Aaron Davis: Hetero-Romantic Love and Heterosexiness in Children’s G-Rated Films by Karin A Martin and Emily Kazyak
Children learn a lot through the media. In fact, in this article, we realize that some concepts are reinforced whether we are aware of it or not. For example, “Heteronormativity includes the multiple, often mundane ways through which heterosexuality overwhelmingly structures and pervasively and insidiously” orders “everyday existence”. With that said, this notion is directly pointed out by the authors and as a result we are forced to look more closely at childhood favorites.
With heterosexuality being most of the time, the only relationships held as significant focal points of children’s g-rated films, we examine the relationship and responsibility of filmmakers and parents. Disney movies are held accountable for pigeon-holing children’s mindsets and views on heteronormativity, providing false notions of love and promoting a limited and narrow view on love.
In Gentlemen or Beast? Men are examined in different social settings in order to review the reinforcement of the performance of masculinity. As usual even g-rated films affirm dangerous social norms and doom boys; allowing them no access to an alternative way of expression. Violence is often accompanited with, high loud energy and competition is a strong foundation for love stories.
From these readings, I gather that society has a lot to teach us about social norms and children’s perceptions, which are shaped from very early on. If one wants to dismiss g-rated films as petty love stories with no substantial impact on the way in which we participate in society, I think we need nothing more than to re-examine them through sociological lens and realize just how dangerous and r-rated they actually are.
Children learn a lot through the media. In fact, in this article, we realize that some concepts are reinforced whether we are aware of it or not. For example, “Heteronormativity includes the multiple, often mundane ways through which heterosexuality overwhelmingly structures and pervasively and insidiously” orders “everyday existence”. With that said, this notion is directly pointed out by the authors and as a result we are forced to look more closely at childhood favorites.
With heterosexuality being most of the time, the only relationships held as significant focal points of children’s g-rated films, we examine the relationship and responsibility of filmmakers and parents. Disney movies are held accountable for pigeon-holing children’s mindsets and views on heteronormativity, providing false notions of love and promoting a limited and narrow view on love.
In Gentlemen or Beast? Men are examined in different social settings in order to review the reinforcement of the performance of masculinity. As usual even g-rated films affirm dangerous social norms and doom boys; allowing them no access to an alternative way of expression. Violence is often accompanited with, high loud energy and competition is a strong foundation for love stories.
From these readings, I gather that society has a lot to teach us about social norms and children’s perceptions, which are shaped from very early on. If one wants to dismiss g-rated films as petty love stories with no substantial impact on the way in which we participate in society, I think we need nothing more than to re-examine them through sociological lens and realize just how dangerous and r-rated they actually are.
Ciara Beaulieu's Response to Hooking up and Grinding
A response to Michael Kimmel’s Hooking up: Sex in Guyland
In Hooking up: sex in Guyland, Michael Kimmel writes about the “hook-up culture” in colleges across the United States. In many ways, college campuses are what Kimmel labels a “sexual marketplace,” or a place where same sex friends go out together, with the intention of meeting partners in a casual setting, (191). The casual atmosphere makes it possible for young adults to experience sexual freedom without limitations or commitment. College campuses furthermore are labeled “sexual hothouses” because it is the one time in a student’s life where they will be surrounded by many sexually available individuals of a similar age. This makes hooking up an expectation.
The article, however, pinpointed some very disturbing phenomena that seem less than noteworthy in everyday life. Because hookup culture is so prevalent in college life, sex and romance are no longer coupled together. The attraction to hooking up accompanies the idea that there are no strings attached. Also, the term in itself is somewhat vague. Hooking up can mean anything from making out, to having full intercourse. Often times while talking to friends I will hear the phrase “Oh, she hooked up with so-and-so.” But what does that mean?
Throughout my college experience and even through high school the idea of hooking up seems natural and acceptable. It never occurred to me that the double standards between men and women in hook up culture are problematic, or that gender expectations play a crucial role. When men hook up with a woman, they gain status because of their sexual activity, however women lose it and risk being labeled “slutty” or something of that nature. Girls are expected to protect their innocence. When a girl hooks up, she loses value in society’s perception. Terry, a junior from Stanford comments, “when a guy hooks up with a girl, he sort of broke down her wall of protection,” (197). Therefore, when a girl lets her guard down, she succumbs to male power. Hook up culture, in this sense plays on gender roles that we have seen in past readings such as Boys and Men in Families, where men are expected to play dominant roles while women are compliant and often subordinate.
It is disturbing, that while women are expected to keep their guard up in order to remain pure and society’s idea of perfect, there is an overwhelming pressure to lose one’s virginity in order to take part in hook up culture. Many virgin men and women alike are terrified with the thought of casual hookup culture upon entering a college atmosphere with the worry of not fitting in to the social scene due to inexperience. Furthermore the culture makes it extremely difficult for men and women alike to develop mature and committed relationships in college or later life. As Kimmel writes, men are ill-prepared for emotional intimacy after being absorbed in only casual relationships.
Kimmel finally suggests that women are often faced with the task of negotiating whether or not a hookup will lead to further intimacy. Women desire attention and reassurance, which is why we are constantly being labeled as clingy. However men view sex as a way to bond and to prove their masculinity. It is homosociality or way of communication. Last week and the prior, we talked about how important it is to men to perform their gender to fit society’s standards. Linking sexuality to masculinity, the idea of hooking up allows men to measure themselves against other men.
Response to Shelly Ronen’s Grinding on the Dance Floor
In this article, Ronen explores the dynamics of gender performing through the art of grinding or sexual dancing. Once again, this article is as disturbing as the last. We see grinding all the time. At parties, dances, clubs. As college student, we view it as completely natural. Ronen flips the idea completely upside down, suggesting that the dancing “reproduces systematic gender inequality by limiting women’s access to sexual agency and pleasure, privileging men’s pleasure and confirming their higher status,” (355). How can something that we view as so natural and so expected, be presented in such a revolting light? In this sentence alone, I was perplexed by the idea that grinding can be presented as rape, only somewhat consensual. I know that is an oxymoron, but in hook up culture and grinding, women surrender all power to a male figure. Ronen uses the words “sexual agency” implying that such an activity objectifies women in a very sexual atmosphere.
Similar to what we read in hook up culture, grinding allows men and women to act in a highly sexualized way that would not otherwise be acceptable except in this atmosphere. Grinding often results in hooking up which Ronen observes in her studies. Here the double standards between men and women continue. There is no negative response to a male grinding or hooking up with women, but women risk being labeled slutty, trashy, and easy, etc.
One thing that I found slightly disturbing was the idea that, “Men would approach beyond ‘normal’ interpersonal distance, maintain more constant eye contact, reach out to grab waists/hands in order to get attention,” (362). Even though I see this all the time, and accept it as normal, reading about it makes me feel slightly unnerved. Grinding is public activity. In Cro dances, for instance, it is rare to see any couple where a female is not completely bent over, grinding with a male. However, it is often initiated with no verbal communication. These highly sexualized movements are not predetermined by words, but rather by a man grabbing a woman’s hips and pulling her in. While it is common for women to turn this idea down, the notion that there is no exchange before his hands are on her body is upsetting. Until reading this, I never spent much time thinking about how explicitly gender roles are performed. Men practice dominance through force, while neglecting to use words, and females become completely compliant.
In Hooking up: sex in Guyland, Michael Kimmel writes about the “hook-up culture” in colleges across the United States. In many ways, college campuses are what Kimmel labels a “sexual marketplace,” or a place where same sex friends go out together, with the intention of meeting partners in a casual setting, (191). The casual atmosphere makes it possible for young adults to experience sexual freedom without limitations or commitment. College campuses furthermore are labeled “sexual hothouses” because it is the one time in a student’s life where they will be surrounded by many sexually available individuals of a similar age. This makes hooking up an expectation.
The article, however, pinpointed some very disturbing phenomena that seem less than noteworthy in everyday life. Because hookup culture is so prevalent in college life, sex and romance are no longer coupled together. The attraction to hooking up accompanies the idea that there are no strings attached. Also, the term in itself is somewhat vague. Hooking up can mean anything from making out, to having full intercourse. Often times while talking to friends I will hear the phrase “Oh, she hooked up with so-and-so.” But what does that mean?
Throughout my college experience and even through high school the idea of hooking up seems natural and acceptable. It never occurred to me that the double standards between men and women in hook up culture are problematic, or that gender expectations play a crucial role. When men hook up with a woman, they gain status because of their sexual activity, however women lose it and risk being labeled “slutty” or something of that nature. Girls are expected to protect their innocence. When a girl hooks up, she loses value in society’s perception. Terry, a junior from Stanford comments, “when a guy hooks up with a girl, he sort of broke down her wall of protection,” (197). Therefore, when a girl lets her guard down, she succumbs to male power. Hook up culture, in this sense plays on gender roles that we have seen in past readings such as Boys and Men in Families, where men are expected to play dominant roles while women are compliant and often subordinate.
It is disturbing, that while women are expected to keep their guard up in order to remain pure and society’s idea of perfect, there is an overwhelming pressure to lose one’s virginity in order to take part in hook up culture. Many virgin men and women alike are terrified with the thought of casual hookup culture upon entering a college atmosphere with the worry of not fitting in to the social scene due to inexperience. Furthermore the culture makes it extremely difficult for men and women alike to develop mature and committed relationships in college or later life. As Kimmel writes, men are ill-prepared for emotional intimacy after being absorbed in only casual relationships.
Kimmel finally suggests that women are often faced with the task of negotiating whether or not a hookup will lead to further intimacy. Women desire attention and reassurance, which is why we are constantly being labeled as clingy. However men view sex as a way to bond and to prove their masculinity. It is homosociality or way of communication. Last week and the prior, we talked about how important it is to men to perform their gender to fit society’s standards. Linking sexuality to masculinity, the idea of hooking up allows men to measure themselves against other men.
Response to Shelly Ronen’s Grinding on the Dance Floor
In this article, Ronen explores the dynamics of gender performing through the art of grinding or sexual dancing. Once again, this article is as disturbing as the last. We see grinding all the time. At parties, dances, clubs. As college student, we view it as completely natural. Ronen flips the idea completely upside down, suggesting that the dancing “reproduces systematic gender inequality by limiting women’s access to sexual agency and pleasure, privileging men’s pleasure and confirming their higher status,” (355). How can something that we view as so natural and so expected, be presented in such a revolting light? In this sentence alone, I was perplexed by the idea that grinding can be presented as rape, only somewhat consensual. I know that is an oxymoron, but in hook up culture and grinding, women surrender all power to a male figure. Ronen uses the words “sexual agency” implying that such an activity objectifies women in a very sexual atmosphere.
Similar to what we read in hook up culture, grinding allows men and women to act in a highly sexualized way that would not otherwise be acceptable except in this atmosphere. Grinding often results in hooking up which Ronen observes in her studies. Here the double standards between men and women continue. There is no negative response to a male grinding or hooking up with women, but women risk being labeled slutty, trashy, and easy, etc.
One thing that I found slightly disturbing was the idea that, “Men would approach beyond ‘normal’ interpersonal distance, maintain more constant eye contact, reach out to grab waists/hands in order to get attention,” (362). Even though I see this all the time, and accept it as normal, reading about it makes me feel slightly unnerved. Grinding is public activity. In Cro dances, for instance, it is rare to see any couple where a female is not completely bent over, grinding with a male. However, it is often initiated with no verbal communication. These highly sexualized movements are not predetermined by words, but rather by a man grabbing a woman’s hips and pulling her in. While it is common for women to turn this idea down, the notion that there is no exchange before his hands are on her body is upsetting. Until reading this, I never spent much time thinking about how explicitly gender roles are performed. Men practice dominance through force, while neglecting to use words, and females become completely compliant.