Confusing Attitudes, Pt 1

Note: For this question, I ended up with two answers to the question, because I initially misread the question. I present both to you here.

In many of the studies concerning how the media affects our perception of gender cited in the book, I keep wondering how strong the causal link between media and our attitudes about gender are. There seems to be significant correlation between attitudes about sex and gender in the media we consume, but just because the correlation exists doesn’t mean that the media is responsible for these societal attitudes. Or, to put it another way, which came first: the societal stereotypes regarding gender roles and sexual behavior, or the media depiction of these stereotypes?

Another concern I have regarding the studies mentioned are whether the effects which were reported were short-term or long-term. That is to say, if you watch a movie depicting traditional gender and sex roles, how long will those depictions stay with you? Additionally, are these studies showing that media can outright change how we perceive gender, and how we communicate with people of different genders, or do they perhaps show how the media can reinforce the biases we already hold regarding ideas about gender and sex? My initial opinion is that media reinforces biases which already exist in people and in our society; to relate it to the pornography exploration in GenderSpeak (pg 113-120), simply cleansing media of pornographic images won’t change or eradicate the sexist or degrading treatment of women. Sexist attitudes exist independent of pornography, but can be reinforced by their portrayal in media. And to quote a cliche, the answer to bad free speech is more free speech, not less (a rather simplistic view on the issue, but I could probably write a couple of pages on the use and misuse of the idea of free speech, and that’s slightly off-topic).

A third concern I have about studies regarding gender communication are how heteronormative they seem to be. When discussing how the genders communicate, it seems to me that there is an underlying assumption that the communication that is happening between heterosexual men and heterosexual women. The author of GenderSpeak, at least, seems to be somewhat aware of this heteronormative bias, but when the text relates a study, there doesn’t seem to be sufficient critique of the heteronormative biases that might have crept into the formation of the study or in how the results were interpreted. I don’t know whether this bias would actually change the studies or their results, but it seems to me that there should be more value placed in seeking out LGBT perspectives regarding gender communication. How a gay man experiences communicating with other men (gay, transgender or straight) may differ from how a straight, cisgendered man experiences communicating with other men (gay, transgender or straight), and that would be valuable information regarding communication overall. I feel I might be more interested in the hetero bias regarding the gender communication studies we’ve been reading about than some of my hetero peers, and that I might pick up on them more than my hetero peers.

_________

I feel that I hold a less traditional view of gender roles than many of my peers. I find stereotypical depictions of men and women in the media as grating and abrasive, and can’t easily watch or consume any media which relies heavily on gender stereotypes. This means that I genuinely don’t watch reality TV, and have to leave the room when my roommates decide to watch it. My peers are often surprised when I mention my disinclination to have children--as a woman, it seems to be the assumption that my uterus will eventually override my disinterest in having children and I’ll be as baby-crazy as the next woman. I’ve actually had conversations where the phrase “that will change once you’ve had children” was used (by my mom, who does not push me on the issue of children or relationships).

I’ve noticed a preoccupation in my peers with finding a romantic partner--it’s certainly something that I’m interested in, but many of my peers seem to think of their relationships with other people in primarily romantic ways. What I mean is that I’ve noticed a shortage, in the media and in my own life, of men and women who aim to create meaningful relationships with the other sex outside of romantic framing. Of course, I do know men and women who are friends, but with the proliferation of dating sites (such as OKCupid), there seems to be a lot of pressure to find someone dateable rather than someone friendable. I’ve seen the term “friend-zoning” often thrown at women, meaning that when a man’s romantic interests (which are deemed more important in these contexts) in a woman aren’t reciprocated, the woman has “friend-zoned” the man. As far as I can determine, being “friend-zoned” is supposed to be a form of emasculation, because men apparently aren’t supposed to have meaningful relationships with women without sex. Using the term “friend-zoning” elevates one party’s feelings in a situation over another party’s--a man who accuses a woman of “friend-zoning” him is telling her that her feelings (or lack of certain feelings, such as attraction) aren’t as important as his attraction to her.

Very recently, I’ve been seeing the term “girlfriend-zoned” as a response to the idea of “friend-zoned”; the idea is that women feel undue pressure from some of the men in their life to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship with these men, and that there is an unfair expectation by some men that all women should be interested in dating men who show an interest in these women. I think this exposes how absurd it is for men to seek primarily sexual or romantic relationships with women; the idea that being “merely” friends with a member of the opposite sex seems like a dangerous and harmful attitude. Men and women should strive to be friends more often, and men shouldn’t be afraid of being friend-zoned.