Gokova is a man who has put the responsibility on men to alleviate domestic violence and other gender issues. He knows that gender is not just women - it is men and women even though it is often a synonym for women. He emphasizes "men must consciously take the decision to think and behave differently" (421). He is working to redefine what it means to be a man.

This was written 10 years ago. Looking back on recent changes, do his final words still seem possible - "developing a new man whose existence does not depend on any form of violence and abuse of women is possible" ? Any thoughts on the Men's Forum on Gender in Zimbabwe?

Miriam did a great job on Friday getting us started on our discussion on the Guerilla Girls. Does anyone have any observations from museums they've been to or art they've seen that are racist or sexist?  Dr. WC mentioned one artist who basically took pornographic pictures of herself and called it art -- where's the line between a naked portrait of a woman, and a distasteful degrading nude piece of a woman? When is it art and when is it objectifying?

I don't know who else was there, but at the recent Gender and Social Justice Conference speaker Jackson Katz said much the same thing pertaining to changing society's view of masculinity and gendered language that favors the dominant group. (For example, we tend to say a woman who has been beaten is a battered woman rather than-someone beat this woman.)  Our society still largely think issues of gender and oppression are issues for women and the majority of people invloved in studying and changing these issues are women.  Until men see these issues as those that direclty effect their life and worldview in a negative way, rather than being separate from them; change will be harder.   

I think the argument many would have for why there are more nude portraits of women rather than men would be that the female body may tends to be considered more beautiful.  We know historically this has not always been the mentality, especially in Greek culture.  I think a pretty common historical theme may be the mentality that women's strongest power lies in her sexuality, whether as a temptress or as the ultimate virgin.   THis lines up with the fact that we see more nude female bodies than work produced by female artists.

Jackson Katz is exactly who I thought of when reading this. I don't know about you but it gives me so much hope seeing ment heavily involved in this!

I feel that there has been many changes and more awreness since this was published, but I aslo feel that men and the society at large still has a long way to come in order to completely understand the gravity of the issue at hand. Although organizations like Jackson Katz are beginging to bring awareness to theses issues, I feel that the majority of people still see domestic violence as the "woman's issue" and continue to blame the victim. But I do agree that there is hope in this movemen, the women's movement began small and seemed insignificant but has now become mainstream, men's involvment in the women's movement in order to aleviate some of the oppression is begining small, but hopefully will become more mainstream.

An important part of this is for men to realize that they too are oppressed by gender stereotypes and are constrained to fill roles. Part of the men's movement is to debunk myths associated with the stereotypes, question them and try to understand how they help to form the hierarchy in society. Gokava did an excellent job at this as he brought to light that "Men enjoy privileges assiciated with gender roles assignend to them at the expense of women. Why then do they find special privleges necessary when tehy claim to be strongerm braver and more creative and intelligent than women?"

It seems that in the art world, women who have been acclaimed as artists and painters have an agenda and are making a statement, this also seems true for men artist of color. Men are free from this perception and are free to express themselves without being expected to have a reason behind their art, although many throughout history and presently did and continue to.

As far as the objectification of women's bodies in art, I feel that there is a very fine line between tasteful and distasteful, maybe because of personal preference.  I work at Michaels craft store as a custom framer and see a lot of art. It is hard to see a painting of a nude and see it as degrading.  Human bodies, God's most intricate design should not be embarrassing nor distasteful. However, I have seen art in which the artist actually painted colorful, detailed paintings on women's bodies as if they were his canvas and took photographs of them. This was obviously objectifying, using the body of another person as a canvas, but the visual was stunning and creativity of the artist outstanding...was this degrading? I find it hard to say.

here is a link to a female artist who does body painting  http://www.joannegair.com/body1.1.htm what do you think???

I agree that it's hard to say if this is degrading. You make some good points. I wouldn't have normally thought of it as being degrading, but if a person saw the woman as a canvas....then yes maybe it is. I think the difference too is she is not in sexualized poses or anything. She's standing very passive, and the artist is obviously very talented and has a great eye for creativity and color, so I don't know.

That's a cool link :-) I like the last few more than the first few.

i'm not ure I'd see a nude as defacto degrading. I think the GG objection is primarily to the absence of women artists, rather than the presence of female nudes. After all, lots of women artists have done female nudes, often in very political ways. Then there's always Georgia O'Keefe, with her highly suggestive flowers.