Wednesday, May 2, 2012
The Big Comfy Couch just got a little less comfy.
Judith Butler challenges her readers in Undoing Gender with the reality that we have a fear and discomfort with the unknown, as if it is a threat to our self and the world for the simple fact that it is uncategorizable and unfamiliar. Non-normative characteristics scare us because we don't know what to do about, with, or for them. Thus she posits that we are called to challenge the existing epistemological and ontological structures and ethical views and adhere instead to one of unknowing. We must learn to get comfortable with discomfort, because to grow as human beings we need to be uncomfortable. Growing pains, anyone?
Shaking up Shakespeare
The performative nature of social interactions was taken to new levels by Shakespeare, displaying for anyone who would watch, a dramatic or comedic mockery of a society preceding our own. His irreverence for categories and hierarchies, touched by fantastical articulation of a possible reality created an outlet for frustration and a mode of challenging societal norms. His characters ranged from kings and queens to rebellious teens, and then from men playing women to women playing men...or men playing women playing men. Still following? Good. What's the point? Here it is! These convoluted gender situations paved the way for an exploration of sexuality that defied boundaries and rebelled oppression. Females gained agency and prominence, burst out of the societal roles thrust upon them into these characters who embraced irrationality, seized control of kingdoms and wrought the hearts of men. And that was just the beginning...
So what does that have to do with feminism? Well, it has to start somewhere. Women surpassed their circumstances or embraced their chosen fate, real or fictitious, it was a start. And the ball hasn't stopped rolling since.
So what does that have to do with feminism? Well, it has to start somewhere. Women surpassed their circumstances or embraced their chosen fate, real or fictitious, it was a start. And the ball hasn't stopped rolling since.
Newest Victim: Edward Rochester
Jane Eyre is a compelling novel, when read carefully, because there are endless possibilities of places for your interests to settle upon. Today, I pick Rochester. Patriarch, masculine man, dark and shadowy, right? Eh. Maybe not so much. In taking a closer look at Jane Eyre, it is possible to find Rochester at a crux of vulnerability, never truly sharing his story or existing for himself, he is not more than a character in Jane's world whose sole purpose is to be the physical realization of Jane's emotional weight, a bucket into which she can pour her every emotion and fill her desires. Rochester: the projection screen. Blank, white, a canvas ready to become whatever the other wills it to be. He is what Jane projects onto him, the darkness, the ambiguity, secrets and manly stature. Every tale is of her accord, every word is as it is by means of her memory, the secrets are secrets for no other reason than that she doesn't know them - but he does. Could it be? Really? Is Rochester the victim? Is he the objectified being? I'm afraid so, at least in this context. We've discussed in class that in most cases, when rights are given to one, they are taken from another. So then, what the Gothic novel has done here, by elevating the woman and policing the heroine, has created the objectification of another, in this case - Rochester. He is the other half of Jane's embodied relationship with her emotions, struggling to complement instead of overwhelm. What does this mean for the men of Jane Eyre, whose stories get told for them?
Monday, April 9, 2012
I Feel ___, and ____, and ___, and ____, and ___.....
Women are stereotyped for our emotional attachments, reactions, explanations, interactions, relations, (need I go on - you know what I mean). So, I personally find it delightful when literature not only highlights it, but leaves the door wide open, so that we can [emotionally] charge in, and make it like home. Make it like home? How? Well, let's follow stereotypical suit - by overanalyzing, judging, exploring, and conversing of course! Bertha...dear, sweet, Bertha. Are you crazy?
The Madwoman in the Attic. Hmm, Bertha..how does that make you feel? Pissed. She's angry! And who, honestly, in her position, wouldn't be? She's controlled by a man who waltzed in, claimed her money, her body, and home for his own, then ripped from the place she knows and is confined to a room - come on ladies, what woman wouldn't be angry? Personally, I get mad when someone takes something and doesn't put it back, I can't imagine the rage I'd have if I were Rys's Antoinette. She's held captive by vow, by law, and by physical force, by an emotionally stunted man. - yes, sad as I am to admit it, the gallant Rochester from Bronte's novel is no more, he's replaced by this obnoxiously privileged man, who is severly lacking interior depth. He refuses to claim emotional or ethical resposibility for the happiness of his wife, refusing to be anything but self-centric, as if they're all in The World According to Rochester. While Antoinette is ready and willing to abandon her self for the well being of the other, Rochester remains all-inclusive of everything Rockester, and anything else is simply rejected. But back to the woman (isn't that how it always goes?) - Dear Antoinette. Oh, the woman who's name means "beyond praise," how neglected you've become! They call her crazy, insane, mentally ill, but with what reasoning? Because she's angry? Because women aren't supposed to be angry? Rochester can't handle it when she shares the fears and pains of her heart, what makes us think he'd be any less forgiving in his description of her than his willingness to be a spouse? These dreams, the ghosts, the reflections she sees, are they not all simply the emotional ends of emotional means? Because while Rochester has the ability to un-act himself, to drop character, to claim his privilege to simply not deal with women, women cannot escape themselves! Or can they?
What Antoinette does to deal with all these emotions is create two realities, because one is no longer enough. The lines blur between her reality and her dreams, but in both she is tormented and controlled by the emotions for which she has no outlet...
The Madwoman in the Attic. Hmm, Bertha..how does that make you feel? Pissed. She's angry! And who, honestly, in her position, wouldn't be? She's controlled by a man who waltzed in, claimed her money, her body, and home for his own, then ripped from the place she knows and is confined to a room - come on ladies, what woman wouldn't be angry? Personally, I get mad when someone takes something and doesn't put it back, I can't imagine the rage I'd have if I were Rys's Antoinette. She's held captive by vow, by law, and by physical force, by an emotionally stunted man. - yes, sad as I am to admit it, the gallant Rochester from Bronte's novel is no more, he's replaced by this obnoxiously privileged man, who is severly lacking interior depth. He refuses to claim emotional or ethical resposibility for the happiness of his wife, refusing to be anything but self-centric, as if they're all in The World According to Rochester. While Antoinette is ready and willing to abandon her self for the well being of the other, Rochester remains all-inclusive of everything Rockester, and anything else is simply rejected. But back to the woman (isn't that how it always goes?) - Dear Antoinette. Oh, the woman who's name means "beyond praise," how neglected you've become! They call her crazy, insane, mentally ill, but with what reasoning? Because she's angry? Because women aren't supposed to be angry? Rochester can't handle it when she shares the fears and pains of her heart, what makes us think he'd be any less forgiving in his description of her than his willingness to be a spouse? These dreams, the ghosts, the reflections she sees, are they not all simply the emotional ends of emotional means? Because while Rochester has the ability to un-act himself, to drop character, to claim his privilege to simply not deal with women, women cannot escape themselves! Or can they?
What Antoinette does to deal with all these emotions is create two realities, because one is no longer enough. The lines blur between her reality and her dreams, but in both she is tormented and controlled by the emotions for which she has no outlet...
On Your Mark, Get Set, Don't Go!
Race. It marks you. It sets you in a mold, in a place, separated by nothing more than a microscopic genetic marker, impossible to be seen in its origin, but realized on the surface - scrutinized, judged, stereotyped, for something that isn't done or made, but simply is. Jean Rhys colors it ugly in Wide Sargasso Sea, subtly and tastefully, introducing us to Charlotte Bronte's characters, unmarked. Race in Antoinette's world is about as clear and identifiable as the fruit in a smoothie. The smoothie-mentality fails to catch on, as we see in Rochester's emotional abandonment of Antoinette. I am extremely intruiged by his shock when he learns of Antoinette's self-proclaimed half brother, Daniel. Tainted by her relation to her father's illegitimate half-white half-black child, Antoinette ceases to be the same in Rochester's eyes. But why? What is so off-putting about the family of his culturally torn bride? Antoinette is enslaved, not only by marriage, but by blood. That unseen marker, that sets her in Rochester's mind - different.
But what, then, about Jane? Bronte's dear, main character...she's often seen as a foil for Bertha, sure. But what about the Antoinette-Jane, sans Bertha? Before Bertha. Culturally torn, divided by family, bound by money, seeking equality or in the least, solidarity, in emotions. We've posited before in class that race and class were nearly synonomous in their day, so then why not draw lines between the bold connections that tie Antoinette and Jane? Why ignore their need for emotional depth and commitment from Rochester? Why write-off the monetary control and struggle that underlies their relationships, not only with Rochester but with Family, Friends, or anyone with whom they share an experience? Jane struggles to define who she is because of her lack of family, where as Antoinette is bound and judged by her own, but this schism should divide them - it should unite them, as Rhys and Bronte do in their subtle exposees of these women.
But what, then, about Jane? Bronte's dear, main character...she's often seen as a foil for Bertha, sure. But what about the Antoinette-Jane, sans Bertha? Before Bertha. Culturally torn, divided by family, bound by money, seeking equality or in the least, solidarity, in emotions. We've posited before in class that race and class were nearly synonomous in their day, so then why not draw lines between the bold connections that tie Antoinette and Jane? Why ignore their need for emotional depth and commitment from Rochester? Why write-off the monetary control and struggle that underlies their relationships, not only with Rochester but with Family, Friends, or anyone with whom they share an experience? Jane struggles to define who she is because of her lack of family, where as Antoinette is bound and judged by her own, but this schism should divide them - it should unite them, as Rhys and Bronte do in their subtle exposees of these women.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
There's no place like Rome, Judy.
Okay, Judith Butler. I have a bone to pick with you. It may come off as a religious bone because, well, it is. But just as much as it's an issue of religion, it's an issue of the English Language. COME ON, JUDY - The Vatican is a place. It's a building. And if I wasn't hyper aware of anti-catholic sentiments in Feminism, I'd just think you were confusing. The Vatican is as much a person as The White House. You say White House, I say - what? Who are you talking about? The President or The Obama Family? Or the Obama Administration? Or the Employees of the White House? Or all those who have inhabited it? Previous Presidents? Or has the White House actually sprouted appendages and motor functions and is doing things on its own? (I admit, the last one is ridiculous, I'm just having fun, now.)
So, dearest Judith. when you say that "The Vatican" is doing something - I'm a little perplexed. Because, you see, the Vatican (Holy See) is a City State, solely located in Rome, which has been headed by 266 different Popes, and currently is the spiritual home of 1.196 billion believers across the entire globe. The people within it have changed just a *couple* times over the past 2,000 years, so the fact that you are not only referring to the Vatican as an active being (for the sake of continuing a conversation I in theory just ended by nullifying your statements, I'll assume you meant the Papacy, or perhaps the Catholic Church as a whole), but minimizing its influence, purpose, and intentions of one of the worlds largest and most influential institutions to one facet, based on one experience, in one year without actually doing any real research on the stances, teachings, and dogmas of the Church I assume you were trying to attack.
For instance, if you had referenced the Catechism of the Catholic Church before ignorantly labeling "The Vatican" (again, I'll assume you meant the Church) is homophobic you would find that it teaches love towards all, "They [homosexual individuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC 2358).
I thank you for crediting Pope John Paul the II (though of course in your writing, he is also just "the Vatican") with his apology to Women, and just for your knowledge, he also apologized to the Jews for Catholics' inactivity since the Holocaust, for the mistreatment of Galileo, African American People for the Church's involvement with Slave trade, Protestants for post-reformation wars and burnings, among the Aboriginal Children of Australia, the Chinese, and first and foremost, the sex abuse cases. Blessed Pope John Paul II was adored across the globe, treasured femininity and literally lived to love. He deserves the title of Saint he is sure to gain, not to be reduced as one of the multiple things you've put under the ambiguous umbrella of "the Vatican."
You don't support your claims because your main goal is to shed a negative light on a powerful force. And it is a force. Because chances are, someone who knows her stuff and isn't afraid to speak up is going to pick apart your arguments to reveal how weak its structure is...like a tower of Jenga pieces coated in insults, disguised as a sturdy structure, strong enough to dissolve the core of a 2,000 year old religion and the 1.196 billion people who adore it.
So, Ms. Butler, simply put - You're confusing. And if someone is able to ignore that and read through your insults-disguised-as-logic, your reasoning is weak. At least put up a little bit of a fight.
So, dearest Judith. when you say that "The Vatican" is doing something - I'm a little perplexed. Because, you see, the Vatican (Holy See) is a City State, solely located in Rome, which has been headed by 266 different Popes, and currently is the spiritual home of 1.196 billion believers across the entire globe. The people within it have changed just a *couple* times over the past 2,000 years, so the fact that you are not only referring to the Vatican as an active being (for the sake of continuing a conversation I in theory just ended by nullifying your statements, I'll assume you meant the Papacy, or perhaps the Catholic Church as a whole), but minimizing its influence, purpose, and intentions of one of the worlds largest and most influential institutions to one facet, based on one experience, in one year without actually doing any real research on the stances, teachings, and dogmas of the Church I assume you were trying to attack.
For instance, if you had referenced the Catechism of the Catholic Church before ignorantly labeling "The Vatican" (again, I'll assume you meant the Church) is homophobic you would find that it teaches love towards all, "They [homosexual individuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC 2358).
I thank you for crediting Pope John Paul the II (though of course in your writing, he is also just "the Vatican") with his apology to Women, and just for your knowledge, he also apologized to the Jews for Catholics' inactivity since the Holocaust, for the mistreatment of Galileo, African American People for the Church's involvement with Slave trade, Protestants for post-reformation wars and burnings, among the Aboriginal Children of Australia, the Chinese, and first and foremost, the sex abuse cases. Blessed Pope John Paul II was adored across the globe, treasured femininity and literally lived to love. He deserves the title of Saint he is sure to gain, not to be reduced as one of the multiple things you've put under the ambiguous umbrella of "the Vatican."
You don't support your claims because your main goal is to shed a negative light on a powerful force. And it is a force. Because chances are, someone who knows her stuff and isn't afraid to speak up is going to pick apart your arguments to reveal how weak its structure is...like a tower of Jenga pieces coated in insults, disguised as a sturdy structure, strong enough to dissolve the core of a 2,000 year old religion and the 1.196 billion people who adore it.
So, Ms. Butler, simply put - You're confusing. And if someone is able to ignore that and read through your insults-disguised-as-logic, your reasoning is weak. At least put up a little bit of a fight.
mega-Zine.
So this "Zine" scene is completely foreign to me. But hey, it's artsy, it's crafty, and its a silent way of being loud. 3 things I'm gung-ho for, so let's give it a shot. I could be subtle, I could be reserved, but that's not really me - and let's be honest, that's not what this class is either. So...Nudity. Oh hey.
These Zines we created, these teeny tiny little books chocked full of opinion, theory, rebellion, and pretty pictures, are just that - our creation. Now, bear with me (the self-proclaimed Jesus freak) those of you whose pursuit of truth has lead you elsewhere. Say we are created by God, (still bearing with me?) that means that our bodies, our organs, our faces and our flesh were made..but not just made - created. Like a song, like a story, like a poem, like a painting - all creations. What's my point? I'm getting there. What we've begun to churn and turn and chug out in these zines is a challenge to the portrayal male and female (minus the clothes). And we're back to the Nudity. Why is it that, out of the two (male and female) the female form is so ever-present? You know what I'm talking about - bare breasts, posed 'just so', maybe a cloth covering the lower half, but a good chance there isn't. Why is that so beautiful, so celebrated, so common, yet the male form is so rare? Is it shameful? I would posit not, based on the conversations with my hardly-subtle male friends. Is it because women wouldn't be able to harness their sexual drive if such art work existed? Hardly. Descretion seems to be innate in our beings. Is it for lack of models? Pardon me but - hahahaha. No. I'm sure I could walk out of my office and find a handful right here and now. So then what - AH HA! Vulnerability. It is, after all, by definition "the state of being exposed" (thanks, Google). So, what, we as women are supposed to be vulnerable, all the time? everywhere? In every museum, in every frame, wherever Art is needed? Alright, cool. But only if men are, too. Let's get some equality! We're both creations, we're both the ultimate art - the human form. So why don't we "celebrate" the male form as well? Is it less beautiful? Is it offensive to refer to anything male-related as beautiful? I don't care. The human form is a beautiful thing, a marvelous creation, if we can appreciate it in the feminine form and claim our vulnerability and transform it into a kind of liberation, why shouldn't men be celebrated in the same way?
I realize I'm breaking every stereotype of Feminism in this because for once, I'm claiming that men should be able to do, and have, and be celebrated in the same way as women, rather than vice versa. But the materials we read in class reflect and support this - they challenge the things of our surroundings (not just what's going on in our minds) that we've accepted and make us question, why? Alright, Men - Fight..*dun*dun*..For your right...*dun*dun*...to be Nude! In all seriousness - it's about time we start appreciating the human form, as a whole, no matter of gender. And maybe, one our art depicts that, our society will reflect it.
These Zines we created, these teeny tiny little books chocked full of opinion, theory, rebellion, and pretty pictures, are just that - our creation. Now, bear with me (the self-proclaimed Jesus freak) those of you whose pursuit of truth has lead you elsewhere. Say we are created by God, (still bearing with me?) that means that our bodies, our organs, our faces and our flesh were made..but not just made - created. Like a song, like a story, like a poem, like a painting - all creations. What's my point? I'm getting there. What we've begun to churn and turn and chug out in these zines is a challenge to the portrayal male and female (minus the clothes). And we're back to the Nudity. Why is it that, out of the two (male and female) the female form is so ever-present? You know what I'm talking about - bare breasts, posed 'just so', maybe a cloth covering the lower half, but a good chance there isn't. Why is that so beautiful, so celebrated, so common, yet the male form is so rare? Is it shameful? I would posit not, based on the conversations with my hardly-subtle male friends. Is it because women wouldn't be able to harness their sexual drive if such art work existed? Hardly. Descretion seems to be innate in our beings. Is it for lack of models? Pardon me but - hahahaha. No. I'm sure I could walk out of my office and find a handful right here and now. So then what - AH HA! Vulnerability. It is, after all, by definition "the state of being exposed" (thanks, Google). So, what, we as women are supposed to be vulnerable, all the time? everywhere? In every museum, in every frame, wherever Art is needed? Alright, cool. But only if men are, too. Let's get some equality! We're both creations, we're both the ultimate art - the human form. So why don't we "celebrate" the male form as well? Is it less beautiful? Is it offensive to refer to anything male-related as beautiful? I don't care. The human form is a beautiful thing, a marvelous creation, if we can appreciate it in the feminine form and claim our vulnerability and transform it into a kind of liberation, why shouldn't men be celebrated in the same way?
I realize I'm breaking every stereotype of Feminism in this because for once, I'm claiming that men should be able to do, and have, and be celebrated in the same way as women, rather than vice versa. But the materials we read in class reflect and support this - they challenge the things of our surroundings (not just what's going on in our minds) that we've accepted and make us question, why? Alright, Men - Fight..*dun*dun*..For your right...*dun*dun*...to be Nude! In all seriousness - it's about time we start appreciating the human form, as a whole, no matter of gender. And maybe, one our art depicts that, our society will reflect it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)