In war and Seinfeld

We broke up into groups, based on how interested we were in discussing different gender topics (or some just chose the paper of their favorite color). Whatever peoples' motivations were, we hit some good points. Our group focused on social change. How does it happen, what are the roles of men and women, are they the same or different? We talked about how social change happens differently for men and women. For men, it is a struggle of power. It is either in a politically oriented or in a warzone. They can be called debates or war/revolution. For women, they have to be strategic but are considered manipulative. They must gain the support of the men, because ultimately, it isn't their choice for social change. Let's face it-- is the rich white men's decision. And women only participate in movements...not war nor organized politics. These are pretty parallel thoughts to the reading. According to Goldstein, men's autonomous relationships allow for discourse where the women add personal value and connection to their conflict. From individual girl fights to nation-wide movements, those females have allowed their personal feelings and senitments get involved. I am not saying it makes women weak to feel personally connected to their cause; nor am I demeaning men's role in conflict. But obviously, the answer to the final part of the prompt is yes- men and women play very different roles for social change. That nice little chart in Goldstein's reading really lays it out for us--whether we like it or not. According to this, women are not knowers...we get to be known though, how nice of them. We already understood the emotional vs rational/factual piece..which I can admit is a justifiable argument. The certainty vs uncertainty one kind of bothers me. Unfortunetly, we could really only make an argument if anyone in history actually played a role against the feminine/objective view. We could fight it all we want, but thus far history evidently shows no contrary to this theory. In Byrne's reading, the gap between women and men's roles are emphasized, especially in military terms. It isn't new material to anyone who knows anything about history that women's jobs consisted of taking care of the children, the wounded soilders, and themselves if they still had energy. They were not/are not seen as aggressive enough to fight in combat. The nurturing gender is too attatched to violent act of war. To men, it is their job or duty to anihilate the enemy, whereas regardless of who is on what side, women see the mothers loosing their sons, and the pain and weariness in the soldiers themselves. Men are detachted to their work, whether in war or the office. Returning to the idea that all women must manipulate their position to gain power, Byrne states that women have the potential to gain status "from encouraging the perception that they are the guardians of cultural identity for their society." This is talking about in times of war, but I don't think it is too far-fetched to say that this is possible when there is not warfare. Essentially, the human race cannot continue if the women do not continue reproducing. So, if they threaten the men and their manhood, it could cause doubt and raise question of gender identity. And if women threaten, isn't that a little aggressive?
Real world (well sort of) connection: On Seinfeld, Elaine and Jerry are in a car (1 guess who's driving) and Jerry's phone rings, but he ignores it. Elaine makes some comment about not being man enough to break up with his girlfriend. There is some more dialouge and then she takes another shot at his aggression and how it is expected for him to behave as such. She uses the words wussy, chicken and girly man. In the same episode, George makes a new friend. His new friend is the epitome of the stereotypical rugged outdoorsy man. George lies and tells him he is into football and rock climbing because he is nervous his new friend will not like him if he doesn't show that he is manly too. When he has to actually prove that he knows these things, he fails miserably and his manhood is questioned. I am not an avid Seinfeld viewer (it was one of those late nights where there 4 billion channels and there is nothing else on), and after this episode, I think it will remain that way.