Wow. I'm bad at this. I meant to do a post every week but things just get away from me. In my defense, school does take up a lot of of my time. Also, it's easier for me to write when I have things that I feel strongly about or am angry about, and these past few weeks I've had...less of that. Which is good. But also confusing. It's just that a lot of the things we've been covering class are super interesting and important, but also really complicated and I don't always know where I stand - or why I stand where I stand....or even if I kind of know where I might stand, I'm wary of writing down a concrete positions and sending it out into the internet where barely anyone will read it until I'm like, I don't know, up for Prime Minister or something and all of a sudden people are calling me super radical, or a bad feminist or whatever (because, in the future, not being enough or the right kind of feminist is going to be THE campaign issue in Canadian politics. prepare yourself).
Ok. But, one tiny little thought I have recently had formulate inside my brain is concerning this whole Occupy Wall Street thing. I am not an expert on this, I will say that from the start. And I do support a lot of what I think the movement is about. The current distribution of wealth is ridiculous, especially in the States and am all for greater equality. I think certain jobs/position/peoples make far too much money and have far too much power combined with far too much incentive to perpetuate this inequality. If you're not convinced about the moral argument for equality, never fear, here are some instrumentalist reasons, developed, studied and presented by someone smarter than me: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Anyway, I think that no just inequality, but the whole economic system is very problematic and very unfair and I do think national government should play a role in ensuring not necessarily complete financial equality, but more that people's work is valued appropriately and that they're salaries/living standards reflect that. I do think that working hard (or even just averagely) should ensure you have enough (all needs, some wants) and in many places, this is not the case. I also think that the state should ensure that if you are less well off, or unemployed, for whatever reason, that people are not thus unable to have their basic needs/human rights met - because that's what human rights are - things you deserve no matter what. I am a little confused regarding exactly what the occupy movement are hoping will happen, but like I said, I'm not expert. I know what I know from procrastinating on the internet and in doing so I've seen a lot of "I am the 99%" - meaning the bottom 99% of the population (economically). Usually these signs/posts/assertions also describe how hard the person has worked/does work, how much they've lost and what they cannot afford. It emphasizes the current situation in America, where the vast majority of wealth is concentrated in the richest 1% of the population. It dispels myths about why poor people or poor (or tries to I guess), and also about what proportion of the population is in fact struggling financially - that its not a minority issues. Anyway, overall, I like this slogan and I do think that the 99% deserves a lot more. But there is something about it that bothers me.
In America, yes, maybe you are the 99%. But I can't help think that on a global scale, I am absolutely sure that the vast majority of the people stating they are the 99% are in fact in the 1%. (or at least the 5%) And just as these "99%" lose because big ceos and bankers or whoever win, the global 99% lose because WE win ( I have no clue where I technically stand within Canada, but I'm pretty sure globally I am the 1%). So. Certain amount of irony there. And while I still support a lot of the goals of the occupy wall street movement, I can't help but think about it on a larger scale. I still don't know what the solution is (obviously, or I'd be a hero) but I do think its important to remember that our ideas of poverty are very, very relative. It's not to say that people in America should shut up and stop complaining, or that they don't deserve decent lives, or that most of the richest people in America don't deserve/need all that friggin wealth. It's just to say, maybe let's keep in mind that its not just our national economies which are completely messed up.
On that note..... a few weeks ago, for my Globalization, Gender and Development class we had an optional viewing of a film called China Blue. First off, it was really good, and I really recommend it. It's a documentary which focuses on a small group of teenage girls, and one in particular, manufacturing jeans in China and basically how absolutely unfair the terms of their employment are. And not just because of one evil ceo or factory owner, but because of the way the global garment economy is structured. Anyway, it was informative, and moving, but also left me with the same sense of despair I sometimes felt in Ghana. I know the exploitation is there, and I know I should be doing something to stop it, or at the very least to not participate in it but I don't know how and I don't know that I will (or that other people who watch the movie and shake their heads will). Our class discussion afterwards was actually really frustrating; for many reasons - i was being totally devils advocate at every turn, spreading hopelessness and despair and pointing out the flaws in any kind of solution - which I'm sure was not entirely helpful. Mostly though, I was pissed off by the argument that, while, it is possible to buy "fair trade" garments, and jeans, it's too expensive. "we can't afford it". I feel that way all the time. But realistically, how much does fair trade pair of jeans cost? More than my regular jeans, yes. But how much did all my jeans put together cost? I only have 4 pairs here in England, but I have plenty more sitting in a box in Canada - clearly its' not important that I have that many since I won't be wearing them for a year. So, really, is it that I can't afford the fair trade jeans, or that I can't afford to buy 10 pairs of them? I really, really credit One World and my experience in Ghana with emphasizing to me that "need" and "want" are not the same, and that we can afford a lot more than we're willing to acknowledge; often because "cheaper" usually just means "more". I feel like a huge hypocrite because of course I only own old navy jeans ( I had a staff discount and first dibs when they went on sale). But maybe it's one more thing I can add to my list of "things I will no longer justify buying unless they are fair trade". Which brings that list up to - jeans and coffee. Ready for my sainthood. But....when pretty much everything we buy is tied up in unfair supply/production chains sometimes its a little less overwhelming to start small.....
The film also brought up the issue that, even though the employment is super, super shitty, if the factory loses an order it's the workers at the lowest level that pay; either through even worse conditions (to save the factory money) or through less money. Which is the problem with boycotts/the entire global economic system. I am going to stress that the answer is not to buy infinite number of jeans because we're SUPPORTING the workers and providing jobs! Because buying more will mostly just add profit to the retail company, or at the most, the factory owner. That's the problem. The balance between those who reap the rewards and those who pay the price is completely and utterly effed.
So, yeah. Like I said. Feelings of despair.
Well.....that might be all for today I think. Less gendery than last time...not that the gender issues aren't totally in there - in both the importance of jeans to middle class first worlders like myself and in their importance to the teenage girls who make them. But perhaps that will be for another day.
Other recommendations; I'm reading Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell and I'm only a third of the way throught but it is blowing my mind. It's distracting me from all my other school work (though, I am reading it for school, so I feel kind of justified). Inheritance of Loss by Kiran Desai is also fantastic; I'm writing my postcolonial representations essay on that one. I also have a presentation on "Dirty Pretty Things" this week, which is a kind of problematic, but good film and brings up a lot of issues around how immigrants are treated; while still being entertaining. Lagaan was also really entertaining - my first "Bollywood" film. I enjoyed it, but it also really pissed me off. It was the heart-warming story of an (fictional) Indian cricket team formed around 1900 (I think...) during British Imperial rule. Basically an evil British dude decides if the Indian team doesn't beat the British team they have to pay triple taxes (VERY realistic portrayal of colonial relaitonships). Anyway, despite initial tensions the whole village does basically come together to learn this game, claim it as their own etc while simultaneously breaking down religious/caste barriers. Everyone gets to participate! Oh, except the women. When the one main Indian female characters is decides, "I want to play" its' like this huge joke. As opposed to when the man from the untouchable caste wants to play; then its all inspirational speeches about equality and brothership and everyone's unique contribution (the woman's unique contribution I guess being to bring the snacks, cheer and sing romantic duets with the protagonist). Anyway, I won't give away the ending, but there's the little rant of the day.
By the way, all of those recommendations are from my postcolonial representations class, which continues, like all my classes, to be totally awesome.
Bye.
p.s. another Ted talk on unfair supply chains...dunno if I'm convinced but it's more than I've got: http://www.ted.com/talks/auret_van_heerden_making_global_labor_fair.html
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Bonfire Night and Living in a Bubble
Dear blog,
I had a really busy week, and weekend. I had en essay due yesterday (only my second one for this program!) so there was a lot of procrastinating to get done! Seriously though, the weekend was pretty stressful and it felt really good to hand it in yesterday. I've found with these past two assignments I really feel pressured to do well - I mean, I've always felt that pressure but at least with undergraduate, most assignments weren't worth that much; usually I had more than two for a class (and some of these classes have one - THAT will be pressure). But also, in 5 years I took a lot of courses. Even if I did crappy in a whole course, other good marks would be there to swallow it up. Not so anymore! With only 4 classes and a dissertation, getting an average that will let me some day pursue a phd seems a lot harder.
Anyway, Friday night I took a break from stressing to enjoy Bonfire night. Technically (and as I remember from V for Vendetta) it's supposed to be the 5th of November, but for some reason Leeds was celebrating a day early. None of my informants seems to know why. Not a big deal though, and actually it worked out better because then I had Saturday to essay-write. AND it was still great. Walking through an exceptionally muddy park, under fireworks, to look at the biggest bonfire I've ever seen was definitely culturally enriching. I thought "bonfire" and pictured something smaller. This thing was huge, roped off, and had firemen guarding it. Top that off with candy apples and a fifth of a deep fried mars bar and you've got yourself a great night. Now, the deep fried mars bar was less about bonfire night and more about adding more "Britishness" to the experience. As was the the meal of sausage and mash (which SOUNDs British, but to be honest, didn't seem that different than just....sausage and mashed potatoes I would get in Canada.Still tasty ). We also watched Zombie land and talked about victim blaming, but again I don't think people should associate this with the usual bonfire night experience.....
Before I do some class readings I will make one little note about gender though (of course) (also, note written after finishing - its not little). Last Thursday I went to a talk by a woman who works for Oxfam Malawi (who is Malawian as Oxfam tries to hire mostly local staff). She gave a really great presentation on some of the programs they're doing there, what they're project structure looks like, and how they work with local partner organizations. Afterward she took questions, and this too was interesting. One guy was asking a lot of really great questions. It was clear he knew about development and project work and his questions were really insightful (for the most part). At one point he asked if Malawians (?) were able to volunteer in local projects. The Oxfam lady said that yes, but with their partner organizations who work within the communities themselves. She also added that it seems to be mostly women who volunteer and that while on some level this participation is great, she does wonder about the impact this has one women's burden of labour (which, by the way, tends to be huge - especially if women work outside the home as well as taking care of the majority of their household's domestic work). She also noted that that tends to be the same in Britain, and many other countries, where women volunteer at higher rates than men. The guy nodded sagely and commented "maybe its a maternal thing".
To which another girls said "sorry, what was that?" and there was a general murmur of annoyance. And it really made my heart sink. This guy seemed to know his shit, and I bet he did. But that kind of generalization is so friggin dangerous. Assuming that women do the things we do because of our biological impulses hides the social/cultural/economic reasons we do - many of which are linked to historical and ongoing subordination. Now, I have no clue why women volunteer so much more then men - I think it would be a very interesting study. But I know why I volunteer and it sure as heck isn't because I like babies (for the record, I don't like babies. They scare me). So, even on a personal level, that kind of assumption ticks me off. If I were to think about that question on a larger level, I would ask more questions along the lines of "is it more socially acceptable for women to volunteer?". "Can this be linked to women's "triple burden" of labour, involving domestic, economic, and community work?". "Do women volunteer because their personal experienced of oppression motivate them to change their communities/societies?" (this ones problematic because it assumes all women are oppressed without accounting for class, ethnicity etc. and also begs the question why wouldn't men who are oppressed volunteer more? do they?". "is men's labour seen as more economically valuable and thus concentrated on paid work?" Anyway, hopefully my point is made. There are tons of reasons this could be the case. And even if it is linked to women's role in "care work"; that doesn't mean that its because of innate maternal instincts (maybe that's what this guy meant?). Women's association with care work is also socially constructed; and hopefully in the process of being broken down, at least a little. I wonder if there's a link in places like Canada and Britain, between increased involvement of men in "care work" (child care, teaching, nursing) and volunteer numbers. What are high school volunteer numbers like compared to university students, working adults etc. Does marital status play a role. SO MANY QUESTIONS!!!!!!!! Anyway, lets reflect on this and stop developing some kind of study.....
As I think I've mentioned, I love being part of a program where everyone has some interest in gender and feminism. It's also nice to be able to talk about these things while operating under the assumption that there are certain things we agree on - like, that gender is linked to sex, and to our physical bodies, but it is socially constructed (sex=biological, gender=socially constructed though it isn't so clear cut, really). This seems so obvious that we roll our eyes when people bring it up in class. But instances like this remind me that not everyone thinks that way. Some people, and some development practitioners, are operating under totally different assumptions. At the moment, it makes me want to just stay in my little group and continue talking about gender in theoretical terms that "regular" people don't understand. It's similar to the feeling I got after graduating that maybe I should just study english and not development, so that I never have to actually go out into the real world and deal with people. They tend to make me mad. But. I'm committed to change, even if its tiny and seems hopeful. Damn. I guess I'll have to engage with these people. And its not like they're evil lepers I need to bring myself to talk to. I know I have friends and family and perfectly well intentioned, bright, passionate people who think about gender differently because, well, for starters they're not taking a masters in it. We're not REALLY taught to think about gender as socially constructed on a daily basis. In fact, we're kind of taught the opposite. It was just, a nice fantasy for a while. I think thats part of why I force myself to blog. I feel like I need to start kind of practicing what it might be like to talk to people about gender outside my program. Other times, I just want to rant......
Ok, so, a gender rant. Well, two because I thought of something else. The first is..... this essay I had to write. It was a literature review, so looking at what people have written already on the grand questions....."WHY DO WOMEN MATTER IN DEVELOPMENT?" Ok, fair enough, right? Why should they be included in development projects/ processes from which they've traditionally been excluded....wait what? Why do they MATTER? or why should they be included? It's a different question. I know that its a lit review, and the question was really about the different arguments that have been made but ahhhhhhhhhh!!! Women matter. WE'RE PEOPLE!!!! No one asks Why do men matter in development? (although, considering the way women are being hypertargeted lately its actually a relevant question - I mean in the sense that they DO matter but that a lot of projects are going the other way and bipassing men in favour of women. not the point). Women matter. Men matter. We're all people, we all deserve to benefit from development. A better question I guess is why gender matters in development; why is it important to look at differences so that's fair enough. But. The essay title just got to me. That shouldn't be up for debate. Especially since my essay was basically about how women have only been thought to matter in development to the point where they can contribute to economic growth. Not you know, because development is about improving people's lives and women are people so, you know, maybe improving their lives should be part of the goal. Those arguments exist, but the world bank etc doesn't pay as much attention to them....
OK LAST POINT!!! (and its lighter) (but still a rant).
I used to really love this show called How I met your Mother. It was so hilarious. The characters were great. The story lines were original, as were the jokes. But that was the first three seasons. Now its just gone on toooooo looonnng and kinda sucks. AND has gotten even more sexist. The last episode was based on the premise "pregnant ladies are nuts/stupid". Like, so stupid they give wine and staplesr to trick or treaters. You, know because hormones? haha, hormones? get it? They make ladies dumb. Just like when we're on our periods and mess up the stock exchange (note, that was an actual hypothesis about what caused the recession. Another explanation is that it was men's hormones and women will actual help it stabilize. Is it just me who finds that a little hard to take?) Anyway, I've known some pregnant people (admittedly not a lot ) and none of them have been noticeably stupider than usual. Emotional maybe, but usually within control. And also - now pay attention because this does tend to be a common mistake - emotional does NOT mean stupid! It sounds crazy, I know but just think on it.
Anyway, this episode made me kind of uncomfortable. Almost as uncomfortable as the episode where Barney (male character) makes a bet with Marshall (male character) where if Barney wins, he gets to see Lily (Marshall's wifes) boobs (she's the pregnant one). Now, Lily does get in on this almost immediately, and it becomes a little less weird (still a dumb bet, but hey, its her body and she does have a right to make bets about it). But at the start....its a bet between two men...about the wife's boobs. Because....he has the right to makes bets about another men seeing her body? Even touching it? (the up the ante where if he wins he gets to touch them).Because he...owns his wife's body? Gets to make decisions about it without her input? regarding other men seeing it? I'm sorry, what century is this? Is anyone else seeing a problem here? Or the one before that (possibly after I don't remember) where Marshall and Lily don't want to know the baby's sex so they could be ready to raise it "gender neutral". Which, means using this really, really ugly yellow paint and putting their baby in a burlap sack (that last one is a joke by Barney, but still). In the end, they find out its a boy and breath a sigh of relief that they accidently found out so they can go buy blue paint. Why not have just painted it blue in the first place? or hell, why not pink! Why is a disgustingly bright shade of yellow the only gender neutral colour? Even if you stay away from blue or pink, why not green? or like, off-white? Why vomit yellow? To justify they're need to paint it blue? It seemed rather forced. Also, finding out the gender and everything immediately being all better kind of glosses the issue. I mean, yes its a sitcom, but is the only way to end it just to establish "gender norms are the only reasonable way to go!" Also, considering the episode before that involved inappropriate involvement of Marshall and Lily's best friend Ted in regulating Lily's pregnant body it was a bit strange she spent most of that next episode painting/standing in a room full of fresh paint. Must have been lovely non-toxic paint - well, good for them.
Anyway, I keep watching because I think I'm just in denial that its really gotten that bad (not just the gender stuff, the jokes are crap now too). But, he gets me out of my happy feminist bubble. Maybe I'm taking it "took seriously" but I don't think I am. These things reflect dominant culture/ideology and they bug me and dammnit I'm going to speak out on a blog that five people read (probably all of whom are related to me)!
Adios for now.
I had a really busy week, and weekend. I had en essay due yesterday (only my second one for this program!) so there was a lot of procrastinating to get done! Seriously though, the weekend was pretty stressful and it felt really good to hand it in yesterday. I've found with these past two assignments I really feel pressured to do well - I mean, I've always felt that pressure but at least with undergraduate, most assignments weren't worth that much; usually I had more than two for a class (and some of these classes have one - THAT will be pressure). But also, in 5 years I took a lot of courses. Even if I did crappy in a whole course, other good marks would be there to swallow it up. Not so anymore! With only 4 classes and a dissertation, getting an average that will let me some day pursue a phd seems a lot harder.
Anyway, Friday night I took a break from stressing to enjoy Bonfire night. Technically (and as I remember from V for Vendetta) it's supposed to be the 5th of November, but for some reason Leeds was celebrating a day early. None of my informants seems to know why. Not a big deal though, and actually it worked out better because then I had Saturday to essay-write. AND it was still great. Walking through an exceptionally muddy park, under fireworks, to look at the biggest bonfire I've ever seen was definitely culturally enriching. I thought "bonfire" and pictured something smaller. This thing was huge, roped off, and had firemen guarding it. Top that off with candy apples and a fifth of a deep fried mars bar and you've got yourself a great night. Now, the deep fried mars bar was less about bonfire night and more about adding more "Britishness" to the experience. As was the the meal of sausage and mash (which SOUNDs British, but to be honest, didn't seem that different than just....sausage and mashed potatoes I would get in Canada.Still tasty ). We also watched Zombie land and talked about victim blaming, but again I don't think people should associate this with the usual bonfire night experience.....
Before I do some class readings I will make one little note about gender though (of course) (also, note written after finishing - its not little). Last Thursday I went to a talk by a woman who works for Oxfam Malawi (who is Malawian as Oxfam tries to hire mostly local staff). She gave a really great presentation on some of the programs they're doing there, what they're project structure looks like, and how they work with local partner organizations. Afterward she took questions, and this too was interesting. One guy was asking a lot of really great questions. It was clear he knew about development and project work and his questions were really insightful (for the most part). At one point he asked if Malawians (?) were able to volunteer in local projects. The Oxfam lady said that yes, but with their partner organizations who work within the communities themselves. She also added that it seems to be mostly women who volunteer and that while on some level this participation is great, she does wonder about the impact this has one women's burden of labour (which, by the way, tends to be huge - especially if women work outside the home as well as taking care of the majority of their household's domestic work). She also noted that that tends to be the same in Britain, and many other countries, where women volunteer at higher rates than men. The guy nodded sagely and commented "maybe its a maternal thing".
To which another girls said "sorry, what was that?" and there was a general murmur of annoyance. And it really made my heart sink. This guy seemed to know his shit, and I bet he did. But that kind of generalization is so friggin dangerous. Assuming that women do the things we do because of our biological impulses hides the social/cultural/economic reasons we do - many of which are linked to historical and ongoing subordination. Now, I have no clue why women volunteer so much more then men - I think it would be a very interesting study. But I know why I volunteer and it sure as heck isn't because I like babies (for the record, I don't like babies. They scare me). So, even on a personal level, that kind of assumption ticks me off. If I were to think about that question on a larger level, I would ask more questions along the lines of "is it more socially acceptable for women to volunteer?". "Can this be linked to women's "triple burden" of labour, involving domestic, economic, and community work?". "Do women volunteer because their personal experienced of oppression motivate them to change their communities/societies?" (this ones problematic because it assumes all women are oppressed without accounting for class, ethnicity etc. and also begs the question why wouldn't men who are oppressed volunteer more? do they?". "is men's labour seen as more economically valuable and thus concentrated on paid work?" Anyway, hopefully my point is made. There are tons of reasons this could be the case. And even if it is linked to women's role in "care work"; that doesn't mean that its because of innate maternal instincts (maybe that's what this guy meant?). Women's association with care work is also socially constructed; and hopefully in the process of being broken down, at least a little. I wonder if there's a link in places like Canada and Britain, between increased involvement of men in "care work" (child care, teaching, nursing) and volunteer numbers. What are high school volunteer numbers like compared to university students, working adults etc. Does marital status play a role. SO MANY QUESTIONS!!!!!!!! Anyway, lets reflect on this and stop developing some kind of study.....
As I think I've mentioned, I love being part of a program where everyone has some interest in gender and feminism. It's also nice to be able to talk about these things while operating under the assumption that there are certain things we agree on - like, that gender is linked to sex, and to our physical bodies, but it is socially constructed (sex=biological, gender=socially constructed though it isn't so clear cut, really). This seems so obvious that we roll our eyes when people bring it up in class. But instances like this remind me that not everyone thinks that way. Some people, and some development practitioners, are operating under totally different assumptions. At the moment, it makes me want to just stay in my little group and continue talking about gender in theoretical terms that "regular" people don't understand. It's similar to the feeling I got after graduating that maybe I should just study english and not development, so that I never have to actually go out into the real world and deal with people. They tend to make me mad. But. I'm committed to change, even if its tiny and seems hopeful. Damn. I guess I'll have to engage with these people. And its not like they're evil lepers I need to bring myself to talk to. I know I have friends and family and perfectly well intentioned, bright, passionate people who think about gender differently because, well, for starters they're not taking a masters in it. We're not REALLY taught to think about gender as socially constructed on a daily basis. In fact, we're kind of taught the opposite. It was just, a nice fantasy for a while. I think thats part of why I force myself to blog. I feel like I need to start kind of practicing what it might be like to talk to people about gender outside my program. Other times, I just want to rant......
Ok, so, a gender rant. Well, two because I thought of something else. The first is..... this essay I had to write. It was a literature review, so looking at what people have written already on the grand questions....."WHY DO WOMEN MATTER IN DEVELOPMENT?" Ok, fair enough, right? Why should they be included in development projects/ processes from which they've traditionally been excluded....wait what? Why do they MATTER? or why should they be included? It's a different question. I know that its a lit review, and the question was really about the different arguments that have been made but ahhhhhhhhhh!!! Women matter. WE'RE PEOPLE!!!! No one asks Why do men matter in development? (although, considering the way women are being hypertargeted lately its actually a relevant question - I mean in the sense that they DO matter but that a lot of projects are going the other way and bipassing men in favour of women. not the point). Women matter. Men matter. We're all people, we all deserve to benefit from development. A better question I guess is why gender matters in development; why is it important to look at differences so that's fair enough. But. The essay title just got to me. That shouldn't be up for debate. Especially since my essay was basically about how women have only been thought to matter in development to the point where they can contribute to economic growth. Not you know, because development is about improving people's lives and women are people so, you know, maybe improving their lives should be part of the goal. Those arguments exist, but the world bank etc doesn't pay as much attention to them....
OK LAST POINT!!! (and its lighter) (but still a rant).
I used to really love this show called How I met your Mother. It was so hilarious. The characters were great. The story lines were original, as were the jokes. But that was the first three seasons. Now its just gone on toooooo looonnng and kinda sucks. AND has gotten even more sexist. The last episode was based on the premise "pregnant ladies are nuts/stupid". Like, so stupid they give wine and staplesr to trick or treaters. You, know because hormones? haha, hormones? get it? They make ladies dumb. Just like when we're on our periods and mess up the stock exchange (note, that was an actual hypothesis about what caused the recession. Another explanation is that it was men's hormones and women will actual help it stabilize. Is it just me who finds that a little hard to take?) Anyway, I've known some pregnant people (admittedly not a lot ) and none of them have been noticeably stupider than usual. Emotional maybe, but usually within control. And also - now pay attention because this does tend to be a common mistake - emotional does NOT mean stupid! It sounds crazy, I know but just think on it.
Anyway, this episode made me kind of uncomfortable. Almost as uncomfortable as the episode where Barney (male character) makes a bet with Marshall (male character) where if Barney wins, he gets to see Lily (Marshall's wifes) boobs (she's the pregnant one). Now, Lily does get in on this almost immediately, and it becomes a little less weird (still a dumb bet, but hey, its her body and she does have a right to make bets about it). But at the start....its a bet between two men...about the wife's boobs. Because....he has the right to makes bets about another men seeing her body? Even touching it? (the up the ante where if he wins he gets to touch them).Because he...owns his wife's body? Gets to make decisions about it without her input? regarding other men seeing it? I'm sorry, what century is this? Is anyone else seeing a problem here? Or the one before that (possibly after I don't remember) where Marshall and Lily don't want to know the baby's sex so they could be ready to raise it "gender neutral". Which, means using this really, really ugly yellow paint and putting their baby in a burlap sack (that last one is a joke by Barney, but still). In the end, they find out its a boy and breath a sigh of relief that they accidently found out so they can go buy blue paint. Why not have just painted it blue in the first place? or hell, why not pink! Why is a disgustingly bright shade of yellow the only gender neutral colour? Even if you stay away from blue or pink, why not green? or like, off-white? Why vomit yellow? To justify they're need to paint it blue? It seemed rather forced. Also, finding out the gender and everything immediately being all better kind of glosses the issue. I mean, yes its a sitcom, but is the only way to end it just to establish "gender norms are the only reasonable way to go!" Also, considering the episode before that involved inappropriate involvement of Marshall and Lily's best friend Ted in regulating Lily's pregnant body it was a bit strange she spent most of that next episode painting/standing in a room full of fresh paint. Must have been lovely non-toxic paint - well, good for them.
Anyway, I keep watching because I think I'm just in denial that its really gotten that bad (not just the gender stuff, the jokes are crap now too). But, he gets me out of my happy feminist bubble. Maybe I'm taking it "took seriously" but I don't think I am. These things reflect dominant culture/ideology and they bug me and dammnit I'm going to speak out on a blog that five people read (probably all of whom are related to me)!
Adios for now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)