#3 Steinem Prompt
Gloria Steinem, founder of Ms. magazine and virtually synonymous with feminism, wrote the piece you read on ERES. Comment on the piece: What was your reaction? Enlightened? Angered? Entertained? Bored? Was it persuasive in that did it make you think about things differently? Why or why not (use specific examples)?
posted by DrEmmerling at 4:00 PM
22 Comments:
I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. I know it is from a feminist's perspective, but when you take into consideration that Freud's word's were from a chauvinist's perspective, it seems only fair that people read something of each. Not that feminism and chauvinism are the only two perspectives. But, they certainly are on two opposite ends of the gender spectrum. I have never actually read any of Freud's words because my mom always told me he was a perverted chauvinist. I didn't know what to believe then, and still don't know what to believe, since I still haven't read Freud's work. Unfortunately, the only reason I can imagine myself reading his work would be so that I could do well in a class that requires me to read his work. So, I really cannot have much of an opinion on Freud until then.
I really enjoyed this text; Steinem approaches the idea of reversal (ex. if men were to menstruate rather than women) with humor. To explain thoroughly what she means by reversal, she gives examples of well known prejudices regarding race, ethnicity, gender, etc. and “transfers them to the other”.
“What if white actors and writers, sports stars and politicians, criminals and preachers, were identified first by their color, as their black counterparts so often are?”
The few examples that Steinem gives makes me realize the “other’s” point of view. If I were to contribute to this text with an example of my own, it would be: what if gay parents were suddenly the typical family and heterosexual parents were not?
I found it amusing to read the footnote on “penis envy” through the research of psychoanalysts; I don’t remember ever wanting a penis of my own!
I thought this piece was very refreshing and entertaining for the most part. I liked all the "reversals" of social trends, such as calling someone monosexual. I also liked how Steinman points out the blantant double standards for different sexes and races. Like if a female head state threw up she would be labeled as weak and unfit to lead the country where as our president did it without any consequences. I think all these examples were very revealing of how the foundations of our society are completely biased. I think this is a very persausive piece.
I thought that this piece was enjoyable because it used humor to discuss serious matters that many people would not think about otherwise. Steinem uses reversal to show people how the world might be completely different if roles were switched and if people acted towards minority groups like they act towards women. As a reader I laughed at first at a lot of the examples she used, like the idea of men menstruating, but once I got over the initial humor I was really able to think about problems that occur from sexism. Steinem is able to give such captivating examples in this piece, and all readers should be able to walk away thinking about her examples and hopefully thinking that something in our society needs to change.
I admired Steubem's ability to remain lighthearted and funny when discussing such weighted issues. Her piece on if men could menstrate made me consider male dominated society in a whole new light. I had never thought quite so indepth about how the poplular group can mold their possesions and atributes to be desired. I was shocked to learn that so many therapists took advantage of their patients sexually. I also like how Steinem used example to illustrate the fact that our society still does not view gender issues with the graveness they should be allowed. She gives the example of how we would feel if dumb blonde jokes were replaced with dumb black jokes. Obviously they would be much more offensive, illustrating our societies view that racial issues are more serious than gender issues. As I mentioned earlier, it was Steinmen's to the point examples that make her piece so striking.
I felt that this piece was thoroughly enjoyable. I truly apprieciated the reversal of the roles in which men could menstrate. Steinem humorously dipicted what would happen such as "men would clame greater sexual powers, heightened intellectual skills, and imporved athletic abilities at their "time of the month"". This hypothetical situation made me laugh because it is so true, I feel this is exactly what would happen if men were to menstrate in this male dominated society.
As for what If Phillis Freud was born, I thought this was funny because I always thought Freud was full of it and was a major chauvinist.
Jessica Ryan
This peice was very insightful. At first I questioned many of the points she made, lacking validation and explanation. Nevertheless, due to persuasive writing, Steinem answers all of the questions which I had upon her claims. The take on menstration, I agreed with immediately. Additionally I have always felt that men will never understand what it is like to be a women yet I also feel that it goes both ways and that women cannot understand what it is like to be a man. For many of these issues its apparent that superiority was established by those who felt it necessary to have and not necessarily by those who deserved to have it. The Freud example makes this general point in a very clear way. Freud "always analyzed himself" and he "placed personal authority above truth". Freud took an opportunity to ananlyze a species, evidently men, and failed to examine other species accordingly. This subject cannot be analyzed in a short article, but I do feel as if the basis of the pro-male pychoanalysis argument was made clear by the end of the peice.
I enjoyed reading this article because of the author's unique viewpoints, and the parallels which can be drawn between Freud and Steinem's pieces. Having read Freud a few times in my life I know that along with his profound wisdom comes a slanted male chauvinist perspective. Steinem writes with a similar style yet the opposite agenda, eliciting a sense of similarity between the two accomplished authors work. However, when reading the two side by side Steinem's work strikes you as "out there" where as we've all heard Freud's side before. Because chauvinism is more prevalent in today’s society Steinem's feminist perspective seems very extreme.
I really enjoyed this article. Gloria Steinem exhibits a great amount of insight into the prejudices of our society and by flipping double standards that are so common that they often appear invisible, she brings these intolerances into the light. For example, Steinem makes a point about the general “invisibility” or acceptance of sexism by questioning “what id TV jokes about dumb blondes were told about dumb blacks?” This does not imply; however, a hierarchy between sexism and racism, the flip just acts to reveal the prejudice behind commonly tolerated acts of sexism.
Finally, I would just like to add, after reading some of my fellow class mates posts that I do not believe that chauvinism and feminism can or should be treated as equally extreme philosophies. Oftentimes people take two opposing view points and falsely place them at opposite ends of the spectrum then assume that the most reasonable viewpoint is located between them, a compromise. Feminism; however, as one anonymous individual facetiously put it, is “the radical notion that women are people.” Now that doesn’t sound so radical to me nor does it seem like something that should be compromised. . .
I found this piece of reading to be very different and good. It really brought up many points and articulated them in a way that was humorous but still got her point across very clearly to the audience. Her examples of reversing roles in race and gender were very stimulating and i really enjoyed the way that she presented it. It is something that we should all consider in our own lives because it makes us much more aware of stereotypes and social predujidices.
I felt very good to know the mystery side about Freud like how he liked to take his wife's sister along for his entertainment. I say this because we usually know only the bright side about people, which is generally good. But for someone who criticized others and said that women must be jealous about not having a male sexual organ, it is definitely great to know more about his life than just the "discovery" of psychoanaysis.
I really liked the way the author of this piece, Steinem, uses background information of Freud to attack. While Freud only said that it MUST be true that women are jealous of men.
I was definitely entertained by the way she reversed the story life and society has had about the female reproductive system. I had actually thought about those things, although not in such an intellectual way, but it definitely crossed has my mind in several ways. I was glad to read an article that talked about what I have thought. I thought it was very funny when Steinem makes menstruation glorious if it is thought to be a natural effect in men. I believe it is true that that is the way it would be if life was different. I like to question things like that, and that is another reason why I really enjoyed this article.
This was definitely a different read than what I am usually used to. It did bring up many good points, however, I did have many concerns and questions about some of the points. Gloria Steinmen not only answered all my questions, with facts and sounds reasoning, but she did so in a way that was amusing and kept the reader enthralled. This presentation, I thought, was essential for getting her point across, concerning stereotypes and society. She managed to keep everyone comfortable with the subject material and presented her opinions in a way that did not make new enemies.
I enjoyed Steinem's piece. I was slightly familar with her before from watching a movie about her time posing as a playboy bunny. I felt that she brought up a lot of points that most women ask themselves. An example alone is "if men could menstruating" because when I would get mad about everything that would come along with it I would always wish that men got their periods just so they could understand......that and I always thought they dont get anything else (like being pregnant) so why not? Anyways I liked how she pointed out double standards.....like I said before I feel that she is materialzing what a lot of people feel (mainly women)
I liked this piece because it brought up the idea of reversals. Reversals in so many situations would seem outrageous, like an example she used, in dialoge and jokes on t.v. shows. So many situations in society today cannot undergo reversal without somebody getting pissed off. I think that reversals being a mandatory part of a job is actually a good idea. It would bring so much insight to the employee. I agree with a lot of what Steinem points out against Freud, but in psychology today most of his work is considered incorrect. I do think its very important that women can have another woman therapist so that they feel safe in they're therapy. Overall I really liked a lot of her points and I enjoyed reading this piece.
I really liked this piece because it was a different read that discussed it's points from a humorous perspective. I like the idea she proposes, that men menstruate instead of women, because it is such a huge issue that would just flip the world upside down. I also like how she talks about race and sexuality as well because these are things that are such huge factors in the every day world but no one really thinks of how different it would be if black were white and gay were straight. This piece was very enlightening.
I found this article very different and interesting. I have never read anything like this before and I like how she used the idea of reversal and provided numerous examples to prove her point. I agree that things would be a lot different and people need to step into other people's shoes to form an unbiased opinion. I agree with her statement that, "Reversals create empathy and are great detectors of bias, in ourselves as well as in others, for they expose injustices that seem normal and so are invisible. In fact, the deeper and less visible the bias, the more helpful it is to take some commonly accepted notion about one race....and see how it sounds when transferred to another." I agree with the author that our society does not view racial, gender, and other issues with unbiaseness and open-mindedness.
I did enjoy this reading, and I think that Steinem makes a number of good points. However the one issue that I did take offense to was her idea of the man having a period, and his triumph that he would take if this were possible. I feel as though this would not necessarily be true, as the idea of periods and women being embarrassed or perhaps even ashamed by them is a social construct that has been engrained into the fabric of society for several years, at least in America (and many other countries as well, although some are different). If men had periods, probably the same logic would be applied, I sincerely doubt that there would be such a change simply because it was a man having a period. There are too many other variables to consider here, and I don’t think that many of them are taken into account.
i too enjoyed this piece. it was a great laugh, but that was all it was. i just saw it as another lame excuse to justify women's equality in soceity. The idea that if men were able to menstrate they would brag about it, is completely blown out of proportion and exaggerated to an extreme. So knowing that this is an exaggerated piece and one that is put together with such humor, makes me question it's validity? Obviously it isn't ture because of nautral human bodily functions in a man, but the fact that she bases her idea of the sexist world on a issue so insecure makes the whole argument flop.
I enjoyed reading the Steinen piece because I found it amusing how Freud found a unique way to convey important information to the readers. It was interesting to see how society has form biased perspectives on people regarding their gender, sex, and race. In the reading, there were given a number of examples to demonstrate how different our society would be if people would place themselves in the shoes of others. For example, people would no longer have stereotypes about how men, women, and a particular race should behave. I believe that this is a great piece that will make people see how our world would be different if we would not hold expectations that limits someone’s possibilities of accomplish something different.
i really enjoyed this promp because Steinem aprroaches the idea of reversal in a humorous way. i think that this promp was very persausive piece becuase it made me realize and convinced me that our society can be and is very biased in many different situations that at times we don't even notice or seem to get bothered by them. If people were to put thenselves in the position of the other person this world would be different and with less people being biased.
This piece left me somewhat confused. If Men menstruated, would they not then be more women? Menstruation is the process by which childbirth is started. If men could menstruate, then they could give birth and then there would be no difference between men and women, and the whole social dynamic of men and women would be different from the start.
I disagree with some of my fellow bloggers on the view of Freud. He was a revolutionary theorist that, like many before and after him, was wrong. He has given birth to countless acts of creativity in the arts, though not in the Sciences. Steinem shows us examples of what if? They are invalid and bear no real basis on the world.
I really enjoyed reading this piece. The composition, style, and tone of the piece all appealed to me greatly. As a woman I found it easy to relate to the sarcastic nature of the piece. It was very easy to read and entetaining. I thought it was interesting how Steinem talked about the fact that if men were able to menstruate, it would be something sacred and not something to be concealed. For men, menstruation would mean giving the gift of life, something so powerful that it would have to be masculinized to be acceptable.
I am farmiliar with Freud and I know that a lot of his theories are sexist even if inherently so. His claims of penis envy are rediculous to some in the realm of modern-day medicine, but how could women not have penis envy when guys get to go around bragging about their genitalia while women are expected to conceal theirs until marriage?
Post a Comment
<< Home