for those of you that don't know me...one of the quickest way to get my all fired up and pissed off is to say something like, "that is just the way men are..." or "that is just the way women are..." you know, the casual assumption that men and women are polar opposites, existing in two separate worlds. okay, we may live in different worlds...but not because we are so biologically different. i get really bent out of shape when i hear people say things like, "women are just by nature better with kids". fuck you. are we also better (by nature) at cleaning the house? and apparently keeping it in our pants?
what has me all fired up today? a few things....
for one, the whole deal with spitzer. last night watching the daily show, i was amazed at a point that stewart made about the differences in the way that spitzer was treated from larry craig. i'm sure you can find it on youtube (kathy saying disdainfully "everything is on youtube these days"). regardless, i was innocently checking my yahoo email account yesterday when i saw an article that claimed that SCIENTISTS could explain why powerful, wealthy, smart men like Spitzer would sleep with a prostitute or get involved in a sex scandal that could ruin his life? they reference other folks too...Hugh Grant, Bill Clinton, apparently the list was too long to include all of them. so what was the explanation?
evolutionary biology. goddamn it. it is the same argument that men, by nature, need to "spread the seed" around to ensure their genes make into the next crop/generation.
i took a whole semester of a class called gender and evolution. it was all based on this idea that our gender differences come from the evolutionary time period (apparently so does their research). okay, okay, i'm being over the top, but it all feels very simple. and i question how this wouldn't make women (from the evolutionary time period) want to sleep around too. perhaps she could sleep with as many different men as possible to ensure the strongest (and best) sperm fertilizes...wouldn't that be a way of weeding out the weak? well, how does she convince the menfolk to stick around to help her care for the baby and feed them? well, she certainly doesn't need to tell them her plan...make the strongest baby and then pick the strongest/richest/most stable man. then she has solved both problems. regardless, you should be able to tell that i think the evolutionary explanation for a man to sleep around is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.
i think this rant is also related to the fact that earlier this week, i picked up a copy of tim's gq magazine and read an article about "backburners". this term was relatively new to me, but the entire article was written by a fella who discussed the idea of how men have "backburners" also known as single women they have on the back burner in case something happens with their current relationship. besides the fact that the article seemed odd in that this particular fella was writing about his series of back burner girls...i think it feeds into a similar ideology. that men that need this outside attention of various ladies. i suppose it is in their nature? (please interpret my sarcasm). i almost wished there had been a rebuttal by this fella's current girlfriend about her "backburner" menfolk. what i'm getting at is again this idea that it is more in the nature of a man to have this than women.
don't get me wrong, i'm not condoning the idea of backburners, but simply implying how different it would be if this article had appeared in a magazine written by a woman or if a female politician had been sleeping around or even sleeping with prostitutes. but again....it just isn't in our nature, now is it?
i've also been thinking about the way that women are often portrayed as girlfriends or wives or mothers. when i saw the movie juno, i remember thinking about the drastic differences in the way that jennifer garner's character was portrayed from the way that jason bateman's character was portrayed. it seems often that women (in these particular roles) are portrayed with contempt. they are generally not "cool". they don't listen to cool music. they don't have fun hanging out with their friends. they don't miss their old life. they simply are ready to shack up, settle down, and procreate. it isn't just in this movie, but tons of others portray women in this light. i think these ideas make it difficult for any type of relationship or personal identity to prosper...to think you have to fit into this box. that women are suppose to be constantly nagging their husbands/boyfriends and that their counterparts are just sitting around trying to figure out a way to get away and spend the weekend with the boys.
there is even a commercial on now (though i think mostly on the ovation channel) that shows an older couple. the husband is trying to listen to the television (presumably a sports game- as we know women don't like sports) and the wife (in her typical nagging voice) shouts, "can you please turn it down?" the commercial is for a device that allows you to hear quieter sounds louder. the device is weird in itself in that it informs you that you can use this device to hear your neighbors' conversations...but while demonstrating this helpful, yet mundane fact...they show the older wife checking the mail and listening in on the conversation of two young women walking down the street. the young women are discussing their new neighbors (the old couple). one of the women says, "i haven't met her, but i've met him and he seems really nice." i bet. particularly if his biology has anything to do with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment