Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Gender and Other Mine Fields

It's that time of year, when I try to wade into the muddy waters of a controversial topic thinking I'm being fair and balanced, only to get really angry comments and messages from people who I don't know, but have evidently offended. If you're wondering why I do this, the answer is: I've got nothing else to do until Neil Simon starts except read news sites talking about the Isla Vista shooting and the aftermath, and despite my best efforts: I've started to come to several convoluted opinions.

Let me start by saying that I like the #yesallwomen hash tag. "Like" is probably the wrong word, as its literally a list of awful things that have happened to women at the hands of pigs who objectify them. So, I suppose I don't "like" it, so much as I support it and think it's actually a hash tag trend that can yield results as opposed to hash tags that just let everyone know that you condemn things like child kidnapping and satire. It was particularly eye opening to see a college friend from before my mission, who I would not describe as a feminist or social media warrior, talking about wearing shorts under dresses when she goes out because it makes her feel a little bit safer after being groped in a bar. The whole thing made me feel kind of sick, and much more sympathetic to this situation. That was, I believe, the point. It's led to me reading a lot more about the issue, and even, against my better judgement, watching the much talked about video from the shooter. I've come away thinking a few things.


  1. A few months ago, one of my friends posed as a question if men felt the same pressure from the media to be thin, or to otherwise fret about their own bodies. The simple answer to that is: yes, to a degree, although laws of masculinity require a certain amount of guys to pretend that they don't. However, even then, body image is not really the scourge on males, that it is on women. The real scourge is the glorification of sexual conquest. In the same way that women feel a societal pressure to look the right way, men feel a societal pressure to have a certain number of notches on their bedpost. And in the same way, TV and Film have exacerbated these ideals. I might point out the obvious glorification of Barney Stinson on How I Met Your Mother, however, Barney's a stereotype. But how about the good guy protagonist, Ted Mosby? Even though the show hinges on Ted looking for love and a monogamous relationship, the show is an almost non-stop revolving door of sexual partners. The Wiki counts 20 in the nine year run of the show. Entertainment seems to indicate, while a man's worth may not be predicated on ONE woman (the way it has been in the past for females), his worth is predicated on the presence of ANY woman. The exploration of this could be a study in and of itself.
  2. Men feel unreasonably defensive of these kind of accusations. This is a strange "defender of the faith" mindset I find myself fighting on a daily basis, whether I'm defending other Mormons, Men, the State of Utah, the Republican Party; even when said entity is doing something I disagree with totally. I don't believe in sex outside of marriage, why should I feel any desire to stick up for guys who grope girls in bars and whistle at them on the sidewalk. I should be just as quick to condemn that kind of behavior.
  3. That said, I take great umbrage with writers like Jessica Valenti of the Guardian saying things like, "Rodger, like most American men, was taught that he was entitled to sex and female attention." I must have missed that day of pre-school. This is where the reality of the shooting and the perception of reality start diverging. Watch the tape. Listen to Elliot Rodger. He was clearly a textbook narcissist. A narcissist in the way of Ted Bundy and Charles Manson. The reason he ends up on a rampage and most men don't isn't because he's the only one who never had a girlfriend. It's because he's the type of person who feels entitled to EVERYTHING HE WANTS, and if he doesn't get it, it's because something's wrong with the game. While I may venture from time to time into what another demographic might be thinking, I feel uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of guys who don't get dates. Most of my friends have spent some time in that demographic. As have I. I even discussed above the way the Entertainment Industry affects the expectations of young males. But here's the thing, usually this psyche is turned inward "What's wrong with ME that girls don't want to date me? What am I doing wrong?" In that way, the effect is internalized into depression, and lack of confidence. This is similar, to my eyes, to what happens to girls who don't fit the perception of a "perfect woman". Elliot Rodger goes on a shooting rampage because he belongs to psyche that believe that he is perfect, or as he said in the video "a perfect gentleman". This makes him an asshole. It also is what leads him to think that something is wrong with society.
Now let me end with a thought that's cropped up in the past few days. I don't know the answer. I'm not trying to score any points in the race or gender debate. Let's say a prominent woman says something like this: 

"If I'm all alone on a street and I see a man in front of me, I cross to the other side of the street." 

Is that an unfair thing to say, or is she just being cautious and practical?  Mark Cuban has been criticized for a similar comment,

"If I see a black kid in a hoodie on my side of the street, I'll move to the other side of the street."

Are these two statements comparable? If you feel that the fictional woman is being unfair, how does this make you feel about Cuban? If you feel that Cuban is being racist how does this make you feel about the fictional woman? Are both right? Are both wrong? Like I said earlier, its all muddy waters.




Saturday, May 10, 2014

London So Far...

Due to popular demand, (as in someone suggested I do this, and no one argued) I'm writing on my experiences in London for Maymester in general epistle form in this blog. And since my chances of remembering much of this when I get back are slim, and since I have a few minutes to kill, I thought I'd drop a line to the American Public to let them know how things are going, in bullet form:
  • I didn't bring a camera. I know, I know, memories and posterity and blah, blah, blah. I lose things, cameras included. I despise asking people to take my picture, with my own camera. I refuse to see the point in taking pictures of landmarks. I'm not going to forget what Parliament looks like, people, and if I do, I can google it. I'm starting with this so everyone knows, the only pictures of me in London will be ones where one of the girls in the group pulled me into the frame to prove I was there. They might post them on Facebook. I'm not dating any of them. Don't bother asking, Mom.
  • The real purpose of my trip is to get a taste of what's playing on the West End. So far we've seen Matilda, Wicked, and The 39 Steps. My thoughts on them individually, in hollow bullet form:
    • Matilda is really good. It's an adaptation of the book, not Danny DeVito's 1996 movie, which I was greatful for. Not that I don't like the DeVito version; I do. But I loathe attempts to turn movie into musicals (a hatred that has only increased in elitist fashion since I realized the title to the abominable Elf: The Musical was, in fact, Creatively Bankrupt: The Musical. Furthermore, setting the musical in Great Britain, like the book, as opposed to the film, allows for the musical to be a lot more British. The standout in the cast was the 8 year old that played Matilda, and the grown man who played the Trunchbull. I'm generally against drag for comedy's sake (for reasons of feminism, not homophobia), but all moral quandries aside, it was a really remarkable performance. It was so good we waited outside the stage door for autographs, which I never do.
    • I was actually really surprised how much I liked Wicked. I've already seen it, about 8 years ago on Broadway, and any time you see something that has actors REALLY associated with the characters (i.e. Idina Menzel and Kristen Chenowith), you run the risk that you're just going to see someone doing they're best impression of the first actor on stage, always falling short (see Creatively Bankrupt: The Musical). However, I think the West End actors are really unburdened by the expectation to sound and act like the originals. The Elphaba, played by a Dutch actress, seemed weirder and quirkier than the last Elphaba I saw. Her personality on stage actually made it worth seeing a second time, despite semi-obstructed seats.
    • We saw The 39 Steps today at a matinee. So far, so good as far as plays are concerned. The comedy seems to really play up in London (there were a few British in-jokes that brought the house down, that left this reviewer out in the cold). It seemed like a deceptively difficult show, but one that played up its own cheesiness and delighted in over the top Hitchcock references. I would recommend seeing this one. I know I'm due to get a show I really don't like. Or a show I decide not to like to seem smarter than the rest of the group. I don't know when that's going to happen though. I'm seeing Titus Andronicus tomorrow at the Globe.
  • I should thank my orienteering merit badge for finally coming into use. I have mastered the tube like Edmund Hilary mastered Everest. By which, I mean, with the help of the natives.
  • I will almost certainly write more when I get the chance. Just wanted to prove that I am, in fact, in London, lest anyone think I'm hiding in Salt Lake somewhere.