Using Science Fiction to Teach the Psychology of Sex and Gender - Lips

This article is an extremely interesting one. It discusses science fiction, as a way of teaching the psychology of sex and gender. Gender is a socially constructed entity, and this article shows us ways in which that is proved.

The article talks about 2 different ideas of gender, based on these two science fiction books. The first one which The Left Hand of Darkness, but Ursula Le Guin. In this world citizens aren't defined by whether they are a man or a woman, because everyone is the same. That is until once a month they develop into either a man or a woman. I know this may seem strange, but its called the Kemmer phase. The catch is that you don't know what your going to be changing into. One month you could be a man, and the next month you could be a woman. It could create some issues within society, because you could be the mother to a child, and the father to a child. However, it is amazing in the sense that we would no longer be defined by whether or not we were a man, or a woman. It wouldn't matter.

Imagine not being a man or a woman, and not knowing whether you were going to become a man or a woman during kemmers. I think Marketing teams would struggle with this, because they wouldn't be able to market nail polish and make up to women, and cologne and razors to men. Although it could turn into a companies dream. Knowing capitalist culture it would do just that.

However, the point of the article is to understand that Sex and Gender are socially constructed. Without it there wouldn't be defined roles for men and woman. It would perhaps create a more equal and level playing field.

Lips then goes on to discuss another world. The world of Marge Peircy in Women at the Edge of Time. In this world, woman don't give birth. In fact babies are grown outside the body, in test tubes. Instead of having on set of parents they babies are raised by the community. It is in hopes to reduce the impact of sex and gender on social relationships.

Once again in today's society because right now only woman can get pregnant it puts a huge impact on the jobs they can attain. This is one of the reasons that there is still a glass ceiling. If a woman decides to enter the corporate world it seems she has to make the decision to either not be a mother, or be a mother way later in life. If woman weren't the ones to give birth perhaps this would no longer affect jobs, and society.

In a world defined by socially constructed gender roles, it seems difficult to view a world without them. From birth we are subjected to either the Pink aisle at Toys R Us, or the Blue aisle. This exercise was stimulating, because it allowed for these roles to be changed, and allowed for a different type of thinking.

What if we weren't defined by these roles? How would society react?

Watson- The Consuming Child

Watson discusses the culture in which today's society bases their livelihoods on what they have. What they can buy, and what they can't buy. Its an old fashioned way to gain prestige "by consuming wealth in an extravagant way." Even patriotism has now been tied to consumerism. For example, when the 2010 Olympics came to Vancouver, if you didn't own a pair of those mittens you were an outcast. Hudson's Bay Company sold merchandise at ridiculous prices so that Canadians could show their national pride. 

Consumption is a way groups have gained identity. Consumption is also " an important site or gender construction in that the majority of everyday consumption practices are performed as routine and mundane work- usually by women." Consumption is a huge problem in today's society, and Watson goes on to discuss how Children are affected.

Children have always been consumers. However, stores opened up for children with parents who have excess money to spend on toys for their children. While parents have always provided the necessary tools for their children's livelihoods, people started on that and created a culture in which those with money can provide more toys for their children. However, Middle Class parents were excited to buy things that would promote their children's education. Such as books and things that would enhance the growth of their brains. Today's equivalent would be the baby einstein series.

The article talks about the consumption during the Holidays, "spend time together, spend money together." All Holidays are pushed months in advance. For example Halloween turns into Christmas, and Christmas into New Years Eve, and New Year Eve into Valentines Day, and then Valentines Day into St. Patricks Day. It continues on from there, and stores push this stuff so that people will continue to buy. It is how our capitalist economy makes money. 

According to the article roles such as Santa Claus promote good behavior, and allow adults to reward themselves when they become older. Even the White House suggests that Children are consumers, by stating during the Child Health and Protection Conference that children should have access to their own furniture and toys. Urging parents to take their kids out shopping, and let them pick our their own things. Apparently this is how a child's personality develops. Hmm.

Consumption patterns changed, with more money going towards children in the family. This created a culture of marketing to children. In fact today, companies market towards teenagers within highschools because they have the most disposable income. The article states that they also have the threefold promise in which they are consumers, influencers of their parents, and future consumers. It is a genius marketing strategy. Marketing to children is a multi-billion dollar campaign, and corporations know that they can market to children, and that they will consume. This is because it has become a culture to have the newest, brightest, best thing to show off to other children.

"The cultural market place is a key arena for the formation of the sense of self and of peer relationships." Children as a group are more comfortable expressing themselves as active participants of globalization. 

This Christmas stores are having blowout sales so that consumers can shop and buy for their children, in order to keep the economy booming during an economic decline. It seems odd that people have to buy things in order to protect the economy? Silly.

There seems to be a focus on children as consumers, and capitalist consumer culture markets towards children, because they have the most influence. It's disgusting, but genius. 

You Can Run But You Can't Hide: The Incorporation of Riot Grrrl into Mainstream Culture - Alison Jacques

Alison Jacques article “You Can Run But You Can’t Hide: The Incorporation of Riot Grrrl into Mainstream Culture” explains the whole Riot Grrrl movement, with Girl being spelt Grrrl to give the word more impact to audiences. The article discusses how the Riot Grrrl movement didn't want any media influence, but that didn't end up being the case. It of course is now a mainstream movement.

As I learned in my history of Rock and Roll class, Punk is a male-dominated scene. It developed as sort of a backlash against New Wave, and Glam. The Sex Pistols who actually weren't the greatest punk rock band seem to be the face of Punk.  However, Punk didn't last because it wasn't marketable. Teenagers couldn't dance to it, and along came the next phase which happened to be Disco.

However, female punk bands weren't far behind. They joined up ranks, and sang politically influenced songs that discussed their oppression. The women in these punk rock bands were influential, and they tended to be white, middle-class women who knew what they were talking about. These women were usually graduates from Women Studies programs, and some were the daughters of the seventies libbers. 

The problem with mainstream culture is that it becomes over played jargon, it is understandable that they didn't want to become a mass media entity. It kills the sub culture, because mainstream is a culture of its own. However as stated in the article, if Riot Grrrl wants to "raise feminist consciousness on a large scale it will have to negotiate a relation to the mainstream that does not merely reify the opposition between mainstream and subculture." Suggesting that perhaps if they want their feminist voice heard that  mainstream may be the way to get it out there. I feel that while they think they might be selling out by becoming mainstream, that it is also a good way for them to get their voices heard. Riot Grrrl will remain authentic no matter what because it is inspiring to women and young girls across the nation.

Even the Spice Girls were successful because of their Girl Power slogan that stemmed from the Riot Grrl ideal. It did manage to send out a message, regardless of whether they wanted it to be a mainstream commodity or not. In today's capitalism society, where people are obsessed with consumerism, whatever can be marketed will be. In some cases this isn't always a bad thing. 

Throughout the article there is the theme of Feminism, and Capitalism. I feel that the two can exist together with the right form of capitalism. If it takes a felt pen to speak out against women's oppression. The Riot Grrrl movement gave women an empowered voice, within a punk movement that was extremely male-dominated. The movement regardless of whether or not it has become a consumer capitalist entity was still a movement that gave women a voice. 

This movement gives a voice to thousands of young girls, and empowers them. Why not have that be broadcast to the world, regardless of it being mainstream, it is still authentic. 

Commentary Sexting As Adolescent Social Communication: A Call For Attention

I feel that sexting has become a form of communication among teens and young adults, because it allows one to hide behind a screen. In an era where it has become incredibly simple to say things over a computer, a phone, without actually talking to people it also becomes easier to be more sexual. This is because your not actually involved, which gives you this sense of control. This is the appeal of sexting, that its hidden behind a screen and you can say, and do things you normally wouldn't if you were in person. The ramifications of this are extreme, because it affects personalities, and adds to insecurities. The article states that it is a more private form of communication, and while it remains problematic could it also be seen as sexually healthy?

What are teens thinking? They are thinking that they can express themselves, when normally they would be too shy or too timid. I truly feel that people don't fully understand the ramifications of the technology yet. Also, in an age where people become famous for having sex tapes it seems that our influences encourage sexting behaviours and having 'dirty' photos reach others. While I don't think this is the actual plan of a teenager sending a photo to someone the like, what they don't realize is that picture will forever be out there, and could come back to haunt them at any time.

Chalfen focuses on a more health-oriented approach to sexting, because that is his background. He suggests that "with regard to physical health and personal safety, we know that parents buy phones for their children to keep them safe, to know their locations, and help them call home if trouble occurs. But camera phones can put children at risk, fostering concerns about online predators." Suggesting that perhaps children should be given phones without cameras, or perhaps those phones that can only dial home, and dial 911 in case of an emergency. I feel as though this seems to be a viable option for parents who are concerned for their children's safety.

Sexting is problematic especially when private photos are passed around for entertainment value. When these pictures end up on Facebook, or on the internet it can be extremely harmful to the individual.
Sexting occurs most often between 1.) "solely between tw between o romantic partners 2.) Exchanges between partners that are then shared outside the relationship 3.) Exchanges people who are not yet in a relationship, but where often one person hopes to be." If two people want to share photos back and forth solely between themselves I don't see this as problematic, depending on whether they are at a mature enough state of mind to choose to do so. Where I find sexting to be problematic is when a person is exploited, and others get entertainment at another's expense.

Chalfen goes on to discuss the possible existence of media correlations, discussing that perhaps it is important to note that perhaps "provocative images seen in music videos and advertisements play in sexualized, mediated self-representation." Perhaps the media has a crucial role to play, or the fact that these teens and young adults fall into a technology ridden society has a large impact on sexting.

Overall, the article discusses the ramifications of sexting as causing harm to health. Due to cellphone, internet use, one could lose sleep, become depressed, among many other ramifications. Sexting is an unhealthy trend among teenagers today, and the article does a good job at outlining them. However, at times I felt it was a bit simplistic, and could have elaborated more on kids in highschools, and highschool pressures, and issues with insecurities. Highschool is the time when your body is changing, and your developing your personality, and this could have a pivotol impact on why these teens feel the need to sext.

The theories used in this article would be that of capitalism, and a consumer world. It is because of a consumer culture, that these teenagers, and young adults have access to this technology that involves texting. We live in a world in which we consume beyond our means, and constantly need to keep up with the next fad. This is because of capitalism. The form of capitalism that we have currently, isn't working. While technology can be beneficial, how beneficial is it? And at how early an age?