It all happened at Harvard
2003-02-28 � 9:54 a.m.

First things last — yes, everyone knows that two things of major import happened yesterday: Fred Rogers died and there was absolute, concrete confirmation that Buffy, the Vampire Slayer is over.

(I don't really mean to equate the two, it just stems from a conversation my roommate and I had last night.)

Mr. Rogers ruled. I would talk about him a bunch, but people far wiser and more poetic than myself have said everything that needs to be said already. By Pope, for instance. Moving stuff. I highly recommend.

Since I'm going all link-a-rific on you already, let's talk about this.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, some would say I am a feminist in my own right (depending on your definition, of course), but this literally made my mouth gape.

Before I started second-guessing myself I couldn't help but feel that a mountain was being made of a molehill in this instance. Was the "sculpture" inappropriate? Yeah, probably. Was it intended to be threatening, demeaning, violent or abusive? No.

We can all picture these guys building the damn thing. Giggling, horsing around, doing exactly what the crew captain intended — hanging out and bonding as a group outside of crew.

Now, that being said, I can also see the other side of the coin. I can see finding the damn thing gross and/or disgusting. I can see not being amused in the slightest. I can even see tearing it down out of those feelings. I think that the crew captain was dead on when he said that the offended parties had every right to destroy it if they felt it was necessary (and I think that such an attitude is demonstrative of the intent as well).

Where I have a problem is in automatically labeling the sculpture itself as "pornographic." Yeah, I can see how such a display could be found to be threatening by some people of a certain mindset (a rape survivor for instance), but I don't think it is inherently violent and pornographic. Are all displays of male sexuality violent and pornographic? Or just the ones that are presented in an unendorsed fashion? Why does the display of male genitalia automatically become a "menacing reminder of women's sexual vulnerability?" Yes, you can take the sculpture as an object indicative of a recognized underlying social problem, and act on those images as appropriate, but the images and representations themselves are only as threatening and powerful as you let them be. The women quoted in this article just seem to me to be all too ready to play the victim, and that's pretty scary.

You can be damn sure that if the same sculpture had been presented in a different context — if, for instance, it had been made by women and had a little sign stuck up next to it proclaiming it as "art," as "commentary" — it would have been lauded, protected, glorified and celebrated. "A brilliant public display decrying the power of the male phallo-centric culture that pervades our society!"

So does the maker of an object influence the value or impact of said object? Sure. Of course. But only to a certain extent. So does the forum through which an object is presented. So does the intended audience. So do a million other factors.

The most troubling part of the entire story to me is the part that receives the least amount of attention: the actions of the students whilst the sculpture was being dismantled. If the account is one hundred percent factual — and I honestly have my doubts about that due entirely to the way the woman in question recounts the event, but that's beside the point; I'm willing to concede the possibility that she's telling the plain truth and not embellishing the event to make it seem bigger than it was — then that is where the focus should lie. Why would people feel justified in physically preventing and threatening those females who were attempting to dismantle the sculpture? There is no justification for such actions, and any feeling that there is needs to be firmly and immediately corrected.

And yet there doesn't seem to be any concern about that. Instead we get to hear some pretty thin theoretical reaching about how this snowman (heh) is just another facet of public male power-assertion like (!) missiles and the Washington Monument.

All in all, a disquieting article, and likely not for the reasons most people would be troubled (if they could bother to be troubled at all). Please feel free to tell me I'm being a dork if you think that I am. I'm completely able to take criticism, and I am often worried about my own attitudes about such things and welcome discussion.

Shew. I'm gonna go read some comics now. This makes my brain hurt.

-t

Currently Aurally Inducing:
Selection of the Lyrical Vocabulary:

[ last ] [ next ]

�	Int4rw3b Personals

�	Gene Wolfe

�

Image Fix

�	Again, I Return. (Gonna have to knock this off...)

�	A Return of Sorts