Unit 3 Post

Although a lot of the group has discussed Tank Girl, I feel like it's a great way to tie in a topic we have been discussing all semester: challenging schemas and scripts from our society. The reason I think Tank Girl resonated with all of us is because Rebecca was the ultimate "strong woman." She used her sexuality to get what she wanted, not because she felt that she owed men anything. She was sassy, strong, smart, courageous, and the heroine in this film. However, many of us in class felt like her female sexuality was almost played up "too much" and that her lack of clothing and sexual innuendos actually may not have challenged schemas and instead supported stereotypes. I think that depending on the viewer, it may have done both. Rebecca utilized her sexuality and appearance to get what she wanted, a characteristic commonly criticized by both men and feminists. Nonetheless, Rebecca from Tank Girl challenged scripts by turning the stereotypes on their head. Some women stereotype women as unintelligent, purely sexual beings. Rebecca consistently outsmarted the enemy and used her sexuality to do this. What do you think?

Unit 3 Post

Tank Girl was an interesting movie to watch, and as the movie progressed, I found similarities between Tank Girl and some of the other female characters we've read about in this unit. Like most of the other characters in the novels from this unit, Tank Girl is a powerful female figure. While watching the film, she reminded me of Shori because neither Tank Girl nor Shori were afraid to stand up to men. Within their relationships, both Tank Girl and Shori possessed power and neither was ruled by the men in their relationships. In the beginning of the film, Tank Girl threatens to shoot her boyfriend when she finds him stealing water. Although this was just a mock fight and it was all for fun, it showed that Tank Girl was not afraid to act in a domineering nature toward men. This reminded me of Shori's behavior when she interacts with men, but she is the one "in charge" in her relationships and was certainly not hesitant in telling men what to do.

Although Tank Girl was an intriguing and feministic film, I also felt taken aback at times. Although Tank Girl was not scared to go after what she wanted, she also did whatever it took to get what she wanted, even if it might be construed as inappropriate. Tank Girl embodied the postfeministic behavior that suggests that women can get what they want when they act in a seductive manner and put their "best assests" to use. But I wonder if Tank Girl and other women who support postfeminism should be conscious of not crossing the line? How far is too far? At times Tank Girl acted "slutty" and in a sense even sold her body in order to benefit herself and put herself in a position of power over women. It was at these times during the film that I was shocked and wondered if women like Tank Girl are promoting a slutty stereotype for women? Does Tank Girl's behavior only encourage men to continue to belittle women and treat them are a mere tool needed for sex? I applaud Tank Girl for not being afraid to stand up for herself, but is there a different way that she could have done so?

Unit 3 Post

I would like to analyze is tank girl. 

After Watching this film I had many thoughts about what was going on in this film. There were glimpses of sexuality flaunted throughout the film. One scene in particular was in the beginning when Tank girl “catches” her “boyfriend” stealing water. She guns him down and threatens to kill him. In this scene she has the power. Throughout the entire movie I felt like tank girl always had power even when she was being “abused”. The way tank girl endured the pain and some how made these elements humorous was interesting to me. In what ways does tank girls actions cause her to poke fun at men and there sense of “seriousness?” Tank girl challenges feminity by adding a twist of humor, in what ways does this make the film feminists or anitfeminists?  

Is tank girl meant to represent a superhero? Does she portray this "image" or does she challenge it? 

Unit 3 Post

I would like to analyze "The Good Gardner" character from Women Without Men. We talked about this character in class a bit, but he really struck me as interesting for a few reasons:

1. The gardener never reveals his name. On page 93 he says, "'What's the use of knowing my name? Everybody calls me the gardener. You can call me the gardener.'" It is odd that this man's name is never revealed, especially when all the other main male characters in the book have names that are used often (Ostovari, Amir, etc).

2. Zarrinkolah saw him as the first man with a head since she started seeing all men with no heads. Then she ended up marrying him and their baby was a lily.

3. He has a weird control over women. First off, Farroklaqa instantly hires him without asking many questions about himself. On page 92 she just asks if he is a gardener, can do construction work, and then just questions about the women with him. Then she just hires him on page 93, pretty quick decision in my opinion. Second of all, he tells his wife that they must go on a trip. Immediately, "Zarrinkolah swept the house, wrapped up the bedding, and packed their things" (131). Then he told her that she didn't need to bring anything and to leave everything behind. Again, immediately "Zarrinkolah toke her husband's hand" (131). Then (same page) they disappeared into smoke through their baby (the lily). Zarrinkolah did not ask questions or argue despite how odd the situation was (or at least seems to us).


Why does "the gardener" have no name? How could it be related as a symbol of someone else we may know or believe in or wish we knew in society? Why does Zarrinkolah see him with a head? It does not talk about his virginity, which is what the whole book seems to be freaking out about. How could her seeing him with a head be related to their future marraige? And why was their child a lily, what does this lily symbolize comes from a whore (Zarinkolah) and a mystical kind man ("the gardener")? And why does he have such power over women, yet this power seems gentle and genuine? Essentially, what does this "gardener" represent in society?

I would like to think of him as a powerful spirit who blesses those who want to change as long as they stick to their word (like Zarrinkolah not being a whore anymore, or Farroklaqa creating her own sanctuary where she can be a happy individual without the influence of men). At the same time he creeps me out the way he invades all of their lives when the book is titled Women Without Men.

Thoughts?

Unit 3 Post

Octavia Butler played around with a lot social aspects by altering them from the norms that we as readers are typically use to. She is able to accomplish this by creating a new race of vampires, and using their lifestyle in comparison to humans to show the differences. The relationships that take place between Ina and their symbionts really seems to challenge what us as humans consider to be "normal". Butler uses the struggle that Wright seems to have with his relationship with Shori to demonstrates societal assumptions. Society as a whole likes to think a relationship should carry the traits of heterosexual, monogamous, and even includes gender roles within such relationships.

Not only was Wright in a relationship with a vampire rather than a human, he was also unable to follow through with the relationship the way that he would like to. Wright would typically be in a monogamous relationship with one other female, and throughout this relationship he would like to take the role of a man by protecting and taking care of his significant other while feeling more in control of these decisions. However instead, Wright has been subdued into a polygamist bi-sexual relationship that in reality he does not have much control over, it completely contradicts the social norms of a relationship he would be in otherwise. Though there are some relationship instances of throughout our society that line up with some of the relationship rituals that the Ina participate in, these are not typically what our society is use to. There are many people who only believe that what Wright considers to be normal, the only way a relationship should work or take place, and Butler seems to use this struggle of society views to be represented by Wright and his personal struggle to adjust to his new symbiotic relationship experience.  

Unit 2 Post

Like a few others, I was also slightly uncomfortable while watching Orlando. I really wanted to put him into a category of either male or female, but found this difficult to do because of his androgynous nature and the fact that he changed sexes. Because I was not able to “categorize” him, I felt uncomfortable and confused. I think it is typical of society to want to categorize everyone as either male or female, and when someone does not embody the typical stereotypes of either a man or woman, we struggle and become frustrated that they do not fit into one of these categories. As a society, I think we understand that there is a difference between sex and gender, but why are we not recognizing this difference? A person does not have to follow the stereotypes of their sex or embody the typical characteristics associated with their sex, yet we often feel extremely uncomfortable when they don’t. Why do we so strongly want to categorize everyone into one of two categories? And when there are so many different aspects of gender, why do we attempt to restrict a person to one of only two categories?

Also, the fact that the role of the queen was played by a man also intrigued me. Is this the director’s way of suggesting that power is typically associated with men? This led me to then think about the king in The Left Hand of Darkness. The King is always referred to as “he” but really he is androgynous. In addition to this, it is quite possible that he has taken on the role of a woman during previous kemmers, yet he is still always portrayed as a man. Is this again because power is seen as something only given to men? Would we think differently about the king if he were in fact a queen?

Unit 2 Post

I am pretty sure throughout the entire time I watch Orlando I just thought it was quite odd to say the least. I mean when you really think about someone just waking up and having a completely different biology. But what I really found interesting was when Orlando did wake up to discover "he" had become a woman and he states "Different body, same person". Really I think what seems to change here rather than the person, would be the way society looks at Orlando differently when he takes on one roll over another. The scene that really stands out to me would be when Orlando is dressed up in a huge dress that is clearly not comfortable, especially when they show her being put into the corset. Since Orlando is now a women she is expected to dress like this, and is also expected to simply take in what is said about women when she is in the presents of men. While  at some sort of "tea party" Orlando does not respond to anything that they say even though some of the remarks that are made seemt to be directed towards her directly.

I the quote that was brought up in class that was said by Ursula LeGuin about everyone being androgynous seems to also come into play with the comment that is made by Orlando. While Orlando was in the form of a man I thought that he really took on some female characteristics, however while also carried male characteristics while living life as a woman. The only thing that has changed here was the fact that he has biologically changed and societies view of the roles that need to be taken due to this change. ex. when orlando is no longer able to own his own house after the change.