I found this video on youtube called '10 Reasons to hate Hillary Clinton', made by a group of American teenage boys. Every reason seems to include some sort of sexist remark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtpdd6hnX6I
'She's not in the kitchen, and I'm hungry'
'She's more of a man that i'll ever be, and I'm jealous'
'She cant control her husband, so she cant control this country'
'the war will never end: P.M.S.'
'REASON NUMBER ONE: She's a woman, nuff said'
---
The video shows a group of white American males expressing their prejudiced views who seem to be taking on the role of 'stupid white men'. It seems to me like the 'crisis of white masculinity' reigns here. They need to emphasise their sexist views by stating their disagreements with the idea of a female president, especially one that is seen as strong and 'more manly' than they are.
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Thursday, 8 May 2008
'Is Barack Obama too smart to be President?'
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/6694
Is Barack Obama too smart to be President?
I have recently come across a few articles that actually seem to be questioning if Obama is too intelligent to become President. The first article above asks if Obama can give Americans what they really want, being ‘fewer real ideas and more schmuck and jive’.
The article provides the views of Roger Simon who suggests that Americans do not want their Presidents too be too brainy and are ‘too dumb to know what they want from their leaders’, calling upon the idea of America as a stupid nation.
The problem with seeming too intelligent is that ‘braininess is elitist’ and to be elitist in America is never seen as a good thing – especially as President.
Obama is said to have to ‘modified his has modified his stump speech to try and broaden his populist appeal’ – in other words dumb down his speeches, so that he can appeal to ‘stupid America’.
As Obama’s intelligence is now being questioned, the idea of Clinton being criticised for being too intelligent for a woman can also be re-assessed. There have been arguments that Clinton is criticised because people do not like intelligent and powerful women, but if Obama is now being criticised for the same thing maybe it is not just a sexist idea. It is said that Bill Clinton had to hide his intelligence whilst in office and played on his southern roots instead to keep his mass appeal, so it seems as though Obama may have to do the same thing appeal to America.
As Susan Jacoby has stated in her book The Age of American Unreason, 'America is ill with a powerful mutant strain of intertwined ignorance, anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism', which Obama and Clinton now have to play to, to maintain popularity with the masses.
Is Barack Obama too smart to be President?
I have recently come across a few articles that actually seem to be questioning if Obama is too intelligent to become President. The first article above asks if Obama can give Americans what they really want, being ‘fewer real ideas and more schmuck and jive’.
The article provides the views of Roger Simon who suggests that Americans do not want their Presidents too be too brainy and are ‘too dumb to know what they want from their leaders’, calling upon the idea of America as a stupid nation.
The problem with seeming too intelligent is that ‘braininess is elitist’ and to be elitist in America is never seen as a good thing – especially as President.
Obama is said to have to ‘modified his has modified his stump speech to try and broaden his populist appeal’ – in other words dumb down his speeches, so that he can appeal to ‘stupid America’.
As Obama’s intelligence is now being questioned, the idea of Clinton being criticised for being too intelligent for a woman can also be re-assessed. There have been arguments that Clinton is criticised because people do not like intelligent and powerful women, but if Obama is now being criticised for the same thing maybe it is not just a sexist idea. It is said that Bill Clinton had to hide his intelligence whilst in office and played on his southern roots instead to keep his mass appeal, so it seems as though Obama may have to do the same thing appeal to America.
As Susan Jacoby has stated in her book The Age of American Unreason, 'America is ill with a powerful mutant strain of intertwined ignorance, anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism', which Obama and Clinton now have to play to, to maintain popularity with the masses.
'Hillary Clinton is too ambitious to be the first female president'
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/hillary_clinton_is_too
By Gerald Collins
The writer of this article above states foremost that he thinks it is time that a woman became the president of the USA, but lists many reasons why it should not be Hillary Clinton.
Collins states how he does not like the way Clinton is so self-promoting and acts like she knows better than anyone else (which brings about the idea of Clinton maybe appearing too intelligent and too headstrong for a woman to become President).
He expresses the case for why it is time for a female president (‘women can be just as smart and qualified as men’) but at the same time, there is a small hint of male chauvinism. By stating ‘I'd rather see a female presidential candidate who wasn't so focused on herself and her political aspirations’ and how she should ‘start thinking about acting a little more ladylike’, gives off an impression that she should not take on a ‘man’s job’. If a male candidate was focused on his political aspirations it would probably be seen as ‘normal’, but because Clinton is an intelligent woman with aspirations, Collins is criticising her for it.
When he states ‘not to mention the fact that, as a working woman, she should take those precious Sundays to spend some time with her family, not to meet with the press on national television’, it begs the question would he say the same thing about Obama?
Collins seems to contradict himself slightly in this article, and seems to just confirm some of the prejudices against Clinton for being too intelligent and headstrong and maybe too much of a ‘man’, which she has been criticised for by feminists as well.
By Gerald Collins
The writer of this article above states foremost that he thinks it is time that a woman became the president of the USA, but lists many reasons why it should not be Hillary Clinton.
Collins states how he does not like the way Clinton is so self-promoting and acts like she knows better than anyone else (which brings about the idea of Clinton maybe appearing too intelligent and too headstrong for a woman to become President).
He expresses the case for why it is time for a female president (‘women can be just as smart and qualified as men’) but at the same time, there is a small hint of male chauvinism. By stating ‘I'd rather see a female presidential candidate who wasn't so focused on herself and her political aspirations’ and how she should ‘start thinking about acting a little more ladylike’, gives off an impression that she should not take on a ‘man’s job’. If a male candidate was focused on his political aspirations it would probably be seen as ‘normal’, but because Clinton is an intelligent woman with aspirations, Collins is criticising her for it.
When he states ‘not to mention the fact that, as a working woman, she should take those precious Sundays to spend some time with her family, not to meet with the press on national television’, it begs the question would he say the same thing about Obama?
Collins seems to contradict himself slightly in this article, and seems to just confirm some of the prejudices against Clinton for being too intelligent and headstrong and maybe too much of a ‘man’, which she has been criticised for by feminists as well.
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Will "elitist" label stick to Obama?
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/16/elitism/index.html
The above article captures, i believe, very much the essence of what we have been examining, articulating the paradoxical and slippery nature of political intelligence expectations in America.
First off, the irony-in contemplating and publicly analysing what they call "a potentially toxic image problem" the author Kristi Keck is arguably engaging- at least to an extent- in exactly the elitism on which she comments.
Keck goes onto set the background for the irony that laces the issue when she reminds that, beneath anything else, the presidential office is by its very nature an elitist position.
Accusations of elitism are, notes Keck, an ever-present trap in presidential campaigning, Obama's opponents, for example, jumped on a comment about small town residents bitter over gun laws. Hillary Clinton joined in the condemnation by branding Obama "elitist, out of touch, and frankly patronising".
Yet Clinton herself has by turns highlighted her privelaged education, whilst also posing for publicity shots with guns and beer.
Republicans have historically made a tactic out of portraying their Democratic rivals as the "liberal elite", placing emphasis on their ability to connect to the "everyman" in America.
What makes the difference, suggests Keck, is the way that a candidate responds to such allegations- former democratic candidates Kerry and Gore failed because, she says, they allowed such a label to stick.
However, that is not to say that fighting back does not pose its own risks, as a candidate could then be branded uppity and too un-elite.
Therefore, it again comes down to-as i have mentioned in a previous post- a candidates public approval and whether voters want to look positively on a stance, a situation that appears to have served Obama well so far.
In a quote from Dr. Drew Western of Emory University, Keck sums up the crux of the situation;
"I do think it speaks to one of the conflicts that Americans have about their leaders, which is that we want them to be like us, and we want them to be above us at the same time".
The above article captures, i believe, very much the essence of what we have been examining, articulating the paradoxical and slippery nature of political intelligence expectations in America.
First off, the irony-in contemplating and publicly analysing what they call "a potentially toxic image problem" the author Kristi Keck is arguably engaging- at least to an extent- in exactly the elitism on which she comments.
Keck goes onto set the background for the irony that laces the issue when she reminds that, beneath anything else, the presidential office is by its very nature an elitist position.
Accusations of elitism are, notes Keck, an ever-present trap in presidential campaigning, Obama's opponents, for example, jumped on a comment about small town residents bitter over gun laws. Hillary Clinton joined in the condemnation by branding Obama "elitist, out of touch, and frankly patronising".
Yet Clinton herself has by turns highlighted her privelaged education, whilst also posing for publicity shots with guns and beer.
Republicans have historically made a tactic out of portraying their Democratic rivals as the "liberal elite", placing emphasis on their ability to connect to the "everyman" in America.
What makes the difference, suggests Keck, is the way that a candidate responds to such allegations- former democratic candidates Kerry and Gore failed because, she says, they allowed such a label to stick.
However, that is not to say that fighting back does not pose its own risks, as a candidate could then be branded uppity and too un-elite.
Therefore, it again comes down to-as i have mentioned in a previous post- a candidates public approval and whether voters want to look positively on a stance, a situation that appears to have served Obama well so far.
In a quote from Dr. Drew Western of Emory University, Keck sums up the crux of the situation;
"I do think it speaks to one of the conflicts that Americans have about their leaders, which is that we want them to be like us, and we want them to be above us at the same time".
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
Obama's Bold Gamble on Race
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1723302,00.html
The above article comments on a speech that Barack Obama made in response to public concern about the racial views expressed by his own pastor.
The speech was particularly striking as it was Obama's first real departure from the strategy of treating race as a non-issue, in contrast to the tactics of Hillary Clinton, who has consistently made her gender a part of her campaign.
Obama had therefore been treading a fine line of commenting via not commenting, a tactic which also relies, to some extent, on public acceptance and confidence.
Without the latter, Obama's actions would, arguably, inevitably be seen as negative.
This particular, brand of appeal has been evident throughout the campaign.
Directly making race an "issue" was thus a huge risk, acknowledgement threatening presumed endorsement.
On an issue that those in power rarely asked the public themselves to confront, Obama handed just such a challenge to the people of America, not demanding that they came up with a definite answer, he sought only that Americans understand that there were no such answers.
Therefore, the speech arguably displayed an ambiguous, complex quality, but this could be said to reflect the nature of the subject itself.
It may not have been the simpler, definitive message prefered by politicians, but that commentators and the public allowed Obama to give this speech, and responded to it positively, is revealing of their connection to the candidate.
The above article comments on a speech that Barack Obama made in response to public concern about the racial views expressed by his own pastor.
The speech was particularly striking as it was Obama's first real departure from the strategy of treating race as a non-issue, in contrast to the tactics of Hillary Clinton, who has consistently made her gender a part of her campaign.
Obama had therefore been treading a fine line of commenting via not commenting, a tactic which also relies, to some extent, on public acceptance and confidence.
Without the latter, Obama's actions would, arguably, inevitably be seen as negative.
This particular, brand of appeal has been evident throughout the campaign.
Directly making race an "issue" was thus a huge risk, acknowledgement threatening presumed endorsement.
On an issue that those in power rarely asked the public themselves to confront, Obama handed just such a challenge to the people of America, not demanding that they came up with a definite answer, he sought only that Americans understand that there were no such answers.
Therefore, the speech arguably displayed an ambiguous, complex quality, but this could be said to reflect the nature of the subject itself.
It may not have been the simpler, definitive message prefered by politicians, but that commentators and the public allowed Obama to give this speech, and responded to it positively, is revealing of their connection to the candidate.
Hillary Clinton's "silly" Irish Peace Claims
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml&page=2
The above article reports on recent debate surrounding claims made by Hillary Clinton that, during her time as first lady, she "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland".
In doing so it raises many points about political intelligence and experience, the particularly American role of the 1st lady, and the influence of gender in a political campaign.
At stake here is firstly the question of what exactly constitutes "experience"- just how much does it matter?- and within that, ideas about the relative importance/influence carried by the role of first lady, and indeed, the role of a wife.
Her claims are imbued with gender influence when Clinton talks of hosting a meeting which bought Catholic and Protestant mothers together "for the first time", a declaration acceptable as a woman but also limited by its image as what Lord Trimble describes "a classic woman politicky sort of way".
This was also seen to collide with the cut and thrust of politics as commentators remember that particular meeting being crammed with reporters.
Gender again clashed with protocol when Hillary hugged and kissed Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness, a move that Lord Trimble suggested "lost all credibility".
But perhaps none of this matters-arguably what is interesting here is what Americans are prepared to accept, to believe, and the freedom allowed for in American political intelligence.
The above article reports on recent debate surrounding claims made by Hillary Clinton that, during her time as first lady, she "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland".
In doing so it raises many points about political intelligence and experience, the particularly American role of the 1st lady, and the influence of gender in a political campaign.
At stake here is firstly the question of what exactly constitutes "experience"- just how much does it matter?- and within that, ideas about the relative importance/influence carried by the role of first lady, and indeed, the role of a wife.
Her claims are imbued with gender influence when Clinton talks of hosting a meeting which bought Catholic and Protestant mothers together "for the first time", a declaration acceptable as a woman but also limited by its image as what Lord Trimble describes "a classic woman politicky sort of way".
This was also seen to collide with the cut and thrust of politics as commentators remember that particular meeting being crammed with reporters.
Gender again clashed with protocol when Hillary hugged and kissed Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness, a move that Lord Trimble suggested "lost all credibility".
But perhaps none of this matters-arguably what is interesting here is what Americans are prepared to accept, to believe, and the freedom allowed for in American political intelligence.
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
Stupid white men films
As i get ready for my presentation on 'stuid white men films' such as american pic and road trip. I was wondering whether anyone had any suggestions on topics they would like me to bring up? such as why these films are so populuar!! any suggestions would be helpful
Thursday, 13 March 2008
Anti Hillary
http://www.nohillaryforpresident.com/hillary-president-forum/
This website is a forum devoted against hillary clinton and many peoples views on the woman candidate. The site contains alot of useful information why people should not vote for Hillary Clinton. If you look at the site many people have there views on what is wrong about her campaign and views on how to run America.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm
This website goes through many of the issues that Hillary is bringing up in her campaign and comparing them to the issues that were won under other presidents. This is a useful site for information as you can see all the polices that she is fighting for. Also shows what the other presidents have commited themselves to.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/17/usa.hillaryclinton
This site is an article which is written explaining how people are trying to find out the worse about Hillary and what issues they will bring up to get dirt on her. This shows the dirty side of politics where people are always trying to find dirt on you so they can move ahead.
This website is a forum devoted against hillary clinton and many peoples views on the woman candidate. The site contains alot of useful information why people should not vote for Hillary Clinton. If you look at the site many people have there views on what is wrong about her campaign and views on how to run America.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm
This website goes through many of the issues that Hillary is bringing up in her campaign and comparing them to the issues that were won under other presidents. This is a useful site for information as you can see all the polices that she is fighting for. Also shows what the other presidents have commited themselves to.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/17/usa.hillaryclinton
This site is an article which is written explaining how people are trying to find out the worse about Hillary and what issues they will bring up to get dirt on her. This shows the dirty side of politics where people are always trying to find dirt on you so they can move ahead.
Monday, 10 March 2008
Anti-Hillary websites
- This website is against Hillary Clinton, as they see her as a 'generic female presidential candidate' that could not cope in the times we are living in - such as the War on Terror. It seems to suggest that this is a man's job at this moment in time, and this generic female would fare better in 'ordinary times'.
-They also see her as inflicting mistreatment on real-life women as much as her 'mysogynist' husband.
-There are many anti-Hillary posters, one even comparing her to Stalin.
-Videos to 'Vote Smart' - as a warning to all women against her.
-This website shows itself to be based on facts and not on gender...until the person who ran the website posted a recent blog 'I’m going to break one the cardinal rules that I set for this site, which was that we would not make gender an issue in this campaign'. If he is stating this now, surely this would have always been the case. He says how there are clear differences between men and women, because of not being able to deal with emotions. This person does not want a president who cries through all the struggles.
-Although advertised as a non-gender argument web-site, there is an advert at the bottom of the page which states 'I'm a stay at home mom, come see what i do to make thousands from home in my spare time'... suggesting a woman's place is at home, and not in the white house.
Answers being:
-"we came to the conclusion that it is because she is smart, articulate, accomplished. She is a policy wonk. Yes, in the end, people hate Hillary for the same reason that they distrust intellectuals, writers and other thinkers. The fact that they think at all."
-They also see her as inflicting mistreatment on real-life women as much as her 'mysogynist' husband.
-There are many anti-Hillary posters, one even comparing her to Stalin.
-Videos to 'Vote Smart' - as a warning to all women against her.
-This website shows itself to be based on facts and not on gender...until the person who ran the website posted a recent blog 'I’m going to break one the cardinal rules that I set for this site, which was that we would not make gender an issue in this campaign'. If he is stating this now, surely this would have always been the case. He says how there are clear differences between men and women, because of not being able to deal with emotions. This person does not want a president who cries through all the struggles.
-Although advertised as a non-gender argument web-site, there is an advert at the bottom of the page which states 'I'm a stay at home mom, come see what i do to make thousands from home in my spare time'... suggesting a woman's place is at home, and not in the white house.
- There are many websites which try to explain why people hate Hillary, and one in particular relates to what SISII has been talking about so far:
Answers being:
-"we came to the conclusion that it is because she is smart, articulate, accomplished. She is a policy wonk. Yes, in the end, people hate Hillary for the same reason that they distrust intellectuals, writers and other thinkers. The fact that they think at all."
Friday, 7 March 2008
Pro Hillary Clinton Websites: The interplay between notions of gender and other qualities
I have been investigating the presence of Hillary Clinton's supporters on the internet, and how perceptions of her gender are being enacted, and not enacted, in relation to other qualities in order to present her in a positive light.
On www.votehillary.org, a news item picks up on Clinton's recent endorsement by the American Nurses Association.
Here, the perceived centrality of women in the issue of healthcare and health care provision ( both literally, in the proliferation of women in nursing and as care-givers in the family)- the is played out alongside Hilary's pro position on universal care (a socialist, more caring approach?) and her power in being able to possibly turn this into governmental action.
As a women, "surrounding herself with nurses" is a powerful image, and one that could not work (at least, not so well) for a male candidate, as Clinton is seen to understand these nurses.
On www.hillaryclinton.com, a news item picks up on Women's History Month.
Here, Hillary's gender is enacted to display her solidarity and understanding of women's issues,
whilst her career- in traditionally male sphere's such as law, and now politics- is referenced to show how she has used her own personal achievements- and the development of that same womens history- to make a difference on these issues.
Whether Clinton has had to become more masculine in order to get ahead adds another dimension.
Additionally, in the menu of her opinions on individual issues, "champion of women" is listed as a section of its own.
On hillblazers.com- "Young Leaders for Hillary"- there is clearly a buzz about recent visits by Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, to universities around the US, during which Chelsea has spoken about her mother's plans to help families and students.
Firstly, its interesting to note that Chelsea is being used in part for this part of the campaign, perhaps as an indication that nothing is as powerful as a young voice to speak on youth issues, something Hillary could never authentically have.
In speaking for her mother, Chelsea is helping to enact Hillary's role as a mother and wife, as part of a family unit.
Interestingly, Chelsea appears to have achieved a little of the status of her mother, solidifying narratives of female achievement and highlighting one of mother-daughter closeness.
On www.votehillary.org, a news item picks up on Clinton's recent endorsement by the American Nurses Association.
Here, the perceived centrality of women in the issue of healthcare and health care provision ( both literally, in the proliferation of women in nursing and as care-givers in the family)- the is played out alongside Hilary's pro position on universal care (a socialist, more caring approach?) and her power in being able to possibly turn this into governmental action.
As a women, "surrounding herself with nurses" is a powerful image, and one that could not work (at least, not so well) for a male candidate, as Clinton is seen to understand these nurses.
On www.hillaryclinton.com, a news item picks up on Women's History Month.
Here, Hillary's gender is enacted to display her solidarity and understanding of women's issues,
whilst her career- in traditionally male sphere's such as law, and now politics- is referenced to show how she has used her own personal achievements- and the development of that same womens history- to make a difference on these issues.
Whether Clinton has had to become more masculine in order to get ahead adds another dimension.
Additionally, in the menu of her opinions on individual issues, "champion of women" is listed as a section of its own.
On hillblazers.com- "Young Leaders for Hillary"- there is clearly a buzz about recent visits by Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, to universities around the US, during which Chelsea has spoken about her mother's plans to help families and students.
Firstly, its interesting to note that Chelsea is being used in part for this part of the campaign, perhaps as an indication that nothing is as powerful as a young voice to speak on youth issues, something Hillary could never authentically have.
In speaking for her mother, Chelsea is helping to enact Hillary's role as a mother and wife, as part of a family unit.
Interestingly, Chelsea appears to have achieved a little of the status of her mother, solidifying narratives of female achievement and highlighting one of mother-daughter closeness.
Thursday, 6 March 2008
White Male Films
The possibly different ways in which Hollywood 'stupid white male' films (Waynes World, Bill and Ted, American Pie, etc.) are viewed and reviewed in the UK as opposed to in the US. Do British viewers, for example, tend to see these films as evidence of a general US 'stupidity'?
This is an interesting question to ask and one that can have an argument on both sides. Film such as 'American Pie' do give the UK public a bad conception of their american cousins. As it portrays them in such a way as to make them seem stupid and imature. But you can also see this from the other side where it is simple a comedy and is there to entertain people and make them laugh. The general audience for these films are ranged between 13 - 25. This is the so called 'MTV' Genertaion where people were brought up on TV and movies. If we look at the film Forest Gump, this portrays the life of a simple white man who achieves great things. Though he is seen as stupid, throughout the film you see what amazing thing's he does with his life. Many people see this as a perception of George Bush as his intelligence is always put to the test by the press and public,. but yet he is president of the united states of America. The films are showing that you dont have to be the smartest American to be sucessful but if luck falls your way you can still make it or live the ' American Dream'.
This is an interesting question to ask and one that can have an argument on both sides. Film such as 'American Pie' do give the UK public a bad conception of their american cousins. As it portrays them in such a way as to make them seem stupid and imature. But you can also see this from the other side where it is simple a comedy and is there to entertain people and make them laugh. The general audience for these films are ranged between 13 - 25. This is the so called 'MTV' Genertaion where people were brought up on TV and movies. If we look at the film Forest Gump, this portrays the life of a simple white man who achieves great things. Though he is seen as stupid, throughout the film you see what amazing thing's he does with his life. Many people see this as a perception of George Bush as his intelligence is always put to the test by the press and public,. but yet he is president of the united states of America. The films are showing that you dont have to be the smartest American to be sucessful but if luck falls your way you can still make it or live the ' American Dream'.
Friday, 29 February 2008
Third Meeting
Scheduled for 1pm Thursday 13 March (week 6) in my office again. Precise topic to emerge from this weblog - watch this space and get blogging!
Also think about your choice of topic for the presentation element of the module, to take place after Easter.
JD
Also think about your choice of topic for the presentation element of the module, to take place after Easter.
JD
Progress Report: Second/Third Meetings
Interesting discussion on 28 Feb. meeting re: the 'Mapping Stupidity' article. We considered how the stupidity/intelligence binary configures various relationships touched on in the article, especially the valency of the North/Southern USA, via such examples as Sweet Home Alabama and 'My Name is Earl,' as well as the Bush/Clinton/Forrest Gump paradigms. We also emphasised how for those with marginalised identities the strategy of 'playing stupid' is much more problematic. From there, we considered what was at stake in validations of Barack Obama's inexperience (notably by Robert de Niro) and in antifeminist contructions of Hillary Clinton.
In terms of future work, we identified the following as interesting directions to follow:
1. The ideologies brought to bear in pro- and anti-Hillary Clinton discourses, especially but not only in terms of the experience/inexperience issue in the Obama/Clinton campaign.
2. The possibly different ways in which Hollywood 'stupid white male' films (Waynes World, Bill and Ted, American Pie, etc.) are viewed and reviewed in the UK as opposed to in the US. Do British viewers, for example, tend to see these films as evidence of a general US 'stupidity'?
Russell and Philippa agreed to investigate these respectively and post their findings. John could you either add a third interest, or contribute to these?
thanks
JD
In terms of future work, we identified the following as interesting directions to follow:
1. The ideologies brought to bear in pro- and anti-Hillary Clinton discourses, especially but not only in terms of the experience/inexperience issue in the Obama/Clinton campaign.
2. The possibly different ways in which Hollywood 'stupid white male' films (Waynes World, Bill and Ted, American Pie, etc.) are viewed and reviewed in the UK as opposed to in the US. Do British viewers, for example, tend to see these films as evidence of a general US 'stupidity'?
Russell and Philippa agreed to investigate these respectively and post their findings. John could you either add a third interest, or contribute to these?
thanks
JD
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Reflections on Stupid White Men: Toward a political mapping of stupidity
This piece drew me to consider issues of power and identity.
-Where stupidity would normally be considered a negative identity, it is interesting to note that America has been able to powerfully reappropriate it, to give it an additional, more positive context- something that perhaps a more marginalised group would not be "permitted" to do.
Moreover it reveals a confidence in the use of this power.
-Clearly there are levels at which the guise of stupidity can and cannot be used, that it is employed domestically suggests that it is something that the American public genuinely responds to.
-The place of stupidity in creating a sense of redemption, reconciliation- simplicity at the base of therapuetic community, which America has historically and powerfully deployed as a response to trauma.
-Where stupidity would normally be considered a negative identity, it is interesting to note that America has been able to powerfully reappropriate it, to give it an additional, more positive context- something that perhaps a more marginalised group would not be "permitted" to do.
Moreover it reveals a confidence in the use of this power.
-Clearly there are levels at which the guise of stupidity can and cannot be used, that it is employed domestically suggests that it is something that the American public genuinely responds to.
-The place of stupidity in creating a sense of redemption, reconciliation- simplicity at the base of therapuetic community, which America has historically and powerfully deployed as a response to trauma.
Sunday, 24 February 2008
Last Meeting
The meeting we just had was a good one for a starting point for a module. Alot of interesting points came up such as George Bush and Television. These will be interesting topics to study throughout the semester.Although myself, I am more interested in the sporting side of American culture this can still be adapted in this module via David Beckham.Overall a good meeting with some topics that interest me.
Response to 'Transnational American Studies'
-The “stupid white man” being seen as ‘rejuvenating conservative forms of straight white masculinity into the public sphere’ in the 1990s-2000s is what gives the ‘dumb’ view of America to other countries, especially those in Europe.
-I found interesting reading the idea of American stupidity vs. English intelligence, and how the two world leaders were viewed differently over the same subject of the war in Iraq. ‘Bush is an idiot, but what is Blair’s excuse?’ is a quote that struck me because although it is clear that both leaders were untruthful, they were treated in different ways because of how they addressed their nations, with Blair being more resented because of being ‘intelligent’. Bush’s reputation was far less damaged by taking a moralistic ground.
-The way the article ends with ‘the consequences of stupidity, in the forms of misrecognition and failure to plan, can be catastrophic’, can relate to an article I found ‘Why Bush’s stupidity is a threat’ by Matthew Yglesias:
http://www.alternet.org/story/39770/
:“The real problem is that the risk of a wider regional war involving the United States remains. And if that risk becomes a reality, our country will be led into it by a president who doesn't seem to grasp what's happening.”
-The idea of the stupidity being hilarious…until something uncontrollable happens is further explored in this article, because Bush seems to not really know what is going on around him. It seems like this ‘desired presidential quality’ (quote from West Wing) of stupidity could cause major repercussions.
-Towards the end of the Transnational American Studies article is mentioned how the emergence of the ‘stupid white men’ came at a time when other identity movements were becoming stronger such as civil rights, gay and lesbian and femininity, so I would have liked to have read more about how this may have left white men looking for a new identity so that their power was not so under threat - the idea of the ‘crisis of white masculinity’. This is an area I would like to study further into, as I could relate it to my FYP as well, with the early 90s a time period I am looking at with gay identity in contemporary American film.
-I found interesting reading the idea of American stupidity vs. English intelligence, and how the two world leaders were viewed differently over the same subject of the war in Iraq. ‘Bush is an idiot, but what is Blair’s excuse?’ is a quote that struck me because although it is clear that both leaders were untruthful, they were treated in different ways because of how they addressed their nations, with Blair being more resented because of being ‘intelligent’. Bush’s reputation was far less damaged by taking a moralistic ground.
-The way the article ends with ‘the consequences of stupidity, in the forms of misrecognition and failure to plan, can be catastrophic’, can relate to an article I found ‘Why Bush’s stupidity is a threat’ by Matthew Yglesias:
http://www.alternet.org/story/39770/
:“The real problem is that the risk of a wider regional war involving the United States remains. And if that risk becomes a reality, our country will be led into it by a president who doesn't seem to grasp what's happening.”
-The idea of the stupidity being hilarious…until something uncontrollable happens is further explored in this article, because Bush seems to not really know what is going on around him. It seems like this ‘desired presidential quality’ (quote from West Wing) of stupidity could cause major repercussions.
-Towards the end of the Transnational American Studies article is mentioned how the emergence of the ‘stupid white men’ came at a time when other identity movements were becoming stronger such as civil rights, gay and lesbian and femininity, so I would have liked to have read more about how this may have left white men looking for a new identity so that their power was not so under threat - the idea of the ‘crisis of white masculinity’. This is an area I would like to study further into, as I could relate it to my FYP as well, with the early 90s a time period I am looking at with gay identity in contemporary American film.
Friday, 8 February 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)