![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
salienneSo as I was browsing around on various forums today, I came across this: “Ten is a wimpy little crying girl.”
Oh let me count the levels on which this is insulting. Let’s start with the obvious, shall we?
Crying is apparently a bad thing. Even when you lose the woman you love. Even when an old friend and the last of your species dies. Crying is bad. It is pathetic, a show of weakness, and it is especially so for men. When a woman cries on television, generally it’s all fine and dandy. That’s what women do. It’s expected, encouraged even. Women just can’t hold themselves together like men can. They’re not tough enough.
But far be it for a man to show his own emotions! No, he must be tough and strong and never show grief. He must suffer quietly, with his head held high. He must never be “soft.” Because that would be bad. That would be a reason to look down on him. That would be undignified and wrong.
Also, “girl” is apparently still an insult. It is, in fact, synonymous with “weak.” Only little girls (and, by extension, women) are allowed to show emotion, because they are, inherently, “weaker” than little boys or men.
Let me tell you something. Little boys cry just as much as little girls. They’re just not usually treated with equal compassion for it, and apparently, this is all right.
So now, the word “girl” continues to carry the stronger connotation of weakness. Sissy, pansy, wuss, girl, wimp—what’s the difference?
The word “girl” is “soft” and, therefore, something lesser. Girls are apparently weaker and, therefore, something lesser.
Well thank you, society. Thank you. I know I want my future children raised here.
Now I’m not saying we have the worst gender stereotypes ever in our dear little Western world. Obviously we don’t. I mean, a woman just won one of the primaries. I’m going to a university. I’m allowed to walk around outside by myself and I’m wearing pants.
But you know what?
I don’t follow politics. I hardly follow the news; I just glance at the headlines and catch thins on TV. But you know what I’ve managed to hear about Hilary Clinton?
She cried.
The media hasn’t reported on how her policies might have appealed to voters, oh no.
The media is simply discussing how she cried. They ask, was this genuine crying or did she fake it? Is she really just a cold heartless bitch? Or is she too weak? Is she too strong? Did she do it to win sympathy? Could she honestly not help it? Do people just pity her now? Do they empathize now?
No, no one asks whether the citizens of New Hampshire might like what she stands for. No one cares about her policies or how well she countered Obama’s points in debates, oh no.
What the media cares about is that she cried.
Males can’t show weakness, little girls are the epitome of silly little somethings, and all we need to know about someone who just won the New Hampshire Primary is that she cried.
*Sigh*
The older I get, the more I feel like society is running itself into a brick wall and doesn’t even notice or care.
(P.S. The quote used as my subject line? It's Shakespeare. Circa 1700, in other words. Good to know we've made progress in 300 years, eh?)
Oh let me count the levels on which this is insulting. Let’s start with the obvious, shall we?
Crying is apparently a bad thing. Even when you lose the woman you love. Even when an old friend and the last of your species dies. Crying is bad. It is pathetic, a show of weakness, and it is especially so for men. When a woman cries on television, generally it’s all fine and dandy. That’s what women do. It’s expected, encouraged even. Women just can’t hold themselves together like men can. They’re not tough enough.
But far be it for a man to show his own emotions! No, he must be tough and strong and never show grief. He must suffer quietly, with his head held high. He must never be “soft.” Because that would be bad. That would be a reason to look down on him. That would be undignified and wrong.
Also, “girl” is apparently still an insult. It is, in fact, synonymous with “weak.” Only little girls (and, by extension, women) are allowed to show emotion, because they are, inherently, “weaker” than little boys or men.
Let me tell you something. Little boys cry just as much as little girls. They’re just not usually treated with equal compassion for it, and apparently, this is all right.
So now, the word “girl” continues to carry the stronger connotation of weakness. Sissy, pansy, wuss, girl, wimp—what’s the difference?
The word “girl” is “soft” and, therefore, something lesser. Girls are apparently weaker and, therefore, something lesser.
Well thank you, society. Thank you. I know I want my future children raised here.
Now I’m not saying we have the worst gender stereotypes ever in our dear little Western world. Obviously we don’t. I mean, a woman just won one of the primaries. I’m going to a university. I’m allowed to walk around outside by myself and I’m wearing pants.
But you know what?
I don’t follow politics. I hardly follow the news; I just glance at the headlines and catch thins on TV. But you know what I’ve managed to hear about Hilary Clinton?
She cried.
The media hasn’t reported on how her policies might have appealed to voters, oh no.
The media is simply discussing how she cried. They ask, was this genuine crying or did she fake it? Is she really just a cold heartless bitch? Or is she too weak? Is she too strong? Did she do it to win sympathy? Could she honestly not help it? Do people just pity her now? Do they empathize now?
No, no one asks whether the citizens of New Hampshire might like what she stands for. No one cares about her policies or how well she countered Obama’s points in debates, oh no.
What the media cares about is that she cried.
Males can’t show weakness, little girls are the epitome of silly little somethings, and all we need to know about someone who just won the New Hampshire Primary is that she cried.
*Sigh*
The older I get, the more I feel like society is running itself into a brick wall and doesn’t even notice or care.
(P.S. The quote used as my subject line? It's Shakespeare. Circa 1700, in other words. Good to know we've made progress in 300 years, eh?)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-10 02:06 am (UTC)Which is to say—I’m not sure where our effed up gender stereotypes come from, honestly.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-10 05:04 am (UTC)In terms of how our really frelled gender stereotypes came into being, here's how I see it (based on the Medieval History class I took last semester and what little I've learned in the "Gender and Sexuality in Ancient Greece" class that I'm taking right now), though I could be way off:
The notion of woman as the “weaker” sex has been around for ages. The Greeks and Romans had it, and almost all Europeans did throughout the Middle Ages was try to emulate the Romans. Then there was Christianity, probably the most durable and one of the most powerful institutions of the Middle Ages. Christianity, although a bit more equal, still has Eve come from Adam’s rib. She’s his inferior, she comes from a piece of him. Then she fell first (she was more easily swayed) and tempted man. Thus woman was not only weaker but she was dangerous because of it, maybe even malevolent.
Also, Greece (and Rome) espoused the idea of a man having amazing self-control. Restraint and reason—these were supreme; in Rome, the second one especially so. And when you overindulged in Rome, it became to be seen as “effeminate.” This was very, very bad.
This idea hung around, especially with Christianity, and so men were supposed to be more restrained. They controlled themselves. Generally, they did not give into their emotions. They were supposed to be the law, the head of the household and government.
Kings, for example, while praised for their mercy, were expected to kill prisoners. This is what they did. Women, however, were expected to be kinder and gentler and “softer.” There’s this common motif of a queen lying down before her husband and begging for clemency. Moved by her tears, he would grant it. This was how the system worked.
So man=reason, woman=emotion. (I’m still a little iffy on why, exactly. It no doubt has to do with the fact that opposites get grouped together with similar notions, so reason vs. emotion, man vs. woman, strong vs. weak, etc. There’s also the fact that, because they were “weaker,” women were considered less able to control themselves, especially in Medieval Europe. Still, there’s probably more to it. I should do some research… I just know that it’s been a pretty common theme throughout Western history.)
Skip forward hundreds of years of subtle changes and, all of a sudden, women are here, in public. But the idea of a strong, rational, stoic man with great emotional restraint still sticks around, as does the idea of the emotionally weaker (or more emotinally active) woman. The boundaries are shifting, yes, but they’re still here on such a fundamental level when you start looking.
And this has been my really long rant about where I think the roles stem from. It’s obviously limited by what I know, and I don’t mention much of anything past the 1400’s and before modern-day, but I think it works…
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-12 05:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-12 06:27 am (UTC)And feel free to friend me and poke around my lj. D/R lovers and Floridians unite!
I'm assuming you won't mind if I friend you back? :)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-12 05:48 pm (UTC)