日本ごの 性 (Japanese Language Gender) (Blog 10 Makeup)

Probably one of the best things about this last semester was the opportunity I had to learn Japanese. I have made new friends and gained skills that I will hopefully utilize in the near future. Of course, when learning a new language, you aren't privileged to the cultural information that a naturalized individual would have. Basically, what the teacher says is law and there's really no second guessing. Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately) for me, Wikipedia came to the rescue, telling me that I might actually be learning the feminine way to speak in Japanese.

Because of the overly-polite way of speaking that foreign students are taught, interpretations by native speaking Japanese people might prove to be a little embarrassing. In Japan, women in general speak in a very polite manner. Therefore, a man speaking very politely, as American students are taught, would come off to be a little ... odd.

These gender specific ways of speaking seem strange to us, but it's common in many foreign countries. In fact, the Japanese actually have different pronouns for both men and women. Truly our language lacks a certain specificity that is found throughout many other parts of the world. Grasping this concept can be difficult at first, but honestly makes you respect the cultures of other countries. Gender roles in the United States are pretty clean cut. We can view something and usually catch any overt statements about gender stereotypes. The Japanese language takes for granted the specific words used to refer to men and women. However, for us, it stands out. This doesn't mean that the Japanese discriminate based on gender. It only means that culture in the rest of the world differs from our own. In this light, I have begun to rethink our own culture. Perhaps some of the things we are calling stereotypes are just part of our own way of life. Maybe holding general beliefs in what is feminine and masculine is actually what it really means to be American.

Men Get It!

I'm not too sure about other television stations, but I know that Spike runs this ad all the time. It starts out with a father and his young son throwing a ball in the back yard. The shot fades once to show a somewhat older boy doing the same thing, and then again to an older teenage boy. We then see the father and his older son in the bathroom, seemingly getting ready for their day. The father pulls out his Aqua Velva aftershave and applies it, then he passes it to his all too enthusiastic son. If I remember correctly, the son then blurts out some cheesy line like "Cool!". The commercial informs us that "some things never change over time," and ends with "Aqua Velva ... men get it."

My issue is, what is this commercial saying? And why do I get so irritated every time I watch it? It's a man and his son happily playing catch, and then them applying grossly overpriced aftershave. There shouldn't be something wrong with it, but it really bugs me.

First of all, why are they playing catch? Do fathers and sons even do that anymore? Are the busy moms and dads of our generation actually able to set aside time to interact with their children? If so, this is news to me. The only thing I can figure is that the commercial is bringing us back to a simpler time when this sort of thing was commonplace. I'm also assuming that the commercial is implying that this should remain commonplace as well. The phrase "some things never change over time" is a major source of confusion for me. So basically, fathers and sons should play catch, and then apply Aqua Velva aftershave... forever.

Point is: things DO change over time. The paternal role is definitely much different than it was no more than twenty years ago. The idea that parents are supposed to act as role models and guides for their children is slowly becoming a "nice idea" rather than a "necessary job." Perhaps getting Aqua Velva aftershave will allow you to feel a little more like you support how things have been in the past. However, no matter how much rank blue liquid you splash on your face in the morning, things are changing.

Prom Pants in the Press

Oh prom...
Some of us think of it as the best night of our high school lives, some of us just try to forget.
One thing that eternally lives in our memory is the stress of looking your best for the occasion. All the shirts, ties, lace and satin end up being strewn about the dance floor, jumbled together in a mess reminiscent of discarded Christmas wrapping paper. There are the conservative girls with traditional dresses, and then the ... other girls with as much skin showing as possible. The boys are all in suits, chromatically ranging from ebony to ivory. The problem is that some schools have actually made this clothing required based on gender.

Lebanon High School in Indiana recently denied a lesbian girl's request to wear a suit to prom. Their dress code for the occasion requires her to wear a dress to the dance. In her opinion, it is extremely discriminatory. She has actually taken legal action against the school board because of the rule, and says that wearing the suit is a part of her "sexual identity" and therefore should be allowed.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supports her case however. They are actually claiming, and have evidence to prove, that the dress code is unconstitutional. It is, according to them, "creating a disparity in the treatment of male and female students." Clearly they are willing to make a point of their stance on the issue, and I would be very surprised if the unnamed girl does not get her request granted.

The United States (and the world for that matter) is a different place now than it was fifteen years ago. Individuality in many avenues is now openly encouraged and accepted. My question is if the government is going to keep up with the changes, or if they are even willing to.

I'm a little glad it's been reduced to reruns...

In all honesty, I really didn't even know that much about the man show until I actually saw it recently. Needless to say, by the first commercial break I was significantly disgusted. I mean, it's not even necessarily what was being displayed, but how it was being presented. For instance, lets take a gander at the theme song...

Grab a beer and drop your pants.

Send your wife and kids to France.

It's the Man Show!

Quit your job and light a fart.

Yank your favorite private part.

It's the Man Show!

It's a place where men can come together.

Look at the cans on this chick named Heather.

Juggy girls on trampolines.

Time to loosen those blue jeans.

It's the . . . Man Show!

I personally find a couple things bothersome about the words, but I suppose that the majority of America did not. I mean, the show was drawn out for five seasons. And honestly, from what I gather, the basis of the entire half hour is to arouse men and entertain prepubescent boys. It's ridiculous. The show completely embraces the extremely demeaning male stereotype that all men are fat bumbling beer-drinking idiots. Every skit performed, every joke made, every prize given away - all of it - pertains to this idea of men and what is "appealing" to them.

Granted there are television stations devoted to the sexes, for instance We and Spike, but The Man Show takes the cake for most outwardly stereotypical in my opinion. Just look at the logo. An overweight man with a blank, stupid look on his face. I know how this makes me feel, but don't take my word for it. I mean, let the half-naked girls bouncing on a trampoline at the end of the show convince you.

The Paparazzi Pandemonium

It's in every line, in every store. You are forced to see it as you walk through the checkout line, whether you want to or not. Titles like "Jennifer Aniston: What Angelina Jolie Did Was 'Really Uncool'" and "BREAKING NEWS: Rihanna Breaks Her Silence for First Time Since Assault" line the shelves. To some it's just another magazine littering the checkout line of Wal-Mart. To others, it's a glimpse into the magical world of Hollywood.

The idea behind the sales of magazines like US Magaine and People is that the general American loves to get the newest and juciest gossip about the celebrities. In reality, if you stop and observe people though, you will realize that this "desire" definitely doesn't stop with Hollywood. Whether or not they admit it, most people enjoy learning the gossip about their friends as well. What you have to ask yourself is if Hollywood is encouraging this trend.

The purpose for tabloids and magazines being near the checkout is for the impulse buyers that get interested in an article and decide that the extra few dollars is worth it. The publishers feed off of that inbred human need for gossip that many people experience, and make it their business to interpret Hollywood affairs in any way they see fit. Rather, in whichever way will sell more magazines. The problem is that it just fuels peoples' desire to get the "scoop" on whatever the hot situation is, and subsequently rolls into their personal life.

Along with encouraging the gossip trend, tabloids are also presenting celebrity couples in a way that makes the situations they face seem "normal." This skewed outlook that presents affairs and divorces as an everyday thing is basically saying "hey America, it's okay to have dysfunctional relationships based on nothing more than physical attraction." They are telling the young men and women what is acceptable to do in everything from dating to marriage.

What you have to ask yourself is if tabloids actually doing more than just crowding the shelves. If you can actually realize that these situations are not "normal" or in any context then there is nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, there are not many people that are able to see the bigger picture. They live by the motto that "if Brad and Jennifer can do it like that, then my friends Becca and Mike can too" and the bottom line is that it isn't right for anyone to act that way. Losing morals is not justified by placing blame on celebrities.

From Ponyboy to Potter

So I was looking through my depressingly limited collection of books the other day and ran across something that interested me. Amidst the hastily-read summer reading books from high school, I found Rumble Fish by S. E. Hinton. I opened it up with memories of the failed comprehension test flooding back into my mind, and flipped through the pages. Printed on the inner back cover of the book was the "about the author" blurb. I began to read it.

"S. E. Hinton wrote her..."

I stopped.

S. E. Hinton is a girl? I thought. I mean, I was always aware that female authors some time ago wrote in pen names to be taken seriously as authors, but I definitely didn't know it was still done!

I sat on this discovery for the majority of this week until tonight when I did some research on the female pen name phenomenon. Come to find out, S. E. Hinton was persuaded by her publisher to go by S. E. because of the plot of The Outsiders, her first novel. They said that because of its basis around two rival gangs, that it would probably interest male readers more if a female name not be present on the cover. J. K. Rowling was also told to go by that name by her publisher. The first Harry Potter novel was actually slated to be released with the name Joanne Rowling on the cover, but it was changed for the same reason.

It was very interesting that modern female authors still share a degree of the same sexism that was experienced over one hundred years ago. When authors like like Mary Ann Evans wrote under aliases, it was because male readers would not have taken them seriously otherwise. When authors like J. K. Rowling write under gender-neutral names, it is also because they would find male reader appeal much more difficult without the change. Clearly things have evolved drastically in the last century, but will things ever evolve enough?

A Little Prep-Talk For Ya

Abercrombie & Fitch. Kids, teens, and young adults love it. Parents love to hate it, or at least the advertising that is. In fact, if you didn't already know, police actually confiscated two enormous promotional images from Lynnhaven Mall back in February of 2008 after receiving numerous complaints from parents. That's right, Virginia made headline news across the country with creative titles such as "Abercrombie ad too risqué in Virginia." In all honesty though, you have to ask yourself if these companies are sending the right messages to today's impressionable youngsters.

Take the above picture for example. Calm down, no you're not going insane, you are indeed looking at a pair of shirtless twins. What's more, they seem to be returning from a rousing game of baseball... wearing only their perfectly sculpted abs and a pair of signature Abercrombie & Fitch jeans.... that seem to be riding extremely low.

Now let's place this image in the middle of the store. Imagine the constant THUMP THUMP of the bass in the relentless techno as you gaze upon this picture, blown up to fill an entire wall. Oh, and by the way, you're thirteen years old. Pictures like this, and definitely worse than this, frequent the walls and shelves of every Abercrombie & Fitch store across the United States. The corporation markets to all ages (take for instance the Abercrombie Kids website), and you're hard pressed to find a time when kids under the age of fifteen are not perusing the shelves.

I'm not sitting here trying to say that Abercrombie & Fitch is a bad establishment however. I mean, they have good quality clothing... though at exorbitant prices. In that light I'd encourage anyone to shop there. But the CEOs and marketing specialists aren't stupid. They know who frequents the establishment, and they make the choice to continue forcing these photos down the throats of anyone that so much as walks past the front of the store. What is this telling kids about gender? Beyond that, what is it telling them about society's expectations of them as either males or females? And why was one store in Virginia the only one, out of the 353 locations in the United States, to find a problem with the pictures? I mean I'm sure you can spot the issue yourself if you take a look.

Pink is for Boys, Blue is for Girls... wait.

It's a well-known fact that if you are invited to a baby shower that you either find out the gender of the baby and buy the associated color, or merely buy a gender-neutral color to begin with. When this social norm was brought up in class a few days ago, it really made me wonder where the standard originated.

After a little bit of research, it is pretty clear that the whole "blue is for boys, pink is for girls" thing is actually pretty recent. In fact, it was not actually commonly practiced until about 1950, and that's just in America. Most other countries still don't adhere to this "standard". To top it all off, the baby color scheme used to be reversed.

Some argue that pink was originally considered to be a more masculine color. Blue, on the other hand, was associated with the Virgin Mary in Christian Europe, and therefore was considered to be feminine. In a Time Magazine article from only 1927, there is the passage "In Belgium, Princess Astrid, consort of the Crown Prince, gave birth a fortnight ago to a 7-lb. daughter. Said dispatches: "The cradle . . . had been optimistically outfitted in pink, the color for boys, that for a girl being blue."

The first real appearance of the color norm was in the 1868 novel Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. In the book, Amy ties a pink bow and a blue bow on Meg’s twins Daisy and Demi, so people will know the difference between the girl and the boy. It is then said that this is the “French style,” suggesting that France may have already had the gender specific pink and blue.

The most prominent explanation for the stereotype's appearance in America is the use of blue military uniforms both during and after World War I. That, along with the "Think Pink" 1950's marketing slogan for women, encouraging them to embrace their femininity, generally is assumed to have primarily attributed to the rise of the color scheme.

It was surprising to realize just how recently this became commonplace. I never actually thought about where the whole idea came from, and judging by the availability of information on it, not many other people have either. Don't let the picture above fool you though. The blue and pink association in other countries do not have the same gender assignment. Many colors are viewed differently. For example, in Asia, both brides and babies are more likely to be dressed in red, the color of celebration. In contrast, white is actually considered a color of mourning. The "blue is for boys, pink is for girls" tradition is truly a recent and creative Western innovation.

The One Time I'm Thankful for My Psycho-Ex

Most of us have had that weird crazy significant other at some point in our lifetime. And for those that haven't, the rest of us are very jealous of you. Well I was on the phone with Amanda, my rather extensively lying ex-girlfriend, a few days ago while I was doing my Japanese homework. She was carrying on and on about nothing in particular, and I added an occasional "Yep," or "I know right?" while I effortlessly blocked her out. Then she said something that caught my attention.

"So I'm thinking about joining the air force after I get out of high school this year."

I sat there, stymied. Now if you knew Amanda, you'd know that she's the typical private school Abercrombie and Fitch girl, not really basic training material. The conversation continued and, after a while of her rambling about her newly-developed-in-the-last-five-minutes aspiration, we began talking about women in the military.

After doing some general research, I verified that women and men are in fact separated during basic training as well as most other military training prior to deployment. Some argue that the demands on women during training are much more lenient than those on men. Others argue the exact opposite, saying that women are actually pushed much harder than men. I suppose the only real solution would be to merge the two groups during training. Of course they would bunk separately, but perhaps the only way to legitimately settle the argument would be to give both men and women the exact same experience.

What do you think?

Also Ironically About Zombies...

So about a week ago I bought the recently-released video game Left 4 Dead for the PC. Basically, the point of the game is to work together with three other people online to get through a 45 minute campaign. The catch is that you are constantly battling hordes of the undead while doing so. For example, the first campaign places the four characters, three men and one woman, on a rooftop in an urban city with the goal of reaching the top of the nearby 40-floor hospital in order to be rescued.

What I found interesting was initially brought to my attention when I was listening to the developer commentary on the game. One of the developers was talking about character design and began detailing the process of how they created Zoey (the one girl in the team). He said, "...we had to make her look battle-hardened, but also sexy at the same time." After hearing that, I began to think about her character more critically. I included an early concept drawing of her at the top of the blog just to give an idea of what she looks like in the game. The fact that Zoey, being the only female, had to be "sexy" really struck me as a statement about what the most important factors in displaying women are.

Some might argue that women have to be depicted in this way in order to please the male video game market. I would have actually probably agreed with that had I not played another video game recently called Far Cry 2. In this game, there are two or three different playable women characters, but none of them are modeled the same way that Zoey is. The characters all are depicted as being truly battle-hardened, plus they are all 35+ years old. Going by what some might argue, that would mean that the video game would not be as popular. However, the game has scored equally, if not higher than Left 4 Dead in various publications and websites.

I suppose my argument isn't as much how a video game should be made, but how women should be depicted. If it does not make sense to have a tall tan blonde in stilettos running through the rainforest, THEN DON'T HAVE ONE. To me, the believablility of a video game is far more important than if I am attracted to it. And even though I am hooked on Left 4 Dead, I would be just as hooked even if Zoey was ugly as sin.