We Interrupt Our Regular Programming. . .
She dealt with moral problems
as a cleaver deals with meat
--The Dubliners, James Joyce
Some day my prince will come
Some day we'll meet again
And away to his castle we'll go
To be happy forever I know
--Someday My Prince Will Come,
Snow White
I'm in control, my worries are few
'Cause I've got love like I never knew
Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh
I got a new attitude
--New Attitude, Patti LaBelle
A girl is just not as good as a son.
It doesn’t matter how much money you have.
If you don’t have a son,
you are not as good as other people who have one."
SU QINGCAI, a tea farmer in China
who paid $3,500 for a 5-year-old boy.
________________
as a cleaver deals with meat
--The Dubliners, James Joyce
Some day my prince will come
Some day we'll meet again
And away to his castle we'll go
To be happy forever I know
--Someday My Prince Will Come,
Snow White
I'm in control, my worries are few
'Cause I've got love like I never knew
Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh
I got a new attitude
--New Attitude, Patti LaBelle
A girl is just not as good as a son.
It doesn’t matter how much money you have.
If you don’t have a son,
you are not as good as other people who have one."
SU QINGCAI, a tea farmer in China
who paid $3,500 for a 5-year-old boy.
 |
Ranger's out of town all week, it's Friday night. The cat's away, the mice shall play. All are invited to humor me on this non-military, archetypal investigation of the adolescent paranormal series, Twilight.
From friend LTNixon's site, a tween is currently being charged with attempted murder for launching an Orion single shot/use hand-held rocket flare against someone who spoke ill of her beloved Twilight series.
My query is: Why has the adolescent series Twilight become such a phenomena amongst all female demographics, not just the target audience? It is naught but piffle, and shamelessly distilled piffle. Every trope is trotted out: Vampire Edward Cullen is beautiful yet dangerous, but he so admires adolescent Bella that he would not think of penetrating her, by fang or otherwise. He dotes upon her every word (is he actually male?)
In place of consummation, he serves as a kind of guardian angel for Bella. Though he is over 100, being a vampire, his age has frozen at an appropriately earlier game point. For all its insipidity, even gradmas love it, or more precisely, the good-bad boy, Edward. (Perhaps for the Boomers, Edward is some type of hopeful template.)
Protest against the books centers around their propagation of stereotypical Cinderella thinking. While it does that, I am still intrigued by how such pap could hold the attention of any woman. It is reminiscent of the reaction elicited by Bridges of Madison County.
Women were red-eyed leaving the screenings for that film. Clint Eastwood aside, why? After all, this was a tale of adultery, and a woman who ended up doing the "right thing" by her farmer husband, whose best attribute as described by the wife was that he "was clean."
Rather than the perpetration of the old stereotype, what if the feminine impulse to be cared for and even swept away by a guardian is hot-wired into our DNA? What if, instead of being an external imposition, these stories are merely the manifestation of an indwelling impulse, one that society would not even need to impose? And what do you do about that?
In a NYT piece, "A Person Could Develop Occult," the writer surmised, "the paranormal does have a pattern of springing up at times of deep pain or confusion." Perhaps carin' vampire Edward is merely a manifestation of that. But that does not explain Bridges.
I was raised by a staunch Gloria Steinem touting feminist mother. The battle of the sexes was an actual war. And while I'm glad she taught me this sort of thing was tosh. . . what if all these attempts to "man-up" are antithetical to our nature? Freedom and independence of spirit is a superior thing, but perhaps we should recognize these ancient archetypes for what they are.
And then how might that recognition affect relations between the sexes?
Comments from either side of the aisle are solicited.
From friend LTNixon's site, a tween is currently being charged with attempted murder for launching an Orion single shot/use hand-held rocket flare against someone who spoke ill of her beloved Twilight series.
My query is: Why has the adolescent series Twilight become such a phenomena amongst all female demographics, not just the target audience? It is naught but piffle, and shamelessly distilled piffle. Every trope is trotted out: Vampire Edward Cullen is beautiful yet dangerous, but he so admires adolescent Bella that he would not think of penetrating her, by fang or otherwise. He dotes upon her every word (is he actually male?)
In place of consummation, he serves as a kind of guardian angel for Bella. Though he is over 100, being a vampire, his age has frozen at an appropriately earlier game point. For all its insipidity, even gradmas love it, or more precisely, the good-bad boy, Edward. (Perhaps for the Boomers, Edward is some type of hopeful template.)
Protest against the books centers around their propagation of stereotypical Cinderella thinking. While it does that, I am still intrigued by how such pap could hold the attention of any woman. It is reminiscent of the reaction elicited by Bridges of Madison County.
Women were red-eyed leaving the screenings for that film. Clint Eastwood aside, why? After all, this was a tale of adultery, and a woman who ended up doing the "right thing" by her farmer husband, whose best attribute as described by the wife was that he "was clean."
Rather than the perpetration of the old stereotype, what if the feminine impulse to be cared for and even swept away by a guardian is hot-wired into our DNA? What if, instead of being an external imposition, these stories are merely the manifestation of an indwelling impulse, one that society would not even need to impose? And what do you do about that?
In a NYT piece, "A Person Could Develop Occult," the writer surmised, "the paranormal does have a pattern of springing up at times of deep pain or confusion." Perhaps carin' vampire Edward is merely a manifestation of that. But that does not explain Bridges.
I was raised by a staunch Gloria Steinem touting feminist mother. The battle of the sexes was an actual war. And while I'm glad she taught me this sort of thing was tosh. . . what if all these attempts to "man-up" are antithetical to our nature? Freedom and independence of spirit is a superior thing, but perhaps we should recognize these ancient archetypes for what they are.
And then how might that recognition affect relations between the sexes?
Comments from either side of the aisle are solicited.
Labels: bridges of madison county, cinderella complex, edward culle, female archetypes, hook up antidote, nurture, peter pan complex, savior complex, twilight, vampires
posted by Lisa at 7:43 PM
18 Comments:
To sum up the entire argument in a succinct, and concise word...maturity.
However, a damn good question which I will pose to my wife.
Speaking as a very tired and rather overwhelmed woman, I can definitely see fantasizing about somebody (especially a supernatural somebody) appearing miraculously to shoulder some burdens without requiring anything as arduous as sex in payment. I haven't seen either of the movies you refer to, but I can tell you that a figure of strength appearing on my horizon at this moment would be darned attractive. Especially if he/she was willing to take charge of something (anything!) and make it happen. Maybe that's why women love Obama too...it's that professed willingness to take responsibility. I'm soooo tired of that old "I've got to do it because if I don't it won't get done" that's been the mantra of my whole life. Gender is largely irrelevant in this fantasy, but all the women I know have too much responsibility too, they certainly aren't going to take on mine!...therefore in a realistic fantasy the saviour is liable to be male. Maybe it's a dream we all share - a guy actually stepping up to the plate and taking care of business. Or maybe it's just the men in my life...but that's not what I hear from other women. I seem to spend all my energy trying to make things right for everybody in my world. It's exhausting, and I can tell you it would be a dream to have some vampire swoop into my life right now and volunteer to get shit done. I wouldn't care about that undead thing, as long as he was USEFUL.
it all begins at the biological substratum, i.e. human sexual dimorphism which extends into sociological developments, which includes processes of gradual individuation. all that is complex enough.
however, to over simplify, let me rephrase this: it all begins a the biological substratum which produces human dimorphs. everything after that involves human meaning-making, story-telling, mythology and the social construction of reality that emerges from human interaction, culture maintenance and culture manufacturing.
if you are looking for an absolute division between nature and nurture you will never find one. the human animal exists in a socially contextualized environment starting in the womb (mother's biological environment provides the baby with its first contact with "other", certainly before "other" is consciously realized).
similarly, if you are looking for an absolute differences regarding the biological "hard wiring" between the human dimorphs, you will instead find evidence suggesting diversity; once again becomes inextricable from sociological context.
i suggest that using a cultural artifact like the "Twilight" movie as a sort of Rorshach test (not a good analogy because art deliberately taps cultural symbolism often through stereotypificaiton whereas rorshach does not) revealing capacity for "mass appeal" generally splits along sex lines tapping a range of culturally thematic references as well as the disposition of specific individuals.
therein lies the answer to your question:
My query is: "Why has the adolescent series Twilight become such a phenomena amongst all female demographics, not just the target audience? It is naught but piffle, and shamelessly distilled piffle. *Every trope is trotted out*"
Just count the "tropes" and you can identify the sociocultural theme/meme. These are crafted deliberately and in this case in an effective affective way.
"Rather than the perpetration of the old stereotype, what if the feminine impulse to be cared for and even swept away by a guardian is hot-wired into our DNA?"
maybe..... probably not uniformly, and again, the answer would be inextricable from (i'll use this in a slightly different way than i think you used it) tropism produced by sociocultural influences and human participation in "meaning-making"...... social construction of reality.
interestingly, your feminist mother was probably such a sociocultural trope, if not a carrier of a sociocultural virus that transformed the society.
this was rambling but i think it makes sense (maybe only in a idiosyncratic way to me).
sociocultural artifacts
but you know, the existential issue suggests a sense of the concrete universal that withstands time...... yet reflecting essential tension between the human sexual-dimorphs.
sociocultural artifact
the more things change, the more they stay the same.....
Anon,
Yeah -- like a "Mr. Clean" sort of fellow. I wouldn't argue with that, either. Heck, I'd make him dinner.
I think women's lib taught us we can "bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan.. and never let him forget he's a man" -- sheesh! Women's lib got us the right to have free sex + wash his clothes. Liberation from what? Male responsibility.
So we have a generation of Peter Pans and cholos, and we do it all, and still idolize Manahlo Blahnik-wearing Sex and the City idiots! Maybe we truly are the Second Sex for good reason. Are we that stupid?!
We will be equal when we expect parity. We pull too much of the weight in relationships, obsess and drive men away. Ultimately, it is easier to do things ourselves.
It is a topic I am fascinated by, as I do not see too many excellent relationships.
Ghost,
I'm off to a wedding :)
Comments later.
The biological imperative is probably primary. From that issues forth all of the cultural accretions and archetypes.
I believe we do not yet know enough about the role of hormones -- a primary determinant of behavioral human dimorphism -- both in utero and after. Therein lies my curiosity: seeing the tower of fairly homogenous sexual stereotypes we've created in every medium throughout recorded history, from whence does that impulse arise?
Both biological and psychological/sociological constructs impact divergence, but ab ovo, did we come with certain predilections? Who and what were/are we? Is there always a dichotomous play between partners? No small question.
You mention existential ground and the tension between the differentiated selves. Philosophically, do you believe existentialism allows for a perpetual rebirth/recreation?
Also, do you believe that the sexes -- aside from issues of cultural overlay or morphology -- are/would be behaviorally essentially the same (?)
That is what I am curious about: Will we always construct an oppositional stance to The Other? If so, then all manner of behaviors must arise in order to confront that tension and presuppositions.
We could have a good talk over a coffee or two on this one.
Mum would love to hear that she was the "carrier of a sociocultural virus," as her motto was "Give 'em hell."
the biological substratum does have an impact, obviously. i would hesitate to give it primacy however due to at least two things. 1. the biological always has social context. there are certainly biological differences, and other differences..... and hormones. it is all there, but the relationship is structural and not absolute.
2. there is too much diversity in what would ostensibly be the biological manifestations...... there are females with generally more masculine physiognomy and behavioral styles that are resistant to sociocultural pressures. The most pronounced manifestations reside in the realm of homosexuality, however there are other stylistic behavioral items as well. we can see, or maybe we are only hypothesizing the biological influence, because it appears to be so in the realm of common sense, but also there is some scientific research that points to this.
the point is that absolutes fall apart quickly when assigning rigid notions of etiology.
that said, there is sexual dimorphism and that in and of itself, the fact that human beings come in two basically different shapes, begins a significant point of reference for socialization.
what is the primordial social discriminator that we use when dealing with another human being, even before they are born?
is it a boy or a girl
from there proceeds an entire sociocultural world that involves division of labor, social role, stereotypes and general radicalization of notions that are only partially true.......
that cultural norms change essentially demostrates that the meaning assigned to fact of human sexual dimorphism is in fact not an absolute.
the biological fact that the female is the biological child-bearer can mean that the female requires no education, should tend to cave, raise the children and essentially be the family servant.
or it could mean that the female has a significant and important view which should be incorporated into larger sociological endeavors involving governance, business, education and so on, and that the biological function of child bearing should be accomodated in these forums by way of family leave, male particpation in domicile chores and duties and expanded access to day care.
regarding your question about the effect of the movie, however..... i think i accidentally arrived at an insight.
a Rorshach test is a set of images deliberately made ambiguous (the "ink blot") intended to force projection from the individual with respect to meaning. it is intended to tap or invoke what Freud referred to as the unconscious, but in fact is probably a full range of conscious and subconscious and unconscious social assimilation in order for the individual to assign social meaning to an image that inherently has none (or so it seems).
a commercial artifact like a movie (especially the type you are describing) is almost exactly the opposite. the image is intended to manipulate affect by using stereotypes, symbols and myths based on assumptions regarding the gross acculturation of the masses.
these are manipulations, and we are the willing participants as the audience, seeking various things, perhaps even some form of self-affirmation.
so when you ask why this movie affected women of different age groups...... why the story does so...... the book...... it is intended and designed to do so by people who study such things. fiction writers are often masters at manipulating cultural icons, and nonfiction writers masters at drawing out the symbolic profile of the everyday.
these stories are packed with cultural nuance. i love the vampyre archtype...... the alien with biological urges that are restrained (sexual abstinance theme for teenagers) for the sake of the female...... the preditor spares the prey out of love?
here's something you might find interesting..... a wiki on feminism's evolution....
the sociocultural substratum is as "real" as the biological..... they are inextricably intertwined....
just remember, paradise is exaclty like where you are right now, only much much better.....
i don't think the existential ground mandates the notion of reincarnation if that is what you were asking....... but it offers a point of departure for damn near everything humans absolutely don't know. :)
Ghost Dansing,
I feel you have gone all Foucauldian and Levi-Strauss on me, and I cannot keep up :)
[1] When you speak of the biological as having "social context" I don't know what you mean. Are you speaking of the amniotic fluids which are impacted by the (constructed) ambient society?
[2] If you're speaking of XXY females, well sure, they'll respond differently to the prevailing imposed types.
Not sure what you mean here, either; "absolutes fall apart quickly when assigning rigid notions of etiology." We know differences manifest during gestation due to maternal stressors or whatever. Probably, homosexuality is determined at week 17 (?) But we know genotypes differ from phenotypes. This is where socialization enters, I guess.
Anyhoo, your exceptions prove the rule, and that is my simple inquiry: From whence does the Cinderella archetype arise?
Yes, yes--the writer of Twilight masterfully manipulated cultural artefacts -- but why the artefacts?
(BTB--no, wasn't interested in reincarnation, simply wondered what you were after when you mentioned "existential ground.")
FWIW--I love the vampire image, too.
How 'bout this:
"Both biological and psychological/sociological constructs impact divergence, but ab ovo, did we come with certain predilections?"
yes.....
Who and what were/are we? Is there always a dichotomous play between partners? No small question.
yes......
You mention existential ground and the tension between the differentiated selves. Philosophically, do you believe existentialism allows for a perpetual rebirth/recreation?
no......
Also, do you believe that the sexes -- aside from issues of cultural overlay or morphology -- are/would be behaviorally essentially the same (?)
no...... but how do you set the cultural and bio-morph issues aside? i think there is a substratum of human needs and parameters that are common to both sexes, and we focus on differences more than sameness because of the processes of individuation.
i like Erik Erikson.... identity etc.
That is what I am curious about: Will we always construct an oppositional stance to The Other?
yes.... probably.... ego
If so, then all manner of behaviors must arise in order to confront that tension and presuppositions.
pretty much always has as far as i can see..... really dealing with the consequences of all we've been talking about at the level of re-unifying the dimorphs after extensive sociocultural impositions to keep 'em separated.....
"I feel you have gone all Foucauldian and Levi-Strauss on me, and I cannot keep up :)"
you seem to understand what i'm saying...... i suspect we have different point of departure on the issue and i think it is something like the mind-body problem.
just like in the (spirit) mind-body problem many philosophers begin by postulating the division then spend the rest of their life trying to re-unite something that wasn't divisible in the first place.
i'm thinking of the biological substratum as co-extensive and integral to sociocultural processes.
in all probability it is more a matter of looking at the same phenomenon from different perspectives..... sometimes even through instruments.
"[1] When you speak of the biological as having "social context" I don't know what you mean. Are you speaking of the amniotic fluids which are impacted by the (constructed) ambient society?"
see above..... bio-logic would involve the study of how amniotic fluids impact...... from a socio-logic point of view, i would be thinking about the impact of a new human being developing within a dependent relationship with his/her first "other", the mother, the effects of childbirth itself, separation...... transition from prenatal to postnatal relationship...... breast fed or not...... affectation of the mother, the father, the parents....... the greater family, those outside the family...... the biological substratum is coextensive..... there is always whether i'm male or female, whether i have a pretty face or a defomity, and what that means to me, to others..... how that affects my life, my being-in-the-world.
all these things happen concomitantly...... the relationships are better understood as structural, not cause-and-effect..... yes there is temporal unfolding, but the biological is never occurring in isolation, nor is the sociocultural some absolute application or "overlay".
regarding Cinderella..... is that a cross-cultural phenomenon...... granted it is linked to American.... maybe western females? Is it a human-archtype with cross-cultural parallels?
not sure, but even if it is, archtypes serve a sociocultural function..... archtypes can be challenged (for example the dominance of the patriarchal archtype) and be made artifacts of bygone sociocultural conditions.
identify the function it serves, and you've identified why it exists, and why it is maintained.
from an individual (psychosocial) point of view, the question would be "how do i react..... what is the meaning for me....... where did that come from......" etc.
the difference between the sociological and psychological..... common frames of reference become assimilated in an idiosyncratic way by individuals...... because along with being dimorphs, we are first morphs..... like individual instantiations of embodied human being, essentially separate from one another while still interrelated.
Levi Strauss does make some fine genes....
Thanks, G.D. -- that suits me well. I'm pretty simplistic and biologic in my thinking.
With you on Erikson and individuation.
Still interested in those non-contingent "predilections", pre- pink-or-blue baby bonnet.
What are they? Where do they come from?
"re-unifying the dimorphs" reminds me of Aristophanes' explanation of eros and the combination of the sexes (three), and our urge to completion. (He saw us a great big happy wheel, when suitably mated!)
Maybe we exist in a state of unrecognized sorrow, feeling our necessary [physical] separation from that which [we feel] might complete us. Even if it were not a societal construct, the mere act of sexual bifurcation in gestation means we are not the other, hence, we are always a "lack", in one sense.
Rilke has a poem referring to the essential separateness of mates on the quantum level. He argues for authentic intimacy as even when the utmost effort is exerted to achieve a bond, there is always a necessary isolation, even on the most basic mechanical level.
Maybe that is what Twilight provides. It doesn't even pretend to achieve transient sexual union. The vampire behaves in an androgynous way, hence he can meld perfectly with the young woman.
"Levi Strauss does make some fine genes...."
Aside from being an intense gender critic, you are funny. Those two don't always go together :)
dracul ╖╖
G.D.,
What's not to like? He may not be a hunk, and like Ted Hughes, the women seem to go killing themselves, but he does have the devotion thing down pat.
Thanks for our Easter video. Redemption symbology is all 'round.
G.D.,
Reviewing our dialog, I noticed you used the term, "being-in-the-world."
If you mean it in the sense of dasein, then you have a fellow Heideggarian here! I remember enjoying "Sein und Zeit", if "enjoy" is the right word...!
existential phenomenology
Kierkegaard, Arendt and Marcel..... especially Hannah Arendt for political philosophy....
Social Construction of Reality
G.D.,
We're on the same page.
Post a Comment
<< Home