Spanish) skin tone, hair, and facial features would stump people. I can always tell when people are asking so they can place me in a category. They either look very confused when I list my ten multiracial ethnicities or they ask a follow up question like: “So what are you white, Asian, or Hispanic?”

As was explained in the “Introduction” traditionally we view race, class, and gender on a hierarchy. It is because of this traditional mind set that I think some people need to know, for their own mental hierarchy they find out where you belong on it. The whole idea of a social hierarchy, especially based on race (the one thing we have absolutely no control over) frustrates me because there is no basis for such a hierarchy. Yet people still rely heavily on such to form opinions about others they encounter.

Stereotype Frustration

Yesterday when I was on my way to the dressing room in Target, I noticed a bunch of shirts displayed straight ahead, along the back wall of the men’s section. They were those solid-color t-shirts that have a saying written on them that is usually supposed to be funny. I stopped to read the shirts and was very frustrated by what I saw. The one that struck me the most was a bright green shirt that had a pair of stick people holding hands. You could tell by looking at the stick figures that they were supposed to be a bride and a groom. Underneath the picture, it said “Game Over.” I stood there feeling a little bit shocked for a moment, and I explained to my mom and my older sister the problem that I was having with the shirt.

I do not have any dreams or aspirations to get married because there are many aspects of marriage that I don’t agree with, so that was not the cause of my frustration. I felt that the shirt had the potential to perpetuate many of the gender stereotypes that surround us today, and that something like this could contribute to how males and females are socialized. This shirt, along with other equally terrible shirts, were hanging on the wall for the world to see, including little boys and girls who are still trying to figure out where their places are in our society. It shows them that this is how men view relationships and that their life is basically over when they get married or enter a commitment. It almost makes it seem acceptable to society because the message is printed on a t-shirt for a grown man.

This class has already changed the way that I view the world. I can’t go anywhere without noticing things like t-shirts and connecting them to the way that our society views masculinity, femininity, and gender. I feel much more aware of why things are the way that they are in our society.

Oppression

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the assigned sections in Race, Class, and Gender for next class. There were many interesting points that were brought up about how we all need to view race, class, and gender in relation to one another, rather than as separate entities. I liked seeing how the authors of each of these essays were talking about very specific and different types of oppression, but how when you take a step back and view the essays in relation to one another (like Marilyn Frye’s birdcage!), each of these people share the common problem that they are being excluded, for whatever reason, from the rest of society.

I found the essays about the oppression of women to be particularly intriguing. It was interesting to read about Cherrie Moraga’s definition of the "oppressor’s nightmare." She said, "It is not really difference the oppressor fears so much as similarity. He fears he will discover in himself the same aches, the same longings as those of the people he has shitted on…He fears the hatred, anger, and vengeance of those he has hurt" (33). I thought that this was an interesting idea, and I think I agree that the oppressor does have a tremendous amount of fear. The oppressor points out the differences between him/her and the oppressed person so that those characteristics will stand out more than the similarities, and so that the oppressor will remain the more privileged one in society. Moraga continues, "We women have a similar nightmare, for each of us in some way has been both oppressed and the oppressor. We are afraid to look at how we have failed each other" (33). This reminded me of a discussion we had in class about how women are never going to gain the proper respect from men and from society if we don’t stop picking on ourselves and pointing out each other’s differences. Even if our gender is the only thing that we have in common, that is still a place to start. We are both females and, because of that, we have had similar experiences in life even if our backgrounds are different.

I think that June Jordan summed this point up nicely. She said, "It is not only who you are…but what we can do for each other that will determine the connection" (42). We must stand up for each other, before society will stand up for us.

Is the media the only one to blame?

I too was taken aback a bit by my numbness to the violence portrayed in “Tough Guise” and other videos and television shows. Despite this I cannot help but question the conclusion both “Tough Guise” and “Dreamworlds 2” presented. In both films it is suggested that the violence portrayed in the media and popular culture influence men to be aggressive and violent. This sounds like a very plausible conclusion, but it is incomplete.

In America this correlational conclusion would seem easily proven correct. However, in Europe for example the correlation does not exist. After viewing both “Tough Guise” and “Dreamworlds 2” I recalled a trip to Europe I took with my AP German class. We were part of one of those student tours, and as I would imagine most companies do, our class had a meeting with the tour leader once we arrived. Among the many things we were told the one thing that shocked all of us, especially us females, and that we didn’t believe at first, was that there was minimal violence and women could feel safe walking the city streets at night. Now I can only say this is true for Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, but in those countries our tour leader was right. Women appeared comfortable walking the city streets alone, and in the morning when we watched the news there wasn’t a list of rapes, murders, and assaults as we have here in America. Instead their biggest crime was petty theft, usually bikes.

This recollection leaves me to ask, why are Americans seemingly more influenced by the same violent media that Europeans watch? Perhaps it is not the media. Perhaps our culture is simply more violent. Then a new question remains, what drives our culture's violence? Could it be that we are a young country founded upon the victory of war. Clearly war is a central focus of our history, education, and society. This is made clear by the Dept. of Defense, formally known as Dept. of War, being the most funded of all departments.

In my opinion “Tough Guise” and “Dreamworlds 2” are wrong. They only suggest one cause for violence and aggression, the media. The media may be a crucial part of the problem, but it by no means only part.

Media for Children with Adult Content

I absolutely agree with Shannon’s blog. Times seem to be changing faster than ever. I mean we are not that old, nineteen and twenty. Yet it seems like we grew up in an entirely different era.

Today kids know more than ever before about life, sex, and society. However, what they may know as “normal,” “average,” and “common” really isn’t real, until media influences it to be. It’s real to them because the media says it is.

Two things that have recently come out and I’ve seen on TV really disturb me. First, are the new Disney cell phones. You see in commercials kids that clearly aren’t even in middle school yet with cell phones. That’s not real, or at least it wasn’t ten years ago, even five years ago. I didn’t get a cell phone until I was sixteen in 2002. My sister didn’t get a cell phone until she was fourteen in 2003. That was “normal,” but as the media increasingly showed that “normal” is nine and ten year olds having cell phones, media normal became real life normal. Now, especially in affluent areas like Ashburn children in elementary school have cell phones, not because they need them, but because they wanted them and through tantrums and badgering they got them.

The second thing that really disturbs me is Baby Bratz, a new TV show for kids. In the show cartoon toddlers are drawn to look like the popular Bratz dolls (which is a whole other topic – they almost put out a line of Pussy Cat Dolls). These “babies” have long styled hair, platform shoes, mini skirts, halter tops that show their mid-drift, and make-up. The thing that really got me was at one point one of the girls is caught stealing coins from the fountain at a mall (great behavior modeling, NOT!), a security guard catches her, but she is let go after she bats her long curled eyelashes at him. I find that to be so disgusting, it teaches girls they can do bad things as long as they know how to be sex enough to an adult (male) to get a way with it. Not only is this wrong, but it’s dangerous too.

Today instead of watching Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, or Winnie the Pooh and actually learning useful and wholesome life lessons, as our generation did in the late 80’s and early 90’s, children are watching shows like Baby Bratz which is teaching toddlers that sexy is good. Why has everything changed so fast? Well according to a documentary I watched a few months ago and the makers of Merchants of Cool would probably agree, media and advertisement executives realized the full potential of a child’s and teen’s buying power in the mid 90’s. This is when Power Rangers, Pokemon, Power Puff Girls, and Sponge Bob emerged shortly followed by their full line of dolls, clothing, backpacks, and lunch boxes. Kids want to be cool, so if that means a girl has to have a mini skirt at age three just like a Power Puff Girl or Bratz, and a boy need to have weapons like Power Rangers to fight and "kill" enemies then so be it.