My dog had to get a single stitch on his eyelid over break… (this is relevant, I promise)…And we had to get him one of those cone or lampshade looking things to put around his neck so that he couldn’t paw or scratch at his stitches, and it occurred to me that this device is probably really similar to the one Atwood imagined her female protagonists wearing (the “wings”). Although the comparison is a stretch, I think there is something to be said for the intentions I have for my dog in making him wear that thing and the intentions of Gilead’s government in cutting off the gazes of the women in their jurisdiction. It’s “for their own good.” But my dog can’t see the bigger picture and probably doesn’t realize what the collar is for, whereas Offred clearly sees what’s going on in her society. Despite being “winged.” I wonder if there’s a reason why Offred seems to be more aware of the horrors of Gilead than some of the other characters in the novel. Or perhaps it only seems that she’s more aware because it’s only her insight that we’re seeing.
This comparison also evokes questions of authority: who can decide what is best? Obviously Offred’s situation is very morally and religiously charged, but going back to issues of plastic surgery, who has the authority to decide what’s best for the client? I know we’ve discussed these issues in class, but I just wanted to mention one more case. Sheyla Hershey has the world record for largest silicone breast implants (38KKK). But she had to go to her native Brazil for all of the surgeries because Texas, the state she resided in at the time, had laws restricting the amount of silicone you could put in your body. (http://www.stylelist.com/blog/2009/02/05/women-breaks-world-record-for-largest-implants-maybe-38kkk/)
This also raises issues about IVF that I came across in my research for the panels for the last couple of weeks. Is it the right of the patient, doctor, or some medical board to decide what’s best for the particular case of the patient? Atwood’s Offred seems to suggest that the individual’s rights are most precious, and are more important than the protection that the government could offer, but medical practices suggest otherwise. Why is there such a discrepancy between these speculations, between medicine and government? Both are held liable if something goes wrong.
I have been passed out with the flu for a week, but I’m finally feeling better, so I can post! YES!
I saw the Watchmen movie last Friday. I’m still in the process of reading the graphic novel, but there were a few things about the movie that bothered me. First, the dead lesbian super heroes were sleeping in some seriously intense lingerie when they were murdered. But what bothered me more was the treatment of the urban poor throughout the film. It seemed that the retired crime busters (or whatever) where forced to live in horrible conditions, surrounded by the rest of the urban populations, who were either criminals or prostitutes. I know we’re not supposed to agree with Rorschach, but the rest of the film didn’t really offer anything else. I think we’ve got a problem with otherizing urban poverty, and this movie doesn’t help. Also, finally, they had to destroy most of the world’s major cities to acheive peace? I know it was supposed to unify the world against a common enemy, but it also left only suburban and rural populations around to deal with it. It seemed like killing off the rats to me.
The book seems like it will be different, because we’re getting to know more people who live in the cities. But I think it’ll be interesting to talk about class in relation to technology with this text, and I’m interested to see how it works out.
I read the quote in rebecca’s post and got to thinking about the ways in which technology is used to empower people who could be considered disabled, but not physically.
One thing that came to mind for me was ADD/ADHD. According to medicinenet.com, ADHD refers to a chronic disorder that initially manifests in childhood and is characterized by hyperactivity, impulsivity, and/or inattention. It is diagnosed roughly 5-10 times more often in boys than in girls, but is thought to be only actually only slightly more prevalent in men than in women (In sample tests, men were 1-2 times more likely to have ADD/ADHD than women.) Why the discrepancy? Boys are more likely to have hyperactivity than girls, and any kid who can’t sit still and is making a lot of noise is more likely to get noticed than a other kid who is quietly not paying attention. Girls also tend to be hyperactive in different ways, hyperactive boys tend to be fidgety and aggressive, whereas hyperactive girls often just talk a lot. Some people believe that guidelines for the diagnosis of ADHD are skewed more towards the ways boys display ADHD, which leads to fewer diagnosis for girls who need it.
The problems caused by ADHD can be vastly improved by relatively simple measures: organizational tools, counseling and drugs. But most of the ADHD drugs tests for children are done on white males, so it is unclear if those drugs are equally effective for children who aren’t white and male.
Technology can do a lot to help children and adults with ADD/ADHD, but many girls with ADHD are overlooked because of their gender. I wonder if this is also the case for some learning disabilities, or other behavioral disorders?
I am a huge fan of the TV show House MD. I love the mystery (perhaps it stems from my *former* deep desire to become a doctor) and I’m intrigued by House’s character. The newest episode is about an intersex child. The episode starts with the birth of the child. The doctor tells the parents that their child has genetic mosaicism, in which the body has cells of two genotypes, and that they can choose what gender they want their child to be. The parents are perplexed, but eventually choose their child to be a boy. Cut to present day. The child is around 12 (don’t remember the exact age) and is taken to the hospital when he faints from pelvic pain while playing basketball. He is taken to the hospital and the parents ask the doctors not to tell him about his testosterone supplement since they haven’t told him the truth. As House’s team tries to figure out what is wrong with the boy, we are shown what the parents go through and why they did not tell their child the truth. He tells one of the doctors that he wanted to learn dance, but his mother made him choose basketball. At one point, the doctor tells the mother than they have to stop the testosterone, and the mother says, “…he’ll never grow up to be a man.” The parents are also shown wondering whether they made the right choice. The father often wants to tell him the truth, but the mother thinks it will make him more confused, and that his present confusion stems from the fact that he is a teenager.
Eventually, the kid is told the truth. When a doctor asks whether he feels like a girl, the response is, “I like dancing more than basketball.” Again, it’s highlighting the gender stereotypes that exist even in the minds of children.
I thought it was interesting that a show was trying to portray this issue, but I wish they had spent more time on it and let us deeper into the minds of the the child and the parents to learn more about what they were going through.
I know most people have grown up with Disney. I also know a lot of people now know they suffer from huge complaints regarding streotypes, racisim and other hidden content thrown into their movies. When looking specifically at the role of masculinity within Disney I found a brief, yet interesting, youtube video that touched on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CWMCt35oFY
After watching the video it got me thinking. Through ‘google’ I stumbled upon the website feministings.com. This website in Auguest 05, 2008 made a blog topic on the same exact video and by now they have various responses by many people who have watched the same video.
Ok… this post is totally not at all educational. I’m bringing back homemade candy (yes, I am a 1950’s housewife in disguise :P) so I was wondering if anybody were allergic to peppermint, vanilla or sugar. I realize that this is an odd list to ask about, but I had a camper who was allergic to almost everything but breathing once, so I’m playing this safe.
Ok… so I do have a bit of an education update… 31 pages of thesis! *celebrates*
While anorexia has been popularized by young Hollywood starlets, this issue has become a growing problem for many male members within our community. I used to think that anorexia and bulimia are mainly feminine problems since our obsessions with weight issues and having the ‘perfect’ body is plastered on the features sections of women’s magazines. Apparently, that is not the case. Men’s beauty deals with body mass and muscular size, not weight loss like women. It is also noticeable that men do not come forward to receive any treatment and the only possible explanation for their reluctance is because they think that this is a sort of ‘woman’s disease.’ Here is a link to this interesting New York Times article I found on this issue which is becoming massive – New York times Article
There has also been an eye-opening documentary regarding male eating disorders, created by Travis Mathews and titled ‘Do I look Fat?’ The film deals with how male anorexia has affected the gay male community where the men are forced to meet a certain kind of body perfection. I found an article and a video related to this documentary. I’m not sure whether the film’s trailer is the right one, but it’s the only one I found.
You Tube Trailer \”Do I look Fat?\”
I personally feel that men dealing with anorexia should not be afraid to come out and talk about their issues. Health centers, family doctors and of course, family members are within close proximity so they are definitely not alone.
I’m not very far into The Handmaid’s Tale yet – only about halfway – but I’m definitely being struck by a bunch of similarities between it and Nineteen Eighty-Four. I’m a big fan of both, but it’s interesting seeing where they’re alike and different.
The big similarity is the loneliness. In each book we get a view from inside the head of someone questioning an unquestionable society. Both protagonists have to hold in their heads their various fears, their desires, their secret, small guilty pleasures, and to hide these for fear of punishment. It’s interesting see how they have to satisfy themselves with very small things. It’s also interesting how convinced they are that everything that’s occurring around them is crazy, and that other people MUST recognize this. It makes the loneliness even greater, in a way, since the risks of exposing their heresy are too great to chance them by trying to form a friendship.
The big difference I’m seeing is the time between a free world and the ones in which the protagonists live. Winston Smith, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, does not remember things having ever been different. He has to hunt and search to find anyone who still has any knowledge of what it used to be like before the totalitarian government took over. The fact that Winston Smith only knows his oppressive world reinforces the stifling atmosphere of the book, where the government pretends that this is how it always was, and this is how it always will be.
In contrast, Offred in The Handmaid’s Tale DOES remember a time when she had something else. She remembers freedom to, rather than freedom from. She remembers love, sex, and birth as something other than the disturbing parody they’ve become. Having done nothing wrong and having had no say, she is forced to participate in a system she doesn’t believe in. (As an aside, the type of oppression she is subject to is very different from that of Nineteen Eighty-Four; in that book, the government is very distinctly atheistic and acting contrary to it is “thought-crime.” In The Handmaid’s Tale, the oppression is definitely a religious one, where opposition is heresy.) To me, Offred’s suffering is much more visible and violent. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the injusticies hurt like a dull, chronic ache; in The Handmaid’s Tale, they’re like repeated jabbings with a hot needle. I haven’t decided yet which I like less.
The site http://www.malepregnancy.com/ is a web site that was created to introduce people to the concept of male pregnancy. The elaborate hoax web site uses everything from message boards to a fake “in production” video documentary to show a pregnant man named Mr. Lee Mingwei.
Unlike the other web site of “Genochoice” I found this web site to be much more real. If I had stumbled across such a web site through google I would have believed this one! The web site home page has statements claiming from an Innovations in Health Care that “RYT Hospital is among the finest hospital in the world.” The web site also utilizes various sources such as USA Today, U.S. News, and Oprah to make the visitor think this is a real event with just a 20-30 second glance at the homepage.
I watched the seven minute video feed and thought it was really well done. People actually thought this man was pregnant and it really opened up a dialogue for males and females about male pregnancy. I also thought people took it much more seriously than the article we read previously regarding Mr. Beatie. Which instead of opening up a conversation about male pregnancy it simply started debated about what gender was ranging from biological to psychological. I think that situation seemed less true because within that article a lot of people just felt that the pregnant individual was simply originally a female that now looked like a man. So the idea of this person being pregant was not really shocking. It was nice to see that Mr. Beatie was actually congratulated on their web site as a “fellow father.”
Video hyperlink: http://www.malepregnancy.com/movie/
A website titled “Genochoice” is a satirical sci-fi futuristic parody website that looks at what would happen if people were able to design or preselect desirable traits within their preborn infant….for a price. This website is specifically comical and nothing is very real about it. The graphics are on the cheesey side and the website looks slightly questionable at best. But some people have been fooled into thinking it is real.
See for yourself at: http://www.genochoice.com/
The website works along side a couple’s testimony’s and a reassuring female scientist that uses step-by-step videos, that allow you to scan your DNA (Via thumbprint) and then instantly see your results. The results show the precentage of risk your future baby will carry for possible so called diseases or oddities such as homosexuality, cancer and heart disease just to name a few. The site also lets you include boots to skills such as creativity and athletic ability for bonus fees. The costs for all of these “upgrades” as the site calls them are in the thousands of dollars.
So, althought this site is a hoax the idea behind it is very probable for the future. The idea of money buying beauty, health, and intelligence would significantly seperate individuals in society. The real issue is how society stillshows traces of this divide already in society right now in 2009. So as a society that constantly puts faith in the latest technological advance would we be bettering our culture with certain advances? Such as getting rid of cancer and heart disease. Or would we actually be setting up a huge class seperation by offering these options at a fee? Even if the fee was through a person’s insurance company or out of pocket? The world today thrives on an economy and everything seems to come at a price. Would “better” genetics be another option for the more well off individual?
For those who got a kick out of the website the company also made three other websites:
1.) The World’s First Transgenic Mouse with Human Intelligence – http://www.rythospital.com/clyven
2.) Nanodocs – http://www.rythospital.com/nanodocs
3.) Male Pregnancy – http://www.malepregnancy.com
The Los Angeles Times features on their website a very interesting essay written by Ann Powers. Ann is a music critic who is questioning the “family friendly” American Idol atmosphere that’s preventing a lot of different talent from being featured and or winning on the show due to religious affiliation, language barriers, or race.
This is the link to the article: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-et-american-idol10-2009mar10,0,5548765.story?track=rss
I’ve never watched American Idol because I don’t care much for the three judges. But since the show has been around for such a long time I suppose it is worth looking into. The show has become a huge reality TV show with a grand following, spawning coutnless spin-off’s all over the world.
Picture From: SuperHush Reality Show News & Random Ramblings (Website: http://superhush.com)
A lot of viewers responded towards the essay with mixed views saying that the show has tons of homosexuals on the show. While other’s say the lack of homosexuality has nothing to do with how “American” the show want’s to be portrayed.
I’m just curious to know if anyone else who has watched a season or two of the show, can say in their own words, if they think there is a major homosexuality bias issue within American Idol?
I just read this article called The Case Against Breastfeeding in the newsmagazine The Atlantic because a pulled quote made me think of our class immediately:
My friend sat on my couch hooked up to tubes and suctions and a giant deconstructed bra, looking like some fetish ad. Looking nothing like Eve in her natural, feminine state.
After reading just this, I didn’t know what the article was going to be about at all. Both of these situations seemed suspect to me: first, if I were a mom, no, I wouldn’t want to be tethered to breastfeeding technology like this, and certainly not fetishized by it. But I don’t think any feminists aspire to be like Eve, the sinful woman made out of man, and we in this class have constantly tried to break down the very concept of a “natural, feminine state.”
Recently, my nine-year-old little brother had a short story assignment on monsters for his third grade class. For the short story he had to make up a monster that fit a few parameters like: a certain shape, color, etc and then of course, write a story about his creation.
When he got the assignment back, my mother was shocked to see that he did VERY poorly (normally little bro is a very good student). Immediately looking to read the comments next to the grade, I saw that he lost most of the points for not referring to his monster as a he/she. Instead, he decided to refer to it as “it.” Having a gender assignment was not one of the specified requirements.
Does this bother anyone else? I have a very strong desire to go down to that school of his and teach his teachers a little something about gender theory . . . and mythical creatures. Bah. Well, I won’t actually do THAT, but I will attempt damage control with little bro. I wonder if he would have lost just as many points for a none gendered robot?
Looking back at my own childhood experience, I still remember assigning genders to colors and numbers (just like some foreign languages and I can still recite their assignments for you). I used to think this was a really funny stupid fact about myself when I was younger, but now I’m starting to wonder why I decided to do that in the first place.
LOL from this NYTimes piece lamenting Doctor-Patient-Computer Relationships:
Awful mistakes may get clicked and pass unnoticed.
Girls may be described as having male genitalia and vice versa.
So, being as our class is focused on Gender and technology, I thought I’d post some things of interest. Hopefully shorter than my previous posts… and thus more readable. (:P)
I found this link to Jill (a blogger with the article The Public Woman ) and wondered what others thought about this idea that as women bloggers on the web we are vulnerable. (I thought this especially pertinent as we have had trolls on the blog trying to egg our class on). Also, does this type of thing also apply to the guys in our class? I mean, because these guys are posting with a bunch of women and standing up alongside us (aka, omg we’re equal in this class), are they also targets?
