#genderwars

[shazz]

(Watch: Netflix’s Knock Down the House trailer brings a little hope - Vox)

Can. Not. Wait.

[tjlambert]

#norm #gender #art #artist #artwork #confusion #identity #image #painting #genderwars #conformity #sexuality #choices #life #society #emotions #male #female #mentalhealthawareness #illustration

[pureflawesomeness-blog]

People want to be Luke Skywalkers, but nobody wants to be Darth Vader's child

[tettufu-blog]

Oh look 😂 #GenderWARS #whocares (but I gotta go to the bathroom and there's no MENS BATHROOM) 😤

[nb90s]

Dear Anita, Where are you?

Gender wars raged on in the ‘90s and were predominantly incited by the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas case. Having, quite literally, a man versus woman trial that pertained to a sexual comment automatically opened the doors for people to choose a side based on gender, and the media didn’t do anything to suppress this, rather they, essentially, encouraged it. Vavrus said, “Probably the most discussed dimension of the Hill-Thomas hearings was how they foregrounded sexual harassment as a grave problem that threatened the well-being of professional women” (40). By making this case about a “grave problem for women” a rift was created and a gender panic came to the forefront of the hearings.

Also a recurring theme during this case was the idea that Hill was mentally unstable, or throwing herself at Thomas, pretty much blaming Hill for everything. While news coverage didn’t directly come out and say this, they also didn’t do much to help out a woman’s cause with this “problem for women.” Vavrus stated, “What [news segments] did do was predict that the hearings’ social effects would make relations between women and men uncomfortable and difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate. Men would be forced to reevaluate their actions toward women to ensure that they were not acting in a way that could be construed as harassment. Such self reflection was presented as odious and even unjust” (57). Essentially, the media presented the idea that men would draw the short end of the stick because of this case.

I’ve been thinking about how this case would have panned out if it were taking place in 2014, and I honestly think it would have the same result from a mediated standpoint. Granted, there is a ton of talk about sexual harassment and rape now— I can’t go a day on my Facebook without a video, like the NYC cat calling harassment, or some kind of campaign popping up. However, although these texts are extremely visible, that also means that the harassment is still continuing.

To me, that shows that nothing was really learned from the Hill-Thomas hearings. Yes, it opened up a dialogue about a tough subject, but now that it's 20 years after the fact, it is surprising that you can still walk around a college campus and see signs that read “Expel the Rapists” (a personal experience on a walk through the Diag the other day). I’m in no way saying that because the Hill-Thomas hearing happened that sexual harassment should just not be a thing anymore. I am just shocked at the scale on which instances still occur and it makes me wonder if people (predominantly men) still think that it is unfair to say that they are harassing women when they don’t think that they are.

In this case, timing was everything, and I think because Hill waited so long to bring this to court, it docked her credibility and the case wasn’t taken as seriously in the ‘90s as it should have been. It’d be interesting to see what would have happened if she would have spoken up sooner.