Ok - so my nameless friend (and Marek) bring up the excellent point of sexism. This is, indeed, a sexist way of thinking.
Why is it that women are expected to pair up by a certain age, and viewed as a failure if they don't, while men aren't subjected to the same double-standard? (Note nameless's Clooney-Aniston comparison.) Why is it that men aren't advised 'marry her! she's good enough! she's the best you're ever gonna get!' (by anyone other than their mothers, that is....)? In fact, if a man seems to remain a bachelor for a while, then one day decides he should settle down, he's not criticized for having passed up a chance with a great girl but rather he's simply advised to 'date younger'.
That, and bringing up the movie analogy my good friend suggested (which I know I've blogged about before...). So why is it ALWAYS that we've got the hot girl and average joe paired up in movies?! I don't know why it bothers me so much, because I honestly don't view myself as a superficial person and I really can't say looks matter all that much to me, but it really really does. Well, in the reference my friend makes - Katherine Heigl & Seth Rogen in 'Knocked Up' - it's not as though Seth Rogen's character is average looking but the great humanitarian/family man on the fast track to success - according to my recollection, he's an unemployed pot smoker who enjoys watching porn on a daily basis.
I think my main annoyance with this subject is that I feel women are portayed as 'prizes' as opposed to equals in this ever recurring storyline. Here's a storyline I'd like to hear - Average Joe passes up the opportunity to be with some superhot leading lady for Average Jane with whom he has a lot in common and a strong emotional connection. It annoys me that it's completely socially acceptable for men to be blatantly superficial in picking a partner, however, if a woman rules out a man because she's not attracted to him/doesn't feel the chemistry, she is ripped apart.
Anyhow. I am not sure, necessarily, what I wanted to address in this post, but it seemed too long to simply be a comment. Is anyone else annoyed at the constant storyline of Average Joe getting the hot girl (whose role is simply being 'a hot girl')? Anyone else frustrated that women are criticized for being single? Can anyone think of some good examples/arguments I'm missing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
7 comments:
Good point about women being prizes and not equals. I would like to see the movie that you described.
Another point about Heigl and the "hot girl." It's not even that the woman in these movies is simply eye candy-in many cases they are hardworking, successful, and love their jobs. And that is portrayed as a negative, because women who love their jobs must be evil, selfish, anal witches who just need the love of a good man and babies to set them straight.
The Proposal comes to mind when I think of that theme. And that horrible movie 27 Dresses and What Happens in Vegas. And the new movie, Leap Year.
It's bad for the guys too, because in all of these movies, as far as I can tell, the men are portrayed as slobby losers, or at least lazy oafs who drink/smoke too much. Nobody wins in this game of stereotypes.
Good point about these women being successful (the horror!) - I think this comes with the whole 'can a woman have it all' paradox - with men, it's acceptable if they've prioritized something other than having a family (such as their career) with women, not so much; they need someone to come straighten them out.
I think one of the points someone touched on in the comments section of the other related post is that men aren't expected to have it all, or at least, not pressured in the same way and not judged as harshly if they don't. If a man accomplishes something - let's say, career-related - it's only celebrated; there's no 'is this going to, in some way, negatively impact his ability to start a family?' I know, with men, it's always assumed that they can achieve a family later in life if they want it, whereas, with women, there might be more of a harsh reality with respect to biology. I also know, with men, that there's not even really a discussion going on about whether or not they can have it all, should they start thinking about settling down a little sooner, how hard is it to be single, etc. Hmm.
I guess while we're on the subject of movies - for as silly as it was, at least in Legally Blonde, we have the hot successful girl ending up with the hot successful guy who seems to have similar interests and would appear to view her as an equal. I would say 'good job' to the writers of this rom-com, if only it weren't for that horrific, deplorable line about 'being a blonde, you hold more cards than you might think'....
Yes, stereotypes definitely exist. Hollywood is horrible. I completely agree. Watch anything: movies, tv, even news and all the women tend to be gorgeous (let's say 95%...since there are some old ladies who once were gorgeous or there are shows with women portrayed as geeks who just look average) and most of the men tend to be average. So I totally agree there. It's just part of the business. Hollywood is an escape from reality, not reality itself.
But that's not the main reason I wanted to comment. I really want to bring up the fact that there are societal pressures and criticism and judgement from all angles.
Yes, the single girl feels pressure to get married. And bachelors seem to be celebrated. However, I know a handful of single guys who would love to be married but haven't found the right woman yet. I'd even go as far to say that they are feeling the pressure as they watch more and more of their bachelor buddies walking down the aisle.
Next, I'd like to address the "have it all" mentality. Why must having a career and a family be the ultimate goal? It's easy to see how singles feel the pressure to get married. But what about the married stay-at-home moms or dads? There's pressure there too, believe me.
I'm a stay-at-home mom, but everyone always wants to know "what do you do?" In our American culture that is the first thing people tend to ask upon meeting someone: what do you do, i.e what is your job/are you in school studying for a certain career? I have a friend in Israel though and that is not the first question in that culture. The first thing they want to know when they meet you tends to be what religion are you? Interesting difference.
But, as a stay-at-home mom, do I personally feel pressure to have a career and put my kids in daycare? Certainly! I stopped working to be a mom. I was headed down a career path. As soon as I got pregnant, people wanted to know if I was going to keep working. Most of the moms I know work part- or full-time. Currently I only know one other stay-at-home mom who doesn't have outside work. Years ago, we would have been the norm. But now we are a minority.
Although I feel this pressure around me is it something that I want? Do I personally consider having a career and a family as "having it all." Absolutely not! I do have it all. I have a good God, I have a wonderful husband, and I have a sweet daughter. I don't want any other career. And I've known this my whole life. I've always wanted to be a wife and a mother. A full-time, stay-at-home mother. And my whole life I've been told that it's settling for less by the world around me. But the world is wrong.
Not gonna lie, I skipped over most of this post, and the subsequent commentary. However, I did catch the comment about Seth Rogan's character in "Knocked Up" watching porn... please note that his "job" was building a website database about finding nudity in mainstream films, and not porn. I feel this is an important point of clarification.
Let me just say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be a stay at home mom. I think that SAHMs (and SAHDs) SHOULD get respect for what they do.
But, I just have to say, I don't see a whole lot of resistance or pressure for SAHMs to work. The issue is not really one of 'pressure to have it all' for most SAHMs that I know. It is an issue of economy. In many cases, families simply can't afford to have one parent not working at all. My sister in law is very lucky to be a SAHM who does not have to work. My boyfriend's sister in law does have to work (part time) because she has four children and her husband does not make enough to support the family.
I see more women choosing to be SAHMs than I remember from when I was a kid. I think it is gaining in acceptance, rather than fading. No one deserves to be judged for what they choose to do. Everyone has different goals in life. Perhaps our society does focus too much on work roles, but honestly, I'd prefer asking someone what I do, rather than what religion I am. Mostly because I don't have a religion. I am perfectly to respond that I don't have a religion, but I'd rather avoid discussions as to why or how I could benefit by accepting Jesus into my life. That's a discussion for another day though.
I haven't yet decided what I want to do in the event that I have kids. I really enjoy my job, but I think that I would like to try staying home with my kid(s), at least for a little while. The important thing is that I have a choice in the matter.
I definitely think taking care of someone is a full-time job in and of itself. I think a lot of women have frustrations for the fact that they were at one time limited to this role (as opposed to choosing it), and now there's some backlash/judgment against women in these roles because of it (as if they are holding back other women who are trying to make their break in the working world by having people point and say 'see, that's how it should be'). However, I think feminism should, in theory, be all about having the option to choose what one wants to do with her life and not judging others for their different choices, as opposed to having to do something because society says so (maybe the backlash against SAHMs is 'reverse sexism'?). I dunno.
Post a Comment