Similar to Solomon I feel like I owe a better explanation of my character to the class and some additional information and thoughts that did not manage to surface during the panel in class today.Although I do think that the axes that we mapped our characters on (time and genre) were interesting, I still think that it would have been interesting to use some of the same axes that were used during the first panel.
- For example, location. Some of our characters did end up or originate on Earth in one place or another. Trillian, or perhaps I should call her Trisha at this point (pre-space name), originally lived in Islington, England. Douglas Adams, the author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series, is also British. I would bet that if asked to pinpoint an Earthly origin that most of the characters would still originate in the US and Europe, similar to the first panel group.
- In class we discussed the classes that our characters are meant to attract as audiences, but I still think that it would be interesting to discuss the characters’ classes. Throughout her various lives and times, Trillian/Trisha always belongs to the middle or upper middle classes, when such a thing exists. Several of the other characters (Barbie, Ken, Janeway, and Dr. Manhattan among them) are fairly upper class or in positions of power. Then we could better compare the character’s situations, opportunities, characters, and gender/human flexibility with those of the working or “lower” class fictional characters such as G.I. Joe or Frankenstein.
- Another note, most of the fictional characters presented were generically caucasian. Trillian is described as looking vaguely Arabic with an English accent, but is played in television shows and in the movie as a Caucasian woman with an American or Canadian accent. Why was this changed? How does race fit into the characters that we chose and know so well?
- Perhaps this last point seems extraneous to a class on gender and technology, but another general trend was that all of the characters are humanoid figures. With such a wide range of characters to pick from from science fiction, fantasy, and the internet, the gaps that are left in our portrayals are quite large.
Considering these omitted axes, perhaps we can get a better grip on the technologies that worked through the characters’ creators to forge the personalities and stories that we saw today at the panel.
“He deformed the lives of every living creature on the face of this planet…One single being has been allowed to change the entire world, pushing it closer to its eventual destruction in the process…We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan.”
I don’t feel that my thoughts are fully formed on my persona from today’s class. I think Docter Manhattan is an amazing character. Very philosophical and very intriguing.
I picked him because I have a lot of questions about him and his world. I’ve gotten, as I think many of us have, very caught up in the idea of technology as an extension of humanity. But what if we are extending in the wrong direction?
Doctor Manhattan transcends the human condition and propells the world down a spiral of destruction. I find it very interesting that he is referred to as the superman, the man to end all wars when actually he only causes more problems and doesn’t end up making much of anything better. He eventually loses all traces of humanity. He has no morality, killing is not a action that requires thought. As George said in class, he is god.
In class I said that I felt he also lives beyond gender. I think I might have been wrong. When he rebuilds his body he chooses to construct a male form, once in this form he still has sexual relationships with women. Throughout the story he is decidedly male. Could gender be something that is so ingrained in our consciousness that it is impossible to get rid of? Perhaps if he was created rather than reformed into this beyond human being, he could exist without gender.
Although I love Watchmen, I find all of the female characters to be a bit unsatisfying. Their roles are completely necessary to the story, but I can’t help but wonder how things would have been different if the first “superman” was a woman.
These are just some half-formed thoughts… I’ve got to work in out in my head. Maybe I’ll munch on some potstickers while I think. There was absolutely no reason for me to link to this post. I just felt like it. It’s a good one.
By the way, the lesbian crime-fighter I was referring to in class is Silhouette.
frahnk-un-shteen. I forgot to use this today and I’ve been kicking myself about it.
I’m thinking about the panel today. I thought it was if nothing else funny: my favorite quotes were regarding Will Smith being delicious and Doctor Mahanttan having “spent some time in Vietnam.” Pretty awesome.
I thought that maybe I should have offered some more explanation, though, on the character I played. For those who don’t know, Frankenstein’s monster is, in the book, very intelligent and reasonably well-read. He essentially teaches himself English. For the monster, the most desirable thing in the world is company. He is accepted once by an old patriarch for about thirty seconds, because the man is blind and cannot see the monster’s translucent flesh, bulging muscles, and jaundiced eyes. The monster even tries to talk to a small child, thinking the child will have no preconceived notions, and is there spurned too (he kills the child upon discovering that it is Dr. Frankenstein’s younger brother). Essentially, he’s lonely as hell.
There were a few things that interested me about gender in this character. First is his desire for companionship – specifically, that he wants a bride, a romantic partner (and a heterosexual relationship). That’s not PARTICULARLY strange, though, since if one is going to get one companion and one only, it may as well be a romantic one, and there’s no reason for the monster to prefer men over women. Besides, in the mid-nineteenth century, gay monster love probably wouldn’t have gotten published.
Anyway. Next, though, is the big one for me, which is that Frankenstein represents not merely a body brought back to life. He is a NEW person, and he is a new person who has circumvented that whole “gestation” thing that most new people tend to be pretty keen on for nine months or so. He is 100% recycled human, and he represents the notion that humans can exist without birth. That says odd things about sex, if not gender. What would we be if life could be perpetuated without making more humans through the conventional method? This is a question we’ve been dealing with as we’ve been asking about the future of humanity. If we’re to evolve past sex, will we then evolve past gender, too? This is a question I raise all the time and one of the reasons I picked Frankenstein’s monster is because it was a good example of it.
So I keep thinking about how Frankenstein’s monster is described, with his thin, thin skin just barely covering his organs and musculature, and for some reason it’s making me think of potstickers and now I want potstickers.
In response to Aline’s earlier post: after listening to the panel today, I had the same Friends episode in my head as well (when Ross gives Ben the G.I. Joe because he caught Ben playing with a Barbie)!!! And something else that came to mind when thinking about G.I. Joe was this speaker who came to my high school, Jackson Katz, a anti-sexist male activist, to talk about how the media and pop culture portray men as being tough and strong and how these stereotypes and ubiquitous figures of ideal men, lead to gender violence (domestic and sexual). Here is a short clip of a larger documentary created by Jackson Katz, called Tough Guise:
I had a great time preparing to be The Terminator for the panel today. I got to be a female dressed as a cyborg dressed as a man– you don’t get that opportunity everyday! Did you all notice how well I transformed into my character?! Yeah, I didn’t think so. I told my roommate about the panel assignment, and asked how I should prepare, and she said “i dunno, don’t wash your hair and wear some boots”. Is that how you look like Arnold Schwarzenegger? Well shit, I look like him 3-5 times a week.
Despite my failed Terminator embodiment, I honestly put a decent amount of effort into it. I wore some work boots, my least form fitting pants, a sports bra and a black tank top (sorry, a WIFE BEATER, except when marketed towards females, then its a BOY BEATER.). I didn’t wear make up, didn’t wash my hair and even took my nail polish off. When I left my apartment, one of my guy friends said “jeez, someone just rolled out of bed”. But I could tell by the look on his face that what he really meant was “whoa, the Terminator”.
okay, POINT: with my best attempt to dress like a cyborg-man using just what I owned, Id say the only thing I had going for me was nothing I put on, but instead my athletic, small-chested figure. Maybe from a distance someone would mistake me for a lean, mean… 13 year old boy, but that’s about it. Why is it that in my mind, dressing like a man isn’t adding male elements, but instead stripping away female elements?
day after day I add make up, I add hair products, I add push-up bras, add high heels, add waist defining clothing…Referring to the (controversial) definition I came across last week, to be female is to lack a y-chromosome and a penis. I lack both of those to the best of my knowledge– then why do I subtract in an effort to appear masculine? Someone in class said that without the addition of testosterone, the default sex would be female. Without the addition of make up, and hair products, and push-up bras and high heels, I attempted to be more masculine. Is the default gender male?
on a different note, Law and Order SVU last night was about a transgender teen, and her transgender guidance counselor. I didn’t get a chance to watch the whole episode, but did find a clip:
also, a blog talking more about the episode for those interested.
Maddie
Friends; The one with the Metaphoric tunnel
<a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHKPVOnUrIg”>Friends; The one with the Metaphoric tunnel</a>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me2RoEm2Gsw
The panel today kept making me think of this Friends episode. The people in class, who portrayed themselves as Ken, Barbie, and G.I. Joe really brought it up. In the episode, Ross has his son for the weekend. His ex-wife, Carol and her girlfriend, Susan are raising him. When they bring him over, he has a Barbie, which really upsets Ross. The episode is hilarious (in my opinnon), but is it the gender stereotypes and trying to break them that makes it funny? Anyway, I think it is something to consider. Also, I would like to know what others think.
So today’s panel of fictional characters got me thinking more about the superheroes and superheroines of popular culture (because my knowledge of comics and superheroes is REALLY limited) and how gendered they are. This train of thought, of course, didn’t lead me far, just because of how obviously gendered most superheroes are. Batman’s muscles are so prominent that they’re molded into his costume. Same with Superman. However, there are other facets of gender and technology to be considered. For example, has anyone else noticed that, while newer renditions of superheroes in film have still been centered around an average joe and his alter ego, the average joe has gotten more and more, well, average? Let’s take Edward Norton as the Hulk, or Toby Maguire as Spiderman. Both guys, while representing masculinity in their own ways, are a far cry from Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne, in terms of physique. It seems that popular culture is straying somewhat from the prototype of masculinity as illustrated by bulky muscles, and is instead replacing it with a newer, kind of geek/chic version of masculinity.
Also, there’s the matter of masks versus makeup, both of which we have considered in this class as modes of technology. Both offer variability and programability of one’s appearance. Most superheroes have a mask, while most villains (and again, my knowledge of this stuff is really limited to the superhero hollywood movies) wear makeup. While the superheroes can take their masks on or off, the villains (like the Joker, Penguin, etc) are defined by their perpetual makeup masks. They really wouldn’t be recognizable without their makeup. Can we deduce a more generalized statement about makeup from this observation? That perhaps people use it to define their identity, rather than to disguise it? I can think of a couple of ruptures in this assumption, but I’m sure there’s more to say about this…
After doing some more research I’ve been able to find out where Rosie came from exactly, The War Advertising Council’s Women in War Jobs campaign created Rosie the Riveter in an attempt to get more women to join the workforce during World War II. The movement increased the number of women workers to 20 million by 1944 which was a 57% increase from 1940.
There is much debate over Rosie’s actual impact on women. Some say that the campaign opened up the workforce forever while it is true that women were often discharged from their jobs after men returned home from the war. These women knew that factory work was possible for them although women did not reenter the job market in numbers this large until the 1970s when factory jobs were in a decline all over the world. I believe that this campaign and the image of Rosie the Riveter empowered women and showed them that they could do “a man’s job.”
However, some of the statements used in the campaign seem to imply otherwise. The importance of going to work in the factories was often called a “patriotic duty.” In my mind this takes the importance of a woman performing a more masculine task and turns it into something she must do for her country…and not because, hey, maybe she wants to do it? Another slogan used was “Do the job he left behind” which like what actually happened, the women is simply seen as the man’s replacement. She was only working to hold his place and when he returned her job would become his job again.
All in all Rosie depicted a strong, confident woman that worked with heavy duty powerl tools and made war machines. She even has an action figure…so take that G.I. Joe.
I came across two images of Rosie the Riveter in my research. The first is obviously the most iconic and well recognized image but the second image, done by Norman Rockwell, struck me much more than the first. In my opinion the iconic image depicts a feminine woman wearing makeup and maintaining some of her more “girly” features. The Rockwell depiction shows a larger woman, a more muscular woman with dirt on her face and no makeup. To me Rockwell’s image is much more masculine, the soft feminine characteristics of the iconic image are missing but for me…not exactly missed.
Someone should have been GLaDOS.
just sayin’.
I need to thank Marwa for her post on Gender Differences in Comics, which discusses traditional newspaper-printed comic strips. I am personally a big fan of comics, newspaper and more recently those on the internet. Webcomics are not subject to the same quality control as newspapers and I have found that, as a result, they tend to have a more fluid representation of a gendered world. An example of this is one of my on and off favorites, Wapsi Square, which is about Monica, a Latina who lives in the fictional town of Wapsi Square, Minnesota. An initial glance at this comics may make you tense and wonder why creator Paul Taylor would feature a women who is 4’11” with a 32DD bra. Taylor would simply answer that women like this exist. He even has a list of resources to help short women like this find bras that are supportive and pretty. His comic is about the lives of strong women of absolutely all kinds (although the current arc is pretty crazy, involving the search for a calendar machine). Monica’s friends are professionals, athletic types, dreamers, and achievers. They are women who embrace womanhood and have fun with it. The art for the comic has definitely evolved over the years. Monica started out looking very young with her small stature and large cheeks emphasized. Because of this, other characters related to her as a little sister type, someone who needed protection. Yet Monica grew up and became more sure of herself, which is evident in the increased definition of lines throughout the whole comic. In this way, the art becomes a way of expressing a character’s physical and psychological being, showing yet again that the two are difficult to separate. 
Another example is from a fairweather friend, Diesel Sweeties, which might be a lot more relevant to the course. Not only does it play around with gender roles, but also human relationships with technology. Initially it focused on the relationship between Maura, an ex-porn star, and Clango, a kind-hearted robot. In its infancy, the comic could have been called, “Robots and the Women Who Love Them. Carnally. On a Regular Basis” (some QC fans will get that joke). 
The strip imagines a rapidly advancing, technologically saturated world exactly like ours, with the notable exception that robots are more or less humans with a metal chassis and a clearly defined function. Even appliances are able to express themselves to some extent, with toasters angrily setting fire to bread and old computers grousing about the old days. Interestingly enough, a male human and female robot relationship has yet to emerge. How would R. Stevens envision such a pairing in today’s world? How would we? This comic is especially interesting as it is also syndicated in a number of newspapers, which is considered one way for a webcomic to make it big. By choosing to stand alongside such classics as “Dilbert” and “Family Circus,” the comic has had to tone it down visually and content-wise. No longer are human-robot relationships as accepted or risque, indicating a return to the more traditionally newspaper way of viewing both gender and technology, as subjects that should rarely mix. I wonder whether it is worth diluting one’s unique ideas for a chance at financial security (probably yes). In any case, the online version continues to blur the lines between gender and technology in increasingly cynical ways.
I am ending this post here, not because I don’t have more to say, but because this may end up being too long and rambling. Perhaps a part two is in order? Do other people see more of a combination of gender and technology in the realm of webcomics?
Via GeekDad, I found this link to a Psychology Today blog post that briefly reviews research on primate preferences for toys. The research suggests that boys’ preference for masculine toys and girls’ preferences for feminine toys might be attributed to biology rather than socialization. GeekDad is skeptical, as are many of his commenters. Maybe Barbie, Ken, and G.I. Joe, who will all be with us tomorrow, can shed some light on the issue.
I found this interesting article about Gender Differences in Comics. It talks about how the representation of men and women in comics varied over the centuries and how much that representation was affected by the creator’s sex.
At first, comics mostly starred children and they were cute and funny, which serves the purpose of comics: funny and cartoony. Afterwards, when adult figures were introduced, it started following a general trend – beautiful women and funny-looking men. These were mostly drawn by men. (Of course, there were exceptions where both men and women drawn funny-looking, like Popeye and Olive Oyl). However, women cartoonists working around the same time drew beautiful women and equally attractive men. There was more equality between the sexes. The author brings up an interesting question: “If the male cartoonists were identifying with their male characters, did they consider themselves, and possibly their fellow men, to be ugly, stunted, hopelessly geeky creatures, while thinking of women as the impossibly beautiful, unattainable other? When the women cartoonists drew both men and women as attractive beings, were they, in a more down-to-earth way, simply accepting both men and women as equal humans?”
Around the twentieth century in the mainstream comics, the style changed to both male and female characters having certain characteristics exaggerated: the men were muscular, had thick necks and chins bigger than their heads; the women had disproportionately large breasts and thin waists, long legs and very little clothing. In independent comics, however, in which most female cartoonists work, have males and females drawn similarly – both funny-looking or both realistic. Male cartoonists working in these small press comics now also draw men and women as equals. Mainstream comics hasn’t yet changed though.
*Please let it be noted that Valerie Solanas enjoyed being the scum of society, as her future intentions were to end it anyway. Also, don’t forget to follow the link I provided below to read the SCUM Manifesto
Valerie Solanas, extreme feminist and self proclaimed bull-dyke
Of course, the manifesto’s apparent rantings only serve to promote these assumptions. Perhaps she did not mean it at all or perhaps she meant every word. The problem I have is that since she nearly murdered a popular artist, most people were more interested in pointing out her flaws and can not truly see the messages she was sending. I feel obligated to play devil’s advocate and state that she did make some astute observations about problems within our (American/ Western) society which appear on a superficial level as the rantings of an angry feminist. Solanas is indeed a scholar and a thinker, and she only wanted to unite women against an unfair system of oppression. This is a defense that was attempted to be made in the Mary Harron 1996 film I Shot Andy Warhol.
A clip from the film I Shot Andy Warhol, each time Valerie Solanas is in black and white she is reading from the SCUM Manifesto
By no means am I saying that I believe that Solanas was in her right mind. I agree with the notion that she was mentally ill. Yet her observations on the ways the work force, economy, government, religion and many other aspects of society are detailed and difficult to argue. Her demands are simple, make women join together against the unfair systems men have put in place and replace the useless work men have invented to wasted time with automated machines. Just take away the mass murder of men, and the close-minded hatred and discrimination she feels towards the male sex (in all of its presentations) in the manifesto and you might find something worth your while!
While I was looking for more interesting stereotypical color ideas from different cultures to add to Simran Singh’s post I accidentally found a very interesting publication from a law firm called Nixon Peabody. The publication, which can be found here, is fairly long, so I will do my best to summarize it. This publication addresses the circumstances, trial, and decision regarding one female bartender’s struggle against new policies that required that women wear carefully regulated makeup along with a long list of other required, stereotypical dress and styles. Similar stereotypical requirements were placed on the men. The bartender, one Darlene Jesperson, took this decision to court when the management told her that she would have to either change jobs or leave their employment if she did not wish to follow the new appearance requirements. The judge decided that the requirements on the female employees were no weightier than those on the male employees and therefore not an issue of sexual discrimination. The end result being, as the title of the publication suggests, that a female bartender can be fired for refusing to wear makeup.
For further and more thorough discussion I will quote some of the new dress requirements for both males and females.
Both sexes could now only wear simple tasteful jewelry and had to avoid faddish hairstyles, unnatural colors, and ponytails. Male employees’ hair could not extend below the top of their shirt collars. Female employees’ hair “must be teased, curled or styled every [work] day” but its length was not limited. Male employees’ fingernails must be “neatly trimmed” and men could not wear colored nail polish. Female employees could wear colored nail polish but only “clear, white, pink or red” and must avoid “exotic nail art or length.” Female employees must wear stockings made of “nude or natural color consistent with…skin tone” and without runs. Both sexes’ shoes must be solid black leather or leather type with rubber (nonskid) soles…Everything changed when Harrah’s amended its appearance standards policy to add a brand-new requirement that all female beverage servers (including female bartenders) wear makeup. This amendment went even further. Instead of simply stating that, unlike male employees who could not wear makeup, female beverage servers “must wear makeup,” the amendment went on to require that mascara, blush, and foundation “must be worn and applied neatly in complimentary colors” and that lipstick or lip color “must be worn at all times.”
These requirements raise a few questions. Do you agree with the judge’s decision? How do you feel about the justification that “both” sexes have requirements of “equal” weight? Can stereotypical behaviors and presentations be compared to each other, when, by the nature of the assumed duality of sex/gender in this text, they are mutually exclusive? How could this bar, decision, jury, etc. deal with a transsexual or transgendered individual? Is this decision too harsh or is it reasonable in the circumstance (a privately owned business and employer)?
I’m not entirely sure what to think about this:
more animals
On the one hand, it’s obviously funny, but is it poking fun at someone else’s expense?
