I have been reading extracts in G2 from Susan Faludi's new book, The Terror Dream.
In it, Faludi discusses particular myths about femininity which were perpetuated by the media after 9/11.
These myths focus on the insistence of the media to represent men as heroes and women as passive victims to be saved, how the fire fighters' widows were represented and later demonised by the press, and how women supposedly turned their career ambitions into ambitions to be wives and mothers after the attacks.
It seems an interesting analysis, especially since it is such an up to date analysis of how media represent women, and that 9/11 is such a topical, emotional issue anyway.
Although I have yet to read the entire book, I think that it is an important analysis of the ways in which women are still perpetually oppressed and hedged in by stereotypical representations of 'femininity', even today, when feminism is seen by many as unnecessary and redundant.
The realisation that women are badly mis-represented in the media needs to be kept alive, and books like Faludi's help to ensure this negative image of women in the press is exposed.
Friday 29 February 2008
Prostitution reforms dropped to avoid more prison strikes
I read yesterday that plans to help rehabilitate prostitutes and remove the term 'common prostitute' from legislation are being scrapped so the government can concentrate on avoiding any more prison worker strikes.
This is evidence yet again that women's rights and protection are low down on the governments list of priorities.
The damage prostitution does to women is one of the biggest social problems society faces along with domestic abuse. Because these issues effect women, thousands of women, the government aren't as bothered to try to find solutions.
While they dither about women are everyday being raped for money, beaten and abused, and foreign women, some just girls, are being trafficked into prostitution.
What would it take for the government to stand up and do something? why are women still, as ever, treated as second class citizens?
This is evidence yet again that women's rights and protection are low down on the governments list of priorities.
The damage prostitution does to women is one of the biggest social problems society faces along with domestic abuse. Because these issues effect women, thousands of women, the government aren't as bothered to try to find solutions.
While they dither about women are everyday being raped for money, beaten and abused, and foreign women, some just girls, are being trafficked into prostitution.
What would it take for the government to stand up and do something? why are women still, as ever, treated as second class citizens?
Wednesday 27 February 2008
All these men killing women, and you say we are not oppressed?
I have been following the news of the Ipswich prostitute murderer, the 'bus stop killer' and the Sally Anne Bowman case recently.
The sensationalist coverage of these men and the murders have been ridiculous, the media are having a field day rehashing the grisly details. In particular the tabloids jumped on Mark Dixies claim that he raped Bowman after she was killed.
Then I read an article in The Guardian today, highlighting the fact that these men not only had histories of committing sexual attacks in the past which went unpunished, but pointed out that these men are just the tip of the iceberg - unpunished violence against women is rife in the patriarchal society in which we live in.
Why did the women previously abused by these killers not speak out? the article asks.
"Perhaps because they recognised the misogyny that runs through our criminal justice system...Maybe they read about Ian Huntley who was investigated for nine allegations of sexual offences - without a single conviction...Maybe they had read that only 5.3% of rape cases ends in a conviction, that one in five women are abused in childhood, or that one in four women experience domestic violence...that people joke about violence towards women...(that) models are reduced to nothing more than holes to be violated"
This analysis is important. Rather than rehash the gory details and sensationalise the facts, people should be asking these questions.
Why are such men allowed to roam free in society to commit abuse against women again and again? and more importantly, what is wrong with our society that men hate women so much in the first place? why do men feel the need to so brutally display and assert their power over women? And why do we let it happen?
The sensationalist coverage of these men and the murders have been ridiculous, the media are having a field day rehashing the grisly details. In particular the tabloids jumped on Mark Dixies claim that he raped Bowman after she was killed.
Then I read an article in The Guardian today, highlighting the fact that these men not only had histories of committing sexual attacks in the past which went unpunished, but pointed out that these men are just the tip of the iceberg - unpunished violence against women is rife in the patriarchal society in which we live in.
Why did the women previously abused by these killers not speak out? the article asks.
"Perhaps because they recognised the misogyny that runs through our criminal justice system...Maybe they read about Ian Huntley who was investigated for nine allegations of sexual offences - without a single conviction...Maybe they had read that only 5.3% of rape cases ends in a conviction, that one in five women are abused in childhood, or that one in four women experience domestic violence...that people joke about violence towards women...(that) models are reduced to nothing more than holes to be violated"
This analysis is important. Rather than rehash the gory details and sensationalise the facts, people should be asking these questions.
Why are such men allowed to roam free in society to commit abuse against women again and again? and more importantly, what is wrong with our society that men hate women so much in the first place? why do men feel the need to so brutally display and assert their power over women? And why do we let it happen?
Tuesday 26 February 2008
Hilary Clinton - she just can't win
I have been researching the representation of female politicians for a presentation as part of my masters recently.
What came out of it was mainly that female politicians are either de-feminised or sexualised by the press as a way to alleviate patriarchy's fear of women who transcend the passive Freudian stereotype of femininity and take on positions of power.
When looking at the coverage of Hillary Clinton in the press recently it became apparent that Hilary is stuck in this catch 22 situation.
Described by the media as a ruthless, cold hearted 'machine' intent on winning no matter what she has to do, be it use her husband for leverage, attack Obama or cry to elicit sympathy, Clinton just can't win.
Living up to the ruthless, de-feminised image seems the only way to get ahead, look at Thatchers 'iron lady' image, but when Hillary dared to get emotional and shed a tear, the press were all over it, branding it a calculating attempt at using her feminine wiles to get votes. Clinton was also criticised for transcending her de-feminised image by showing a bit of cleavage - the same fate befell the Home Secretary Margaret Becket last July.
Now, although I may not believe entirely in Clinton's policies or that having a woman in the white house would necessarily improve women's lives (look at Thatchers reign) the point is that women have a much harder time getting into power and being treated as serious politicians, simply because they are women.
Do male politicians face the same scrutiny? Obviously not. This representation serves purely to keep women in their place, asserting that men should be the decision makers in society, not women.
What came out of it was mainly that female politicians are either de-feminised or sexualised by the press as a way to alleviate patriarchy's fear of women who transcend the passive Freudian stereotype of femininity and take on positions of power.
When looking at the coverage of Hillary Clinton in the press recently it became apparent that Hilary is stuck in this catch 22 situation.
Described by the media as a ruthless, cold hearted 'machine' intent on winning no matter what she has to do, be it use her husband for leverage, attack Obama or cry to elicit sympathy, Clinton just can't win.
Living up to the ruthless, de-feminised image seems the only way to get ahead, look at Thatchers 'iron lady' image, but when Hillary dared to get emotional and shed a tear, the press were all over it, branding it a calculating attempt at using her feminine wiles to get votes. Clinton was also criticised for transcending her de-feminised image by showing a bit of cleavage - the same fate befell the Home Secretary Margaret Becket last July.
Now, although I may not believe entirely in Clinton's policies or that having a woman in the white house would necessarily improve women's lives (look at Thatchers reign) the point is that women have a much harder time getting into power and being treated as serious politicians, simply because they are women.
Do male politicians face the same scrutiny? Obviously not. This representation serves purely to keep women in their place, asserting that men should be the decision makers in society, not women.
Sunday 3 February 2008
Juno - a positive representation of a woman
I went to see a pre screening of Juno last night. I was somewhat dubious how the film would play out, although I had read good reviews and seen the trailers.
I was surprised to find the film really funny and uplifting, despite dealing with the serious issue of teenage pregnancy.
What was most impressive was the representation of Juno, the main character, aged 16 and pregnant. Unlike in most Hollywood films where pregnant teens are represented as foolish, airheads and 'sluts', Juno was an extremely smart character, not the dumb cheerleader type. She knows about old music, slasher films and guitars and is intelligent, funny and does not dress as most teens do in Hollywood films - she was not perpetually half-naked and her image was not sexualised (although her best Friend Leah was in some respects).
It was refreshing to see a film asserting that smart, level-headed girls do sometimes get pregnant, that it can happen to anyone, and that it is not necessarily something to be ashamed of or something that will ruin a girls life and reputation forever.
However, the film does not glamorise pregnancy and even dares to broach the subject of abortion - unlike many other films - although the issue was not explored in much depth and treated humorously instead.
The representation of gender in the film was also interesting, on the one hand women were not seen as inherently maternal - Juno's mother abandoned her when she was little and Juno herself does not display the usual angst represented in culture when a woman gives up her baby for adoption.
However, the adoptive mother, Vanessa, unable to have kids, conforms to the stereotype, displaying the 'natural' female trait of being desperate to have a child.
The male characters in the film are also surprising - Juno's father is supportive and reliable and Juno's boyfriend and the baby's father is shy, geeky but totally reliable and in love with Juno.
The adoptive dad-to-be however, Mark, is a traditional male let-down, deciding he is 'not ready to be a father' and also making a pass at heavily pregnant Juno.
Aside from these interesting representations of gender, the main point is that Juno is definitely a for once positive representation of a girl - which you don't often come across in films.
I was surprised to find the film really funny and uplifting, despite dealing with the serious issue of teenage pregnancy.
What was most impressive was the representation of Juno, the main character, aged 16 and pregnant. Unlike in most Hollywood films where pregnant teens are represented as foolish, airheads and 'sluts', Juno was an extremely smart character, not the dumb cheerleader type. She knows about old music, slasher films and guitars and is intelligent, funny and does not dress as most teens do in Hollywood films - she was not perpetually half-naked and her image was not sexualised (although her best Friend Leah was in some respects).
It was refreshing to see a film asserting that smart, level-headed girls do sometimes get pregnant, that it can happen to anyone, and that it is not necessarily something to be ashamed of or something that will ruin a girls life and reputation forever.
However, the film does not glamorise pregnancy and even dares to broach the subject of abortion - unlike many other films - although the issue was not explored in much depth and treated humorously instead.
The representation of gender in the film was also interesting, on the one hand women were not seen as inherently maternal - Juno's mother abandoned her when she was little and Juno herself does not display the usual angst represented in culture when a woman gives up her baby for adoption.
However, the adoptive mother, Vanessa, unable to have kids, conforms to the stereotype, displaying the 'natural' female trait of being desperate to have a child.
The male characters in the film are also surprising - Juno's father is supportive and reliable and Juno's boyfriend and the baby's father is shy, geeky but totally reliable and in love with Juno.
The adoptive dad-to-be however, Mark, is a traditional male let-down, deciding he is 'not ready to be a father' and also making a pass at heavily pregnant Juno.
Aside from these interesting representations of gender, the main point is that Juno is definitely a for once positive representation of a girl - which you don't often come across in films.
Friday 1 February 2008
Response to Shriver's analysis of 70's Horror
Following my blog about the SS Experiment Concentration Camp film I read an article in The Guardian by Lionel Shriver, who watched and attempted to analyse several so called 'video nasties' made 20 years ago.
Although I can see that Shriver is trying to make the point that such films as 'I spit on your grave' and 'Last house on the left' graphically and violently are nothing in comparison to real life footage of war shown on the evening news - I disagreed with her conclusion that: "let me tell you: these films are crap."
Shriver does not look at the films in terms of the cultural context in which they were made and dismisses them as unimportant in film history.
In fact, as I have said before, these films do - albeit perhaps unconciously - reveal society's and men's fears of the 2nd wave feminist movement (as well as highlighting fears of other cultural changes and political issues of the time such as the Vietnam war). These are well known arguments in film theory and valid ones, I think.
For example, the female charcater in 'I spit on your grave', having been gang raped, chooses to fight back (as they would have you believe a 'monstrous' feminist would) and get her bloody revenge. However, the woman is represented not as a victim but becomes monstrous in her revenge, cutting off one of the rapists penis' in the bath after luring him there with promise of sex.
This shows mens unconcious fear of women and feminists at the time, trying to make feminists into some kind of crazy, dangerous man-hating women solely to illegitimise the aims of feminism.
Shriver, meanwhile dismisses this film as a 'sad excuse for cinema', it may well be tasteless and anti feminist - but irrelevant it is not.
Although I can see that Shriver is trying to make the point that such films as 'I spit on your grave' and 'Last house on the left' graphically and violently are nothing in comparison to real life footage of war shown on the evening news - I disagreed with her conclusion that: "let me tell you: these films are crap."
Shriver does not look at the films in terms of the cultural context in which they were made and dismisses them as unimportant in film history.
In fact, as I have said before, these films do - albeit perhaps unconciously - reveal society's and men's fears of the 2nd wave feminist movement (as well as highlighting fears of other cultural changes and political issues of the time such as the Vietnam war). These are well known arguments in film theory and valid ones, I think.
For example, the female charcater in 'I spit on your grave', having been gang raped, chooses to fight back (as they would have you believe a 'monstrous' feminist would) and get her bloody revenge. However, the woman is represented not as a victim but becomes monstrous in her revenge, cutting off one of the rapists penis' in the bath after luring him there with promise of sex.
This shows mens unconcious fear of women and feminists at the time, trying to make feminists into some kind of crazy, dangerous man-hating women solely to illegitimise the aims of feminism.
Shriver, meanwhile dismisses this film as a 'sad excuse for cinema', it may well be tasteless and anti feminist - but irrelevant it is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)