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.

Post 2

I have also decided to explore Orlando for Unit 2 because I found the movie very unique and almost disturbing.

Because I felt uncomfortable throughout the entire movie I wanted to focus on a technique the movie used that I feel added to the uncomfortableness; the actors' makeup and hair.

First off, the main character Orlando seems to have a completely flawless complexion (a lot of foundation possibly?), but absolutely no other makeup. The eye lashes are not done up, there is no lipstick, no eye shadow. The hair is always long but sometimes down, sometimes pulled back, and often in some crazy over-done wig. How do these traits make Orlando seem sexless (which makes me feel uncomfortable)?

Next, the queen at the beginning of the film is a man. But the make-up is extremely overdone with, and yet again another wig. The fact that the queen can be made to look like a women even though he is a man makes me feel uncomfortable.

Do you think it is weirder for a women (actor of Orlando) to be made into a man or a man to a women (the queen actor)? How does this define the limits of our society in how make up and hair displays a person's gender?

And last, if you felt uncomfortable from these scenes like I did, why do you think we felt that way? And if you didn't, how did you feel differently and why?

Unit 2 Blog

Orlando was challenging for me to watch at times. I mentioned in class how uncomfortable it felt to spend the entire film trying to place Orlando in a sex or gender. It was difficult knowing the actress was female, and watch her play a male role. It really made me wonder about sex and gender, and nurture versus nature. We often hear the argument that gender is a combination of both nature and nurture, but more nurture. I think this is evident in Orlando, when in the beginning he is a very "feminine" man, but those were signs of the time period. As the movie progresses, what is masculine and expected of him changes. I find the war scene when he went overseas very interesting. He was asked to help defend the country (I can't remember which one it was now), as an ambassador. He was completely disinterested in war and fighting, when it was perceived as masculine to fight for one's country, or allies. This brings me to the point in the movie where Orlando changes, and looks right in to the camera saying "Same person, no difference." We may be, at times, "gendered" into specific roles, but the core of us is not rooted in these roles or in our sex. I think it tells a beautiful story about humanity in general, which I also found evident in The Left Hand Side of Darkness. We are androgynous, to an extent, when we are stripped from our "gendered roles" and the expectations of other people.

Do any of you agree? Does Orlando represent the idea that we are androgynous? If so, how do we bring that into the context of our own lives?

Blog post 2

Unit 2 Blog

For Unit two I have decided to explore Orlando. For some reason Orlando was really hard for me to follow but once we broke it down and discussed it in class, it was easier to get grasp on. A part of the film I would like to bring back up was when Orlando was sitting in that beautiful dress and then the conversation that was with all the men discussing women’s roles. I could be wrong, but from what I remember Orlando didn’t rebuttal anything the men were saying about women (while she sat in that beautiful dress). I was curious if this was representative of how women experience “discrimination” or demeaning comments by men. The way in which Orlando just sits there and looks “pretty” makes me wonder if the writer is sending a message to the viewers. ( It was mentioned in class that she almost represented a show dog, this image has stuck with me. Is it possible that the writer of Orlando used reverse psychology to show how women can be perceived. What I mean by this is was the writer intending to show us this image to represent what we don't want to be perceived as?)  Does society tell us that women “just” need to sit there and look pretty?  All of this leads me to wonder if the “old fashioned” stereotypes that use to exist are still carried out by much of the male population. Do men still struggle with accepting women with power? ( Ex: This also makes me think about having a female President: was it the fact that Hillary was a women or that she would not be a strong leader?) This one scene from Orlando has made me wonder about all these things. If this was the “intent” how do we change it? The fact that Orlando sits back and listens could represent the fact that if we just listen to this “things” will never change.

On another note: This may be slightly off topic but throughout our class discussions I can’t help but wonder if the writers of the film and books we read intended to have their works studied in an analytical sense. When an author goes to write, do they mean for the reader to analyze their literature from all these different (analytical) perspectives? 

Unit 1 Post

Margaret Atwood frequently mentions colors throughout her novel, and as we discussed in class last week, her frequent use of the color red stands out most to me. Although the color red can be associated with several meanings, I tend to associate it most with passion, love, and femininity. However, in The Handmaid’s Tale, it is used to signify the Handmaids as the fertile women, and therefore essentially the outcasts of society. I wonder why Atwood chose the color red for the Handmaids when a color like black might be more suitable for someone looked down upon and seen as an outcast. Even Offred mentions both the colors red and black when considering her current state and use of her body compared to the former way in which she used to look at herself.

In chapter 13 she says, “I used to think of my body as an instrument, of pleasure, or a means of transportation, or an implement for the accomplishment of my will… Now the flesh arranges itself differently. I’m a cloud, congealed around a central object, the shape of a pear, which is hard and more real than I am and glows red within its translucent wrapping. Inside it is a space, huge as the sky at night and dark and curved like that, though black-red rather than black” (p. 73-74). Although Offred recognizes that her body is nothing more than an instrument and has been stripped of any sort of feminist qualities or capabilities, she continues to associate it with the color red. If Offred had looked at her body as disgusting and hopeless, she would have associated it instead with the color black. Despite her circumstances, Offred continues to use the color red in relation to the woman’s body and because of this, I wonder if Atwood is suggesting that the Handmaids have accepted and adapted to their roles in Gilead. Are the Handmaids partly to blame for what they have become because they still attempt to see the best of their situation (as seen through their frequent use and mention of the color red)? Even after everything, they continue to be dutiful and do not consider their roles to be hopeless or disgusting. Although many of the Handmaids still look back upon their former lives, it seems that they have almost internalized their roles in society and convinced themselves that their treatment is acceptable.

Perhaps I only think this way of the Handmaids because of my interpretation of the color red?

Blog post

Thinking back to all of our classroom discussions and readings it was hard to narrow down what to blog about. I decided to focus on the Handmaids Tale. Our last class discussion we focused on the color red and its association with fertility. This is essentially the focus of the handmaid’s existence. Why are these women seen as fertility objects? I like how Lauren brought up how the fact that the handmaids actually do represent an antifeminist lash. Which makes me wonder how this book will end.

Reading the Handmaids Tale I found many one-liners that stuck out to me and made me question the text. One that particularly stood out to me was on

p. 9 “ She puts on a veil to go outside, but nobody much cares who sees the face of Martha’

Why do household servants/ Martha’s have to be women? More importantly why are these women not aloud to talk to handmaids and other people. Martha’s and handmaids follow these norms, so what is the author saying about even women following the norms of society?

Unit 1 Post

The Handmaid's Tale was written during a backlash against the feminist movement. In class we discussed how the color red is related to the social system in Gilead, how it "outcasts" the Handmaids, sets them apart, and makes them visible to the Eye. In further discussion, we identified how the handmaid's seem to be prized for their fertility but forced into this social position as a result of past decisions such as abortion, divorce, or infidelity. This can be seen as a punishment, resorting back to older social roles instead of supporting feminist ideals. To build on this, I'd like to discuss a passage in Chapter 13 in which the handmaid discusses her spare time and boredom. She refers to 19th century art galleries in which paintings were "...supposed to be erotic, and I thought they were, at the time; but I see now what they were really about. They were paintings about suspended animation; about waiting, about objects not in use. They were paints about boredom. But maybe boredom is erotic, when women do it, for men (p. 69)." It is evident in this passage that she struggles with the past and present, in the freedom she once had and the lack of freedom she has now. The boredom, restriction from books, the "practice" to enhance fertility are mindless for the handmaids. It appears to be all too reminiscent of the idea commonly used in slavery, that ignorance will prevent power.

I'd also like to point out another part of Chapter 13 in which ideas commonly used in defense of rape or abuse are evident in this new society. The handmaids are brainwashed. In "Testifying," the women are asked to repeat "Her fault, her fault, her fault" to Janine who admitted to being gang-raped (p. 72).

Furthermore, "Who led them on? Aunt Helena beams, pleased with us. She did. She did. She did. Why did God allow such a terrible thing to happen? Teach her a lesson. Teach her a lesson. Last week Janine burst into tears. Aunt Helena made her kneel in fron t of the classroom...For a moment, even though we knew what was being done to her, we despised her. Crybaby. Crybaby. Crybaby. We meant it, which is the bad part. I used to think well of myself. I didn't then (p.72)."

It is interesting how Atwood used these scenarios to demonstrate how women are often the most "powerful" tool in condemning other women. If women are taught they are to blame, they will teach other women, and condemn the women who think otherwise. It is a clever way in which men can inflict what they want, by using other women. This is evident in how our society has struggled to change the way in which the legal system looks at rape and abuse. I enjoy these passages because they also show the handmaid's internal struggle between what is being taught and what she knows to be true in her heart or from a past time. These passages are very powerful. I believe that this supports the feminist movement and through colorful writing shows how disgusting it is to demean women in this way.

I'd love to hear how the rest of you interpreted these passages or themes throughout the book.

Unit 1 Post

Not exactly sure why but I had a tendency to compare Gilman’s Herland and Russ’s The Female Man. One of the things that kind of stuck out to me was the idea that both books seemed to have characters to represent one extreme to the next. In Herland, Van represented the “average” man that was both able to accept and learn from the women of Herland, while Terry represented more the stereotypical extreme of a “man’s man” and Jeff was the weaker example of a man and believed that women were superior. From these three characters Gilman is able to create an atmosphere that allows us to see various outsider perspectives. Though The Female Man has 4 main characters that all seem to represent different points of view but in a slightly different way. Russ’s characters all use the “scripts” that are present through the entire book in different ways. Janet thinks the responses are ludicrous, Janine ignores the fact that there are any scripts, Joanne acknowledges the scripts but doesn’t really know what to do with them and Jael uses these scripts to her advantage.  Both of these authors seem to find it necessary to create an outsiders perspective within the book rather than letting the reader be the only outsider, and get their own point of view. It seems as though they are trying to create these dis/utopia’s, but by having the various extremes of character views they leave it up to the reader to decide which they would like to agree with.

Like Aimee brought up there seems to also be a significance of the cat character. and both of these stories also use a cat characters to get a message across. Though these two authors used seem to use similar approaches what is the significance of them doing so to create these dis/utopias. Are these familiar patterns in all books that would fall into these categories?

Post 1

This is building off what one of my group members was thinking about as well as what we talked about in class.

In class we began to discuss how Herland did not necessarily seem like as sexless utopia, in fact there were many "feminine" qualities to it. In Gilman's Herland, the first three girls that the men see are named Ellador, Celis and Alima. As soon as I read these names their nature struck me as very feminine next to the very masculine Jeff, Vandyck and Terry. Throughout the story, the females have names such as Maudine and Zava with the "dine" and "a" being very common feminine name endings in multiple world languages.

Next, the feline cat in American culture is a very feminine creature and is often a sex symbol for the female sex. (Think of the term "sex-cat", etc). The cat is the only animal besides birds that exists in Herland, and as the men stated:

By the most prolonged and careful selection and exclusion they had developed a race of cats that did not sing! That's a fact. The most those poor dumb brutes could do was to make a kind of squeak when they were hungry or wanted the door open, and, of course, to purr, and make the various mother-noises to their kittens.

Quiet, calm cats who take care of their young sounds like many female housewife women to me.

Also, as someone in my group mentioned, there is the whole "motherhood" deal being the most important concept in Herland.

The feeling in the air on page 19 was even "The most prominent sensation was of absolute physical comfort". Physical comfort given to men from women? Aren't they the first men to be there (and come out alive to record it)?

Finally, how on page 15 Herland is described as:

I have often groaned at home to see the offensive mess man made in the face of nature, even though I'm no art sharp, like Jeff. But this place! It was built mostly of a sort of dull rose-colored stone, with here and there some clear white houses; and it lay abroad among the green groves and gardens like a broken rosary of pink coral.

Also, the trees, flowers, and fruit (fertility, maybe?) are also picked out as beautiful (and implying utopian quality). Between the color scheme and the landscape, the country itself seems very "feminine".

So, I have a few topics to discuss about this. What are some examples of the non-feminine or "masculine" qualities about Herland (if there are any)? What is the balance of "feminine" qualities of the women in Herland versus the non-feminine or "masculine" qualities (if there are any)? Then, what does this tell about culture versus nature? Perhaps, the author is implying that culture creates the idea of femininity, and culture has engrained all of these characteristics as feminine in the readers minds, but really even when enclosed from other culture's influences (like the women of Herland having no connection with the outer world), these things would still exist in nature, Aka culture does not produce sex, nature does. Perhaps, the author was just ignorant in writing her piece of all the "feminine" characteristics she added, AKA culture does produce sex.

Thoughts?

Paper 1

What does the wall that is put up around Herland represent, and how does it ...? I feel like there is a significance of this wall that "traps" these women and lets no one else in. It is clear that this utopia would have never survived had this wall not been here. I know that this really isn't the best question and i'm sure it needs to be added to, but I'm trying to figure out how to use this representation, its quite possible that I am wayyy off on this one. I am kind of hoping that I will have better luck with this last book that we have to read before the paper.

Paper 1 Question

Herland depicts a feminist, socialist society in which men have been "eliminated." Based on the women of Herland and the travelers reaction to them, how are women viewed in each world? Are the view of men also stereotypical, and what is the author attempting to convey about the way in which gender plays a role in our society?


I am hoping to use specific passages in which the Herland women and the travelers discuss differences, and also more subtle ways in which gender roles are either challenged or enforced. What do you guys think?

Paper 1 Question - Allison Yore

So far this is what I have:

Twilight embodies all of the aspects of a typical love story and therefore has captured the attention of women all across the world. But despite its overwhelming number of fans, Twilight is not perfect and it raises many important question about the representation of gender. What do the women of Twilight, especially Bella, and their interaction with various men as well as one another, suggest about the role of women as seen by society and the relationship between genders?

I feel like I'm having the same problem as Alyse. I really like Twilight which is why I want to write about it, but I just want to be able to write about it with an non-bias view. I'm not sure if my question is specific enough, but I also don't want it to be too specific and limit myself. So hopefully by focusing on the women in the movie and how they act around each other and around men, I'll be able to keep the paper focused and precise.

Paper 1 Question Aimee Roy

The "I" and Janet from The Female Man seems to look down on Jeannine and Joanna's worlds. Their worlds often have characteristics of dystopias.

My question would be how do Jeannine and Joanna's worlds appear as dystopias to outsiders such as Janet and the "I" of the novel? I want to specifically focus on how does the over-obsessiveness and covetousness (overly or wrongly desirous attitude) appear as dystopian to outsiders such as Janet and the "I" of The Female Man?

Some examples I have so far are on p. 83 in the first paragraph where the "I" is stuck with Jeannine and speaking of the ruffles on shirts, hanging earrings, etc and is annoyed. It continues on the next page with another obsession....The Home. Also, page 86 when Jeannine buys the fishnets she won't ever wear then feels guilty about it, but just "had to have them". Also, p. 92 Jeannine suggests an attack technique of Whileaway and Janet responds that they don't worry about that stuff because the way to protect the Whileaway-ans would make life way too over obsessive.
I could also point out how Janet's world is very efficient and there's no nonsense add-ons because of obsession or covetousness. Or about Jeannine's obsessiveness to finding a man.

Should I just focus on Jeannine's world and outsiders since all of my examples so far have that? Or should I try and include Janet? Does my question make sense? Do you think it would make an interesting paper?

Thank you!!

PAPER 1

Twilight has been an undeniable phenomenon that has swept the nation. The combination of realistic fiction and a love story mixed together to create a popular hit on the big screen. From little girls to older women, Twilight has been specifically appealing towards the female audience. The question that arises is if this film could be omitting the wrong message/ stereotypes of female roles in society to its womanly audience. What is the underlying message this film is telling women/young girls in terms of what they are and need to do for men? 

1. I was not sure if this is too broad of a question. I found one quote so far I was going to use. It was said by Jessica: Oh my god, it's like , the first grade all over again,you're the shiny new toy.I was going to go on to discuss the kind of potential message this is sending. The part that I am having the hardest time with its that I genuinely like twilight so it is hard to dissect it.