I recently went to see a memorable performance of Chicago at Place Des Arts. The performers included powerful singers and sizzling dancing. The band did not miss a beat, and was an active part in the show. I loved every minute of it. However when you dig a little deeper, the score is sexist and glorifies domestic violence.
One of the greatest songs in Chicago is “He Had it Coming”. Six of seven very attractive and vengeful women sarcastically defend themselves for committing brutally violent crimes. These murders include multiple stabbings, an axe murder, and shotgun wounds to the face. Each murderer portrays themselves as victims; their husbands and lovers “had it coming”.
In all honesty, it seems fairly harmless, and it is very funny. The women also looked incredible in their cocktail dresses and seductive dancing – I still do not know how they obtained such fine clothing in prison.
However, this positive reaction to horrendous crimes raises some serious questions about how we view gender roles. None of these women had a valid reason – such as self defence- to kill their victims. Furthermore, their relaxed approach shows complete contempt for the laws and morals that govern our society. So, why do we laugh?
Besides the fact that the songs are well written, we laugh because the murderers are women, and the victims are their cheating husbands. If the roles were reversed, no one would laugh. Both women and men would be disgusted, and any man who saw some humour in it, would be fearful of the repercussions for laughing out loud – most likely negative punishments from their girlfriends and wives. Because of his dominant role in society, a man who kills his wife is wrong no matter what the circumstances. However, the emotionally hurt woman will at least get a laugh about putting an axe in her husband’s head.
At the end of the day, does this exploitation of gender roles really have a negative impact on the viewers? For the most part, I do not think so. However, it does demonstrate that gender equality is difficult to achieve. We have specific beliefs about how men and women should interact. Because men usually commit domestic violence, the song seems absurd; thus it is funny. If we actually perceived men and women as equals, then we should all either laugh or not, regardless of the perpetrator’s gender.
For me, the more important issue is that the song glorifies domestic violence. Disputes between men and women often escalate into violent eruptions. One just has to look back upon the O.J Simpson trial and the popular disgust felt towards the former football super star for allegedly killing his ex-wife and her lover. A more contemporary example is Chris Brown’s assault on his girlfriend Rihanna and the public uproar to the crime. Both crimes merited the severe public criticism.
What about women who commit similar crimes?
When LorenaBobbit famously cut of her husband’s genitals the public reaction was mixed. Obviously, she was criticized for mutilating her husband, but like the women in Chicago she received much public sympathy. Regardless of her husband’s abusive behaviour, he did not deserve to be assaulted in such a vicious manner. I see no reason, which anyone could use to defend her actions. The attack was not an example of self-defence; she simply “snapped” after long term physical and emotional abuse – which is wrong in its own right. However, an unprovoked removal of a man’s penis is wrong. Furthermore, she received support from feminist groups because of her prolonged suffering during her marriage. This protection rubs me the wrong way.
A correct response to domestic abuse could include calling the police or walking out on him. If she had stabbed him while she was seriously beating her, I would side with her. However, cutting of a man’s penis clearly demonstrates a vengeful rational. It served no purpose but to severely injure her husband – not to mention the emotional distress of literally of losing your manhood.
Just like the fictional characters of Chicago, Lorena Bobbitt’s was acquitted because of the emotional distress caused by her husband. All the women had the right to be upset, and some of the men – if the accusations are true- deserved prison sentences. Unfortunately, I think that the only reason the women were found not guilty was because they were women. A man would not have received as much sympathy because of previous wrong doings by his wife.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Gender inequality: The Consequences of the Sexual Revolution
I believe that men and women are equal. This equality does not mean that we share an equal capacity in all aspects of life –clearly we do not, despite my best efforts, girls rarely buy me drinks at bars- but it does mean that both genders share equal rights under the law. So ladies, when your mothers ripped off their bras in protest during the 1960’s, they exposed themselves in order to achieve the same legal and social status as us men. For this I applaud them; women deserve the same pay, the same respect, and the right to live without prejudice. I also approve of their tactics. If I was a political leader, and saw a whole generation of women walking around braless, I would take all of their demands very seriously.
The important contemporary issue that stems from the sexual revolution and the establishment of equal rights is that the upward movement of women’s rights does not always stop at equality. Some women often believe that their new found voice in society gives them the right to discriminate against men. I argue that such discriminatory rhetoric is counterintuitive to the equal rights movement.
For example, do you all remember those adorably offensive t-shirts that said “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them”? These shirts threaten an increasingly vulnerable minority in society: young men. Just look around every North American university campus; most of the students are women. In Quebec, alarming rates of boys, not girls, are dropping out of high school. Despite what you girls think, men are sensitive, and these sexist shirts have deleterious effects on young men’s already low levels of self esteem. Furthermore, it only educates young women to pursue and accept sexist views and behavior towards men. Why is sexism directed at men acceptable? As a society, we criticize Muslim countries which stone women to death for adultery. However, we accept the equivalent imagery as long as it is directed towards boys.
I am writing this article because of a sexist comment made by a young woman in my Contemporary Moral Issues class. This comment received very few objections despite its injurious level of ignorance, discrimination, and hate. Last Monday, we were discussing abortions. More specifically, the professor was highlighting arguments against abortion. He identified one as the “potentiality argument”. It argues that because a fetus has the potential to become a human being, it has a certain moral standing. Therefore, it is not permissible to kill the fetus. This is a fairly reasonable argument. Once the Professor had finished explaining the argument, a girl asked this question, “So could you say that because all men have the potential to rape, that all men are rapists?” I have never been so offended in my entire life. Apparently, I – along with every other person with a penis, including homosexuals, because she did say all men- am inherently a rapist because of the chromosomes I received during my spectacular conception.
Why is okay for people to make sexist comments directed towards men? Men are criticized for making comments of lesser severity; they deserve the criticism. For example, many people say that all the girls that participate in MUS carnival are drunken strumpets. This may have some validity, but it is still sexist. And it is wrong to point out that Carnival is easiest place to “meet women”. (Anyone interested in participating in MUS Carnival 2010 can contact Brock Clancy, co-editor of CC and co-chair of MUS Carnival). People who make such comments should be severely reprimanded. It is equally offensive and unjust to subject men to sexually degrading rhetoric.
A person’s gender, race, sexual orientation, and religion do not affect their rights. As a well educated population, we here at McGill should work as hard as possible to ensure that no one’s rights are infringed upon. If you overhear an individual degrading an other, please go talk to Ivan Neilson, President of SSMU, and a good friend of mine. He is also a strong supporter of equal rights – especially women’s rights and he is one of McGill’s most eligible bachelors.
The important contemporary issue that stems from the sexual revolution and the establishment of equal rights is that the upward movement of women’s rights does not always stop at equality. Some women often believe that their new found voice in society gives them the right to discriminate against men. I argue that such discriminatory rhetoric is counterintuitive to the equal rights movement.
For example, do you all remember those adorably offensive t-shirts that said “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them”? These shirts threaten an increasingly vulnerable minority in society: young men. Just look around every North American university campus; most of the students are women. In Quebec, alarming rates of boys, not girls, are dropping out of high school. Despite what you girls think, men are sensitive, and these sexist shirts have deleterious effects on young men’s already low levels of self esteem. Furthermore, it only educates young women to pursue and accept sexist views and behavior towards men. Why is sexism directed at men acceptable? As a society, we criticize Muslim countries which stone women to death for adultery. However, we accept the equivalent imagery as long as it is directed towards boys.
I am writing this article because of a sexist comment made by a young woman in my Contemporary Moral Issues class. This comment received very few objections despite its injurious level of ignorance, discrimination, and hate. Last Monday, we were discussing abortions. More specifically, the professor was highlighting arguments against abortion. He identified one as the “potentiality argument”. It argues that because a fetus has the potential to become a human being, it has a certain moral standing. Therefore, it is not permissible to kill the fetus. This is a fairly reasonable argument. Once the Professor had finished explaining the argument, a girl asked this question, “So could you say that because all men have the potential to rape, that all men are rapists?” I have never been so offended in my entire life. Apparently, I – along with every other person with a penis, including homosexuals, because she did say all men- am inherently a rapist because of the chromosomes I received during my spectacular conception.
Why is okay for people to make sexist comments directed towards men? Men are criticized for making comments of lesser severity; they deserve the criticism. For example, many people say that all the girls that participate in MUS carnival are drunken strumpets. This may have some validity, but it is still sexist. And it is wrong to point out that Carnival is easiest place to “meet women”. (Anyone interested in participating in MUS Carnival 2010 can contact Brock Clancy, co-editor of CC and co-chair of MUS Carnival). People who make such comments should be severely reprimanded. It is equally offensive and unjust to subject men to sexually degrading rhetoric.
A person’s gender, race, sexual orientation, and religion do not affect their rights. As a well educated population, we here at McGill should work as hard as possible to ensure that no one’s rights are infringed upon. If you overhear an individual degrading an other, please go talk to Ivan Neilson, President of SSMU, and a good friend of mine. He is also a strong supporter of equal rights – especially women’s rights and he is one of McGill’s most eligible bachelors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)