Saturday, September 18, 2010
Gender/Society Roles
I know that this after our discussion for the week but felt this was a perfect example of some of the things we talked about in class on Thursday. I am sitting here watching "Fred: The Movie" on Nickelodeon with my daughter. It is a rather stupid movie with no real plot that I can see but it does have the classic gender/society roles in it. There is a beautiful popular girl, who is blond, and a rather geeky, weird girl, who is dark brunette. The main character, Fred, is totally in love with the blond girl who happens to live next door, and Fred also lives next door to the brunette, who isn't popular because she's wierd. This is a great example of how society exemplifies blond girls as the most desirable and the ones that everyone wants. Brunettes are considered geeky or weird and just "the girl next door." Now of course, in true movie fashion, Fred ends up realizing that the brunette is a pretty cool girl and proving to the popular crowd that geeks and weirdos can have fun too and...he gets the blond girl. And to add to everything, Fred's mom is a drunk brunette, another character's mom is a ditzy brunette and the girls that hang out with the popular blond are brunette but are only popular because of her. Oh, and of course the two main girls both have long hair!
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Times Have Changed
There were so many interesting aspects of this reading that I was having a hard time trying to decide what to write about. As I was finishing with the assigned reading for the week I came across an exchange between Estraven/Harth and Genly Ai that I knew I just had to write about. The passage struck me as both funny and a little offensive, but mostly funny. The passage in which I refer to is on page 234 where the two characters are discussing what Gely Ai's female counterparts are like.
The first part that struck me as humourous is when Estraven/Harth asks Ai, "Are they like a different species?" (234) Ai's answer seems to be one of indecision. He can't seem to decide if women are a different species or not. Finally he says not really but that there are unique differences. The next thing he says about women, and men for that matter, I agree with. Ai states that the sex a person is born with largely determines how they will grow. Social experiences, cultures, activities and almost everything else varies depending on if you are a man or a woman. We can all try to deny this but it is true. What sex you are often dictates how people will perceive you. Times are changing and perception is changing with it but it is a slow process.
The next part that struck me as humourous but just a tad bit offensive was when Estraven asked Ai if women are "mentally inferior." (234) Ai's answer is that he does not know but women are not stupid, there just aren't any on the same intellectual level as the smartest men. My feelings of being offended were short lived when I double checked the date in which this book was written, 1969. At that, a little light bulb went off. When this book was written, women were not considered as being intellectual equals to men. Women's right and equalities were still developing. Now, we have all sorts of bright, intelligent, and succesfull women in a multitude of different fields. The playing field may not be entirely level but it has definitely come a long way from 1969.
One other thing is for certain; if any man today would make a comment like Ai did in the book, he would be in for a world of hurt!
The first part that struck me as humourous is when Estraven/Harth asks Ai, "Are they like a different species?" (234) Ai's answer seems to be one of indecision. He can't seem to decide if women are a different species or not. Finally he says not really but that there are unique differences. The next thing he says about women, and men for that matter, I agree with. Ai states that the sex a person is born with largely determines how they will grow. Social experiences, cultures, activities and almost everything else varies depending on if you are a man or a woman. We can all try to deny this but it is true. What sex you are often dictates how people will perceive you. Times are changing and perception is changing with it but it is a slow process.
The next part that struck me as humourous but just a tad bit offensive was when Estraven asked Ai if women are "mentally inferior." (234) Ai's answer is that he does not know but women are not stupid, there just aren't any on the same intellectual level as the smartest men. My feelings of being offended were short lived when I double checked the date in which this book was written, 1969. At that, a little light bulb went off. When this book was written, women were not considered as being intellectual equals to men. Women's right and equalities were still developing. Now, we have all sorts of bright, intelligent, and succesfull women in a multitude of different fields. The playing field may not be entirely level but it has definitely come a long way from 1969.
One other thing is for certain; if any man today would make a comment like Ai did in the book, he would be in for a world of hurt!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Still a Manly World
While I was reading Left Hand of Darkness and trying to keep an open mind about a race of people that don't seem to have a set sex I kept getting sidetracked by the great many references to "he." I started to take note of this more and more and realized that for a race that is supposed to be lacking of any particular sex until "kemmer," they seem to still be predominantly male. Le Guin does not explain the use of "he" until later in the book (page 94). There she states from the notes of one of the first investigators that the use of "he" is meant to refer to the race of people and not the sex. She says "it is less defined, less speific." (page 94) However, everytime I see the word "he" I immediately think of a male, especially the way Le Guin actually describes the Gethenians. She may attribute female characteristics to this race but for the most part they seem very masculine. For instance on page 47 the main character is describing his landlady but then says, "a voluble man." Why not say person instead of man, this may open up the door to better understanding. In some ways I can understand using "he" to describe a group of people but at the same time feel slightly offended because when someone says "he" most people will immediately picture a male. I can't help but wonder if there was another term Le Guin could have come up with that would allow readers to stay neutral about sex and not be swayed towards one or the other. This is science fiction after all and it is perfectly acceptable to make up words.
Another way that the book seems more masculine is when the Gethenians themselves talk about sex. When children are born they are completely derived of sex and do not even begin to establish this until a sort of puberty. Yet on page 72 when Estraven is describing his relationship with Ashe and how to help him he refers to "our sons'" and on page 73 states, "we were kemmerings, and had two sons." If they are truely without sex why not refer them as just children? By using the term son he is making them male not androgynous. Using the term children would indicate that they are neither female or male, just children. Another reference is made to sons when on page 99 it is mentioned that the king is pregnant and is going to have a "king-son". Again, why not say a king-child? I find these references very interseting because to me they indicate a male society.
There is also another reference to make this world seem male dominated when the main character is visiting the Foretellers and is describing the "pervert." On Winter the pervert is someone who is more or less permenantly stuck in one gender and has lost the ability to switch back and forth during "kemmering." The interesting opart is that the pervert in this part of the story is stuck on the male side with "exagerrated maleness." (page 63) Why make the pervert male? There didn't seem to be any specific reason for this.
It just seems odd to me that this race, Gethenians, are supposed to be without sex until "kemmer" yet they all seem to be male. I know it is just they way my mind is perceiving the information in the book but I can;t help but notice those references towards the male gender. I just think that there was another way Le Guin could have gone about describing these people, their children, and the abnormal ones without making references to sons and males. It just puts the wrong images in my mind and makes it hard to remain open.
Another way that the book seems more masculine is when the Gethenians themselves talk about sex. When children are born they are completely derived of sex and do not even begin to establish this until a sort of puberty. Yet on page 72 when Estraven is describing his relationship with Ashe and how to help him he refers to "our sons'" and on page 73 states, "we were kemmerings, and had two sons." If they are truely without sex why not refer them as just children? By using the term son he is making them male not androgynous. Using the term children would indicate that they are neither female or male, just children. Another reference is made to sons when on page 99 it is mentioned that the king is pregnant and is going to have a "king-son". Again, why not say a king-child? I find these references very interseting because to me they indicate a male society.
There is also another reference to make this world seem male dominated when the main character is visiting the Foretellers and is describing the "pervert." On Winter the pervert is someone who is more or less permenantly stuck in one gender and has lost the ability to switch back and forth during "kemmering." The interesting opart is that the pervert in this part of the story is stuck on the male side with "exagerrated maleness." (page 63) Why make the pervert male? There didn't seem to be any specific reason for this.
It just seems odd to me that this race, Gethenians, are supposed to be without sex until "kemmer" yet they all seem to be male. I know it is just they way my mind is perceiving the information in the book but I can;t help but notice those references towards the male gender. I just think that there was another way Le Guin could have gone about describing these people, their children, and the abnormal ones without making references to sons and males. It just puts the wrong images in my mind and makes it hard to remain open.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)