So when I read the title of this New York Times piece, I had middling to high hopes.
Yeah, those didn't last long.
According to the author of this piece, the essence of being a woman is having hot flashes, being unable to resist fatty foods, crying, drinking Diet Coke and listening to acoustic folk music. In other words, being a woman means being "hormonal and mysterious" and liable to either "burst into tears at the drop of a dinner plate or turn on you like a rabid pit bull."
Now, never having been menopausal, I don't know what the symptoms are like. But would it have been too much to ask to frame it that way, instead of as a "This is what women are like! I've been there, men, and you don't want to go there!" farce? Of course it would. Because that wouldn't get into stereotypes, and we can't have that.
As per usual, don't read the comments if you don't want to become suicidal.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: My Brief Life as a Stereotype.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14162
I should have heeded your warning about the comments, really, but the fifth one down, Susie's, was very telling:
" . . . it is wonderful to have our very real symptoms validated by a man."
(To be fair to her, she prefaced that with "Not that we women needed it," but I still found the use of the word validated rather disconcerting!)
You would do well to read all of the past articles by Dana. It's the story of a man who nearly lost his son and now is trying to find humor in the pain of his daily battle with advanced prostate cancer, a battle he is not certain to win. To be clear, this story is not about you.
Honestly speaking, I don't believe you read it with middling to high hopes. Based on your commentary it looks like you read it with an agenda. Was he dishonest? To him, the world of women is hormonal and mysterious. He (and I would suggest most men) didn't have a clue about what it's like to have a different set of hormones ruling his body. His past experience was with his own set of hormones, which don't seem mysterious to him because he lives them. Comment #22 is telling in its brevity. While Dana is recounting his experience under the influence of elevated ratios of estrogen to testosterone and androgen, is it any different than that of a woman in the reverse situation? Do women understand the hormonal and mysterious lives of men?
(ASIDE: Speaking of comments, did you read them all? How many were negative? To what do you attribute the overwhelming amount of praise from both men and women?)
To understand why I think you read it with an agenda, only 89 of 724 words can even be interpreted as not being about his menopausal symptoms from the hormone treatment. And even those 89 words are framed in the context of his new understanding of one small aspect of the hormonal lives of women. Those 89 words are used to suggest that, based on his brief experience living "on the outer precincts of menopause," maybe, just maybe the hormones are more in control than we think, and if your significant other blames them for uncharacteristic behavior, you should believe her. He did not specifically use the words "uncharacteristic" to describe crying "at the drop of a dinner plate" but it seems to me to be uncharitable to read it any other way. I mean, why would it need explaining as being caused by hormones if it was something that happens every day? Re-read those two paragraphs - isn't it possible, and I would say more likely, that he's merely stating that women are only being honest when they blame hormones for uncharacteristic behavior (see comment 47 or pretty much any other)? Does that not fit with the experiences of most men, even self-described feminist men, who encounter what they see as uncharacteristic behavior from the women in their lives (see comment 32)?
One thing both men and women are uncomfortable with owning is the fact that hormones rule our lives (see comment 50). They skew our "rational" thoughts, they influence our behavior, they shape our world views. We are all slaves to hormones and most of us are in denial about it. Dana's article illustrates just how true this is. Coming from our hormonal reference points, the hormonal lives of the other sex are mysterious. If we were able to experience the other, as Dana was able to briefly, we would probably understand that. Women's experiences are no more or less mysterious than living under the hormonal regimen of men. And certainly not good or bad or better or worse - just different (see comment 35). I'm sorry he didn't write the column you wanted him to write but again, the article wasn't about you.
I've got nothing but sympathy for the author's condition and the loss of his son, but that doesn't mean I can excuse the article.
Honestly speaking, I think I know better than you what my hopes were for reading the article. I read it based on the title and expected it to be more or less about the societal issues that women face. Instead, I get a stereotype storm And word count doesn't apply here; it's the way the article is framed that I have a problem with. What's at the beginning? What's at the end? How is it framed? The way it's framed, it's saying that women are slaves to these mysterious hormones and they just can't control themselves. How is this different than, oh, centuries of sexist rhetoric?
I'm not asking this story to be about me. Why would I? If it just affected me I'd have no reason to post. I simply do not have the time and the site does not have the bandwidth to post about every "minor" manifestation of sexism that happens to me. This article's associated with the New York Times, though, so millions of people are going to read it. So it's millions of people's issue. And the issue of whether it's too personal becomes moot when you submit something for this wide a readership.
And I read a good deal of the comments before I had to stop because my head hurt. I didn't spot one that even so much as hinted at the fact that maybe the Mysterious World of Womenfolk encompassed more than that damned estrogen.
I guess I wonder why you would think a blog entry, a blog pointedly about one man's struggle with advanced prostate cancer, would be about the societal issues women face. Is it just that you were unfamiliar with the author or his blog about his struggles? Is this simply a case of confirmation bias - in that since his article wasn't the article you hoped to read, it necessarily became an article supporting the status quo?
Looking at the article charitably (that is, not inferring any ill intent) I see among the possible reactions one might have what I think is a better course. Instead of bemoaning that the article wasn't about what you hoped to read, why not turn it into a positive discussion about how both men and women are affected by hormones, and how it might be helpful if both men and women were able to see things from the other's point of view. Make is a positive post about how we might better get along, rather than a negative post about perceived slights, real or imagined.
What I read in the article, aside from his ability to find humor in what must be a terrifying battle with cancer, is a suggestion that we use a little empathy when assessing the behavior of others. Nowhere did he say we should be dismissive of a woman's emotions or reactions because they're crazy and slaves to these mysterious hormones. What he wrote was that if she blames her uncharacteristic reactions on hormones that you should believe her. What do you think he should have said? That you shouldn't believe her?
And women are slaves to these mysterious hormones, but no more so than men are slaves to their mysterious hormones. Sure, your hormones aren't mysterious to you, and you've probably grown accustomed to them by now, but from an outside perspective why shouldn't they be mysterious? Is male behavior, with all of its aggression and posturing and bluster, not the least bit mysterious to you? Are there no comparable male stereotypes here? Speaking for myself, I find the whole thing to be fascinating.
"And women are slaves to these mysterious hormones, but no more so than men are slaves to their mysterious hormones."
Could you explain why you believe this?
men are highly emotional and less likely to control their emotions-
for evidence look to the rate of violent crimes committed by them.
they are more likely to be out of control....may be hormonal-
testosterone can make a person rage.
I think the author of the article, Dana Jennings, had the best intentions. He put himself out there when writing this, so I applaud him for that.
But I do have a major problem with the way hormones are used as an excuse, used to dismiss someones feelings, and that hormones are seen as a female thing.
Dana states in one line "believe her when she blames it on the hormones". Yeah, hormones affect me, but my hormones don't turn me into another person completely. They are a part of me and my actions, even when affected by my hormones, are my actions. If I'm angry - I'm angry! And maybe my response is exaggerated or out of proportion - but that is how I am responding at that moment in time to that specific situation. And that is fine. I'm not Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde and don't want to hide behind my hormones as an excuse.
Hormones are often used to dismiss other’s (almost always women’s) feelings. If its angry, sad, crying, depressed, whatever…I’ve heard it way too many times – “Oh, you’re just hormonal.” No! I’m angry! I’m sad! I’m not happy right now! Don’t dismiss me because my body includes hormones. Again, the hormones may affect my response to this situation but I am still responding to a situation that does exist and should not be ignored.
The other thing about hormones is that both men and women have them and are greatly affected by them. Yet men ignore that they may in fact be acting ‘hormonal’.
Imagine a man being pushy for sex and the recipient of this pressure saying, “Geuze, get a grip! You are being so hormonal!” Or two guys getting into a bar fight while onlookers shake their head and say, “Gosh, men are so hormonal.”
Hormones are a part of us and shouldn’t be ignored – but they should be taken for what they are.
(one note: I know there are many different experience with hormones and varying levels and degrees to which they affect you. This is coming from my perspective where my hormones do not seem to have much sway over my life.)
Wonderwall, I think what you've said is very valid, however, Dana writes in his article that she is the one blaming it on the hormones (as she is the only one who can attest to how much her hormones are effecting her). Although I agree with what you said, I don't feel as if the author was doing that at all.
Yes, he is writing it from his perspective - which is completely valid. I guess I was a bit unclear. When I said, "But I do have a major problem with the way hormones are used as an excuse, used to dismiss someones feelings, and that hormones are seen as a female thing." I meant in a broad sense. The article is on one person's experience but it works to reinforce the stereotypes about hormones and their effects - especially that hormones are a woman problem and that we are crazy.
Thanks for that clarification, I was unsure myself. I wonder if katemoore's reaction might be in the same vein (maybe not, I don't know). That is, there are many (far, far too many) valid examples of women's reactions or perspectives being unfairly dismissed or seen as "irrational" or "crazy" in our culture and media. I just don't think this particular blog post was one of them.
And for the record, outside of women's studies courses I have heard practically nothing about how men's reactions and perspectives are just as hormonally influenced when, as i muse illustrated, even on cursory inspection all evidence points to that being the case.
It may not have occurred to anyone before this, but can anyone here see how judgmental they're being, and the stances taken are just as bad as any man's, it's just on the other side of the fence that you're doing it from. Hormones, inability to think logically, destroying-of-the-family can easily be traded for violent, sexually harrassing, and shallow rating of the females because that way they don't have to deal head on with rejection.
Women will never be embraced for themselves until they do it first and stop thinking that the only way to become powerful is by trampling over men in the process. There are always going to be a small handful of people who fit that stereotype - how else do you think stereotypes are created?