Unforeseen Circumstances

Unfortunately there is going to be a massive delay in me getting any posts to you all today or tomorrow or maybe even Monday because my laptop has gone in for repair and I can't rely on my phone to run this blog.

Hopefully it will all be better by next Saturday and we can return to the normal schedule, but I will try to keep you updated. I still haven't decided what to write for Sociology Sunday so I guess this is kind of a blessing in disguise for me... *wink*

However the next Confidence post will be all about appreciating the face and the next "wild card Monday" should be about me leaving work.

Until then, I hope you all have a wonderful week,

Speak soon,

Stephanie

Sociology Sundays: Marxism and Toy Story

Let it be known that I am a huge fan of Pixar, in fact, as I write this I am sitting in some Finding Nemo PJs and I have to say, the Toy Story trilogy is very much my favourite group of movies that exist, but there are some very interesting moments in it that I think Karl Marx might have a problem with. And being the loser that I am I will be combining two things I love, Marxism and Toy Story and telling you what Marx might say about this childhood classic.


The first thing we need to do is work out how the class system works within Andy's room. Whilst Andy and humans in general would be the obvious choice for ruling class it's also interesting to look at the dynamic between the toys so I will be splitting this into two sections. The Toys and The Humans.

THE TOYS

Firstly we should look at the main character, Woody, Woody is in a position of power, he runs Andy's room, and it all seems to be going well. From what we can tell, Woody runs the room because he is Andy's favourite. This is almost like the "god given right" Kings and Queens were bestowed in order to run a country. At first glance we would assume Marx would label this a bad thing, like he does with god given rights etc. however, I don't believe that it is as simple as that.

Whilst it is entirely possible to consider Woody a "Kingly" figure and Andy the "god-like" figure, the fact that it is okay for the rest of the toys, who all seem equal in their ranking after Woody, it could be looked at as a near-communist society with one person in power. This is, obviously, something Karl Marx would be close to liking.

If we also take into consideration that Buzz finds his way to the top very quickly and all the other toys migrate to like him we could argue that it is the choice of the "lower class" and, therefore, it is more of a chosen leader, rather than assigned. Woody is no more likely to be in charge than, say, Mr Potato Head, or Hamm, it is all to do with how the other toys perceive Woody.

Woody has also, it is assumed, been around longer than the other toys, which makes him more experienced, now whilst I am not 100% sure on Marx's opinion of electing the smartest person to lead a group, I know that Gramsci, is definitely all for "counter-hegemonic blocs" which means a group of in the know "working class" people using their smarts to overrule the oppressive 1%.

However, the only time where is it 100% clear who the oppressive toy is, is in the third movie with Lotso. He is a dictator with a group that do all the work for him in oppressing all the toys who step out of line, using devices such as CCTV, Prison and even torture (the sandbox). This is, personally, one of the best aspects of Toy Story 3 and, of course we get the brilliant line from "Marxist Barbie"...

THE HUMANS

As I mentioned before, within Andy's Room the Toys appear to be happy to be ruled over by Andy, he is like a God to them, someone they look up to and rely on, even after he has thrown out a lot of the toys. Heck Woody loses the his love interest, Bo Peep all because Andy grew too old for her, but Woody looks up to Andy in a way that this doesn't deter him at all. This is something Marx hated. He hated religion, he called it "the opium of the people" because it was and is something that some people blindly follow even if they don't agree with everything they are doing. It is something, according to Marx, that wealthy people created to keep the poor subdued. Lenin called it "spiritual gin" and this seems to be the case for Woody and his friends. They all follow Andy or Bonnie (presumably) no matter what. Heck, Jessie was cast aside by Emily and even she eventually gave into another human.

What Woody does with Sid is a perfect example of a revolution from the "underclass" the toys all group together to prevent another injustice being done aka the killing of one of their kind. This, to me, is amazing, it is exactly what Marx wants from all the working class people in the world and it is exactly what I want to see in my favourite movie series of all time. 

Thanks Pixar for introducing adult themes into kids movies, they have influenced me so much in my interest in politics and other issues like pollution, bravery, and feminism. (See Wall.E, Monsters Inc, and Brave)

So yeah, there are a few thoughts I had about Toy Story, this was fun for me, I basically got to combine two of my favourite things.

I haven't decided on a topic for next week so let me know what you would like to see and I will give it a go.

Until next time,

Stephanie

The Sociologist Series: Marxism and Schooling

I don't know if I ever mentioned this, but I have been studying sociology for four years and one topic that interests me more than almost anything else is looking at our education system and looking at the way others perceive it. I will warn you now that because of this I have created my own bias towards these topics which, for me at least, are justified. That being said I am always open to new ideas, but for now I will just write what I know.

Marxists are, perhaps, my favourite group of sociologists, from Althusser to Zaretsky (see what I did there?) and I find the Marxist approach to education particularly enthralling. I don't know what it is about their approaches, but they all make so much sense to me.

An outline of the Marxist perspective on education:

So Marxists believe that society is split into two classes, the working class and the ruling class. The ruling class are the richest people who run businesses etc. and the working class are... well workers, they work for minimum wage and are, according to Marxists, oppressed. This translates into the school system as well. With public and private schools running alongside one another there are bound to be a few children with a better chance in life than others. As well as this parents with more money are able to provide essential and non-essential items to help their children out with homework and they can provide tutors when their child is doing less well in certain subjects.

Whilst there are a few exceptions to this rule it's very rare that a child from a very low income family will be able to break through these barriers. It's not just a money issue, working class families have less interest in schooling because their parents and their parents before them etc. "got on fine without school". They can live without any qualifications and for them, school was a place where the richer kids were treated better... and the thing is, they're not wrong.

Sociologists Rosenthal and Jacobson, and Cicourel and Kitsuse all discovered evidence of "teacher labelling" in schools. They found that teachers labelled their students as "bright" or "stupid" based on their behaviour and willingness to participate.  The teachers would then treat the "brighter" students with more respect and lend them more help whilst the "stupid" ones were often treated as a nuisance.

But why do teachers do this?

One reason for teachers having to catagorise students is that they have to achieve an average grade score. Much like students, teachers have targets they have to reach in order to keep their jobs. For this reason they tend to leave the students who comfortably sit on the A/B border to work for themselves and leave those deemed "not salvageable" at D/E/F and focus all their attention on those on the C/D border to get more students to the average of a C. Because they have these goals it can be very difficult for a teacher to remain neutral with their students.

Another reason is just a general bias, yes "not all teachers" do this intentionally, but I'm about 90% sure that most teachers are human and humans have a bias on almost everything they come into contact with.  Even though I'm sure most teachers attempt neutrality it's not always possible. A teacher is likely to take in the overall attitude, appearance, and lifestyle (yes some schools do disclose personal information like children on benefit) and they definitely know if you are on free school meals, and they can then make judgements of the students and treat them accordingly. For example, if you turn up with messy hair, a stain on your shirt, are late for any reason, and have free school meals a teacher might class you as unkempt, lazy, and, if they hold the anti-poor bias that some middle class people do, they might even think being poor is wrong and you are just mooching off the government and "living off their tax money". This can result in poor treatment, less help and being ignored.

All of this is a vicious cycle and one that Marxists have pointed out on several occasions (much to the dismay of the government who hate to admit that there is a huge gap between the wealthy or well off and the poor)

Anyway, I truly could ramble on about this for days on end, but I won't. If you are interested in anymore information on Marxists and education I can recommend reading some of the scholarly articles on google here:

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=sociology+of+education+marxist+perspective&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

That's it for today, let me know in the comments what you think,

Until next time,

Stephanie

The Sociologist Series: Feminism and Women in Music

For a long time now more and more women have been making their way onto the charts and have been winning big time at award shows for music. Despite this growing representation of women in this section of the media, is there an institutionalised sexism in the music industry?

The first thing I should mention is that I am not in any way musically inclined, I only listen to what's on the radio and I am a massive mainstream pop fan because I love singing and dancing and that genre is easy to listen to, sing to and dance to, but I feel like for this topic it is the only section of music that is a necessity for me to look at as this is the music that every generation will hear when they are driving in their cars, shopping, or just watching tv.

The first female artist I want to look at is Nicki Minaj. Nicki Minaj is, perhaps, the most successful female rapper in history, for this reason she gets a lot of negative comments. Your basic "She can't sing" "So much autotune" "She's not as good as [insert male rappers name here]", but she also gets called a "bitch" for demanding respect from those around her and she is called a "slut" because apparently she is fucking every other male artist out there. This is the kind of abuse that someone like Drake or Lil' Wayne or Eminem would never suffer from. (Literally the only male artists I can name off the top of my head) They don't suffer this kind of abuse because if they slept with multiple women or had them gyrating against them in music videos (which they do) they are players, they are male role models. If one of them demands respect they are given the respect they crave. Nicki isn't. And Nicki knows that. In this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzGZamtlRP0) she talks about the sexism against her in the industry she has chosen to go into. (I will not be mentioning the recent spat with Taylor when talking about Minaj's career and experiences as a woman because Minaj's problem was not about gender, it was about body image and race)

However, speaking about Taylor Swift we can mention this spat. In case you haven't heard Minaj
tweeted about the unjust nominations for the VMA's Music Video of the Year. Minaj's Anaconda was snubbed for the award despite it breaking multiple records and influencing our culture. After she tweeted Taylor Swift took it personally and basically called it "girl on girl hate" which was, frankly absurd. For a long time now Taylor Swift has done well in promoting feminism and she has been making massive strides for female success, but she jumped the gun a bit calling Nicki out on something that was never directed towards her in the first place. Minaj is not one to shy away from conflict and if she wanted to call Swift out, she would have just done it. This is an excellent example of White Feminism forgetting that some matters are just specific to black women or minority women and that's not something that should be a problem for white feminists. If anything support black feminist and minority group feminists in their bid to end racism and sexism.

That being said, Taylor did realise her mistake, Taylor apologised publicly and privately and she and Nicki are friends again and I for one would love to see a collaboration between the two.

The last thing I want to address is the way women are treated in music videos. The most obvious example of absolutely disgusting and vile treatment of women in a music video is Blurred Lines. Not only is the song about rape and ignoring the word "no" or absence of the word "yes", the women are also naked in the explicit version of the music video and are treated like props. It's not just pop music that treats women like this either. Hip Hop and Rap has not always been a place where women are used as props, but recently Black women in particular seem to be treated as sexual objects for men to grope or oggle at. This is just not right, but more props have to be given to the women who are slaying the music industry like Minaj, Swift, Beyonce, Fifth Harmony etc. they all manage in one way or another to ignore or even speak up against all the body shaming and sexualising of themselves and they are all winning so many awards and showing the world that women can do it too.

There is so much more I could address, but I think that's enough for today.

As always feel free to comment your own opinion below,

Until next time,

Stephanie

The Sociologist Series: Feminism and Disney's "The Little Mermaid"

So this is like a new thing I am trying out where I analyse a popular piece of film, literature, or even a song, from the perspective of a group of sociologists. Today I have picked a classic Disney film, The Little Mermaid, and in the most obvious way possible, it will be about feminism.


Disclaimer: As I consider myself to be a feminist these are my opinions on feminism applied to this movie, but feminism is an umbrella term for many individuals who may disagree with me on this movie's positives and negatives.

Firstly it's worth noting that this movie does pass the Bechdel Test... sort of. Ariel's story does appear to focus on Eric and her mindless love for him, but she does actually discuss becoming a human with Ursula (of course one of the reasons for her wanting to become human is Eric anyway, but the discussion is not directly about him so it passes)

The Bechdel Test, of course, is not the be all and end all of a feminist movie, or at least a female positive one anyway.

The main argument for this movie not being a step forward for women is that she falls in love with a man she doesn't know, and he rescues her, she gives up her voice for him and leaves her whole family and life as she knows it under the sea for him. He dictates her every move and they get married after three days of knowing each other (of course with some set backs)

However, it is worth mentioning that Ariel was in love with the "human world" first, she always wanted to be part of our world, but she never had a real plan. How would she cope on land without a home or food or anything. So she got clever, she found a hot guy with a shit tonne of money (a prince no less!) and she got him to love her back. By providing herself with this safety net she wouldn't be homeless when she got her legs.

Well that's how I would like to see it anyway, but that's very idealistic of me. The truth is The Little Mermaid is a good female empowering film in the sense that it does give girl's the idea that it is good to chase your dreams no matter what your father or a talking crab says (and yes, Sebastian is a crab not a lobster) and it teaches girls that it is okay to be different and want different things.

On the other hand, it teaches girls to put men first, and to put all your hopes into one man and not into yourself. It teaches girls that to look pretty you have to have a tiny waist and flowing locks of hair and receive the praise of a man to feel good about yourself.

But for me there is one thing about The Little Mermaid that really makes it good in the eyes of a feminist and that is King Triton.

I know it's odd to see a man as the ultimate feminist icon (very Parks and Recreation's Ron receiving Woman of the Year) but here's the thing. Feminism isn't about hating men it's about hating the Patriarchy and one of the things that comes out of the patriarchy is toxic masculinity. And toxic masculinity is the very thing Triton, in my eyes, helps to destroy.

At the beginning of the movie, King Triton is angry and masculine almost all the time in front
of Ariel, he never seems to care about feelings or emotions or love (and rightly so in the case of  Eric, like she never met the guy and wanted to spend the rest of her life with him? Kay Ariel), but when her back was turned you could see that he was stressed, he had no idea what he was doing, it's clear the mother is no longer there (presumably death I don't know if that's in the original story or not) and Triton has been left with the responsibility of SEVEN DAUGHTERS! I would find that difficult enough let alone also being King of the Sea.

Anyway getting off track.

Triton sees Ariel putting herself in danger, going above sea to watch the human world, who would definitely catch her, run tests on her, maybe kill her (almost definitely kill her) and he panics and shouts, he becomes a typical "manly man" which drives her away.

Now we compare this to the man we see at the end. He sacrifices himself for his daughter so that she can go on with her life, he doesn't tell her "I'll do this if you stay under the sea" he just does it, because that's what a good parent does. And at the very end he goes to her wedding and gives his (presumed) blessing for her to do something he perceived as dangerous. (In the Little Mermaid 2, lord help us all, he does the same for Melody, he does whatever he can to make his girls happy and he becomes a more kind-hearted person by the end of it)

So yeah, my opinion is that Ariel has her moments and of course having the woman as a main character is great (same with most popular Disney movies) and passing the bechdel test is grand too, but in this movie, Triton, for me, does the best job in dismantling a barrier put in the way by the patriarchy.

I am aware many feminists will see this as a problem as I have named a man the feminist character in this story, but meh, I think men can suffer from the hands of the patriarchy too so... yay for smashing toxic masculinity Triton!

At the end of the day though this movie has not revolutionised the way the world sees women or men, so in times like this we turn to Sebastian for words of wisdom about this place we call home...

Truer words were never spoken.

As always feel free to leave me your opinions in the comments below,

Until next time,

Stephanie