By P Getty
Recently, an uproar in the media erupted after J. Crew put out an online ad featuring Jenna Lyons and her young son. The picture portrays a loving mother and son smiling and caring on—they seem like a lovely pair. Some however, like Fox News contributor and hack psychiatrist, Dr. Keith Ablow, only saw the Devil in the details. Rather than seeing it for what it is—a warm expression of a happy family—all he could see is that the young lad has neon pink nail polish. Ablow, in his reaction to the piece stated that “it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affect by your ‘innocent’ pleasure.”
Boggling my mind the most is the fact that this ignorant statement comes from a psychiatrist, a professional who should be up on the literature of gender-role and LGBT socialization and their outcomes. Rather than getting in to the nuts and bolts of gender development (this is not an undergraduate development course), I do what to tackle his suggestion that a lack of strict adherence to sexual and gender roles lead to negative psychological outcomes. What he seems to have forgotten is that any negative outcomes associated with LGBT folks is not because of who they are, it is because of the lack of acceptance from their families and other ignorant fools who cannot seems to realize that their own beliefs are not shared by others. In fact, recent evidence presented by Doctors Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz and Sanchez (2010) in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatirc Nursing, suggests that when LGBT youths are respected and accepted by their families, positive outcomes are predicted. They can expect to have higher self-esteem and general health. They are also less likely to experience depression, substance abuse and thoughts of suicide.
What is ironic about this whole thing is that the outcomes Dr. Ablow predicts come about because of intolerant behavior like Dr. Ablow’s. God save the child that comes from Dr. Ablow’s loins that happens to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgendered—hopefully he will have set aside money for their psychotherapy to un-warp any damage his intolerant behavior might cause.
Follow link to Ryan et al.’s (2010) article on acceptance and positive outcomes for LGBT youth
Follow link to Dr. Ablow’s Hackery!
by P. Getty
I want to begin this entry with a short apology to my loyal readers—all ten of you—for taking some time away from the blog. I understand if you are upset, what with being without your biweekly fix of weird thoughts and rants that I proudly contribute to the psychological community. I understand that I have slacked in this charge. I will, unless environmental influences shift even more drastically than they already have, continue to provide that service. Still, I feel that I owe you, my loyal reader, an explanation for my absence. Well, if the picture that accompanies this entry and the title above doesn’t give it away, the reason for my absence was that my son, Lucas Kinan (which means danger in Japanese if you are interested) was born on February 2nd, 2011, at 21:20 hrs. So I was away becoming baby daddy! Strangely, since then, my demeanor has shifted slightly to that of a sleep-deprived zombie. Despite this, however, I’m confident in my new role as baby daddy and look forward to this new adventure while getting back to the blogin’. Weirdly, my positive attitude seems to be in contrast to what is expected from a person in my shoes, according to the relevant literature.
In a resent review of the literature on men transitioning to fatherhood, Genesoni and Tallandini (2009) identified three phases in this transition that coincide with the stages of their pregnant partners (i.e., prenatal, labor and birth; finally, postnatal). Each stage is accompanied by its own set of challenges and obstacles for the transitioning male. While I don’t want to give away the ending, I will point out that the authors suggest that the postnatal stage (the stage I’m in) has the potential to be the most inter- and intra-personally challenging in the sense of dealing with their our new identity as the baby daddy. Not me! I’m lovin’ it! Of course, it could be the significant increase in caffeine I’ve consumed daily in order to combat the lack of Zs. Nevertheless, I’m sure this new caffeinated adventure will be full of the strange and the weird, like the rest of my life. With that, there should be interesting tales and experiences that will no doubt find their way into this blog.
With that, I would like to congratulate myself and the rest of the newly named baby daddies out their, and wish us good luck, we are going to need it.
Genesoni & Tallandini (2009)
The Daily Star and Daily Mail recently ran articles speculating whether Coleen Rooney had had a ‘boob job’. According to the Daily Star, apparently ‘Wayne splashed out £10,000 for his wife to have a breast enlargement as a present in the wake of allegations about him sleeping with prostitutes’. Whether Mrs Rooney has had cosmetic surgery on her breasts or not, breast augmentation tells us something about contemporary gender relations and specifically notions of femininity and female sexuality.
According to Bordo (1999: 283) the pornographisation of culture and changing media representations of girls’ and women’s bodies, since the 1950s, has meant that both girls/boys and wo/men have become socialized to expect to see female breasts as ‘glorious globes standing at attention even when supine’. She goes on to point out that ‘real breasts are the anomaly in visual culture today; it’s rather a shock when a naked actress lies down and her breasts flop off to the side. It doesn’t look right anymore’. What Bordo is arguing, is that the contemporary ‘idealised’ and ‘sexualised’ female body is one that doesn’t have ‘natural’ breasts, and as such, results in many girls and women being dissatisfied with their bodies. For some women at least, such dissatisfaction leads to breast augmentation. Indeed, statistics on plastic surgery in the UK (see link below) show many more women than men undergoing the surgeon’s knife, especially for breast enlargement.
Coleen’s £10k Boob Job
Plastic surgery in the UK
Having read the previous post ‘Dining with death’ I thought I’d offer a short gendered perspective on vegetarianism.
It is no accident that in Western cultures the vast majority of vegetarians are women – only about 30% are men. One of the key reasons for this is that there is a strong link between the eating of animal flesh and maleness (Potts and Parry, 2010). So entrenched is this connection that men’s consumption of meat is seen as an exemplar of normative masculinity (Sobal, 2005). Indeed it is widely considered to be an essential sustenance for the healthy male body. Red meat in particular is seen as important for men because it consists of muscle (much like the prototypical image of the male body), which provides for strength, energy and virility. Red meat is frequently eaten in a semi-cooked or near raw state with signs of blood thereby symbolising vitality and strength (Potts and Parry, 2010).
Eating red meat in a more or less raw state also enables a power relationship to be formed between the slaughtered animal and the consumer that links to masculine power and domination over nature (Fiddes, 1991). A refusal to consume meat thereby signals the opposite of red-blooded masculinity – femininity. Such gendered notions are often expressed in the media by ‘hunter-gatherer’ metaphors (Gough, 2007). Not surprisingly then, fewer men than women are vegetarian. Vegetarian men typically come under more scrutiny than women and often bear the brunt of ridicule for their choice of food.
Posted in Culture and Diversity, Gender, Health
Tagged Femininity, Gender, hunter-gatherer, Masculinity, meat consumption, muscle, strength, Vegetarianism, vitality