When Dr. Rog explained how class was going to work on Tuesday, I thought he had to be joking. Surprisingly, I learned a lot, and heard from people, whose voices I didn’t know existed. I believe that is much like the silence of voices most women experience. I don’t know if the female species is taught to be pessimistic or to look pretty rather than speak our mind. It is true though whenever we learn something in class, I always have thoughts on it. However, unless I know what I am trying to say, I don’t open my mouth in fear of looking stupid. I don’t think it is fear of looking stupid in front of guys necessarily; guys already think girls are dumber than them. I think men think they are smarter because they are always learning to “be a man.” Being a man is ultimately the struggle to be #1, the survivor, the best of the best. Men think there is just one peak on the mountain, one chair for the King. This is not true though because many people can be equal in talents, for example both men and women. Women can even exceed men in things such as sports, although men hate to admit it. Women realize there is more than one seat at the top of the mountain peak and do not see a reason to push everyone down the mountain to run to the top.
It felt very powerful having the authority to tell someone they could go ahead and speak and I imagine men feel this power when women are silenced. I am aware that in the past women did not have rights to publicly speak, and were meant to look pretty rather than hold a conversation with their husband. What I was unaware of was that to a degree this was still going on and women were falling into silent roles. Finding out in class that women were still feeling silenced made me question how many others felt like this.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
MerryChristmas!, 5.2.09
Thursdays class exercise was very intriguing. Being a woman myself, I got a chance to speak up about the issues that feminists face and what it means to be a feminist. At first, I was reluctant to speak up because I was nervous. Contrary to popular belief, I wasn't nervous to talk about the issue of feminism in front of men, instead I was nervous to talk about feminism in front of women. This is because my ideologies most likely don't identify with theirs and I didn't want to offend anyone. However, I typically cannot hold back any opinions or thoughts of mine so I participated anyway.
One of my main concerns with the notion that men have control over women or they suppress women in a way in which women are deemed inferior to men was that this can only happen if we (women) let it happen. Being a strong-willed person myself, I do not allow men to control the things that come out of my mouth or if I speak up or not. If you allow men to have power over you, then they will. The same scenario goes for anyone, even single sexed situations. Another aspect that I touched on was the issue of men calling women sluts or whores. Sure, if we allow men to say these things or even say them ourselves, then they will perpetuate the issue. But, I believe that this can go both ways. In my perspective, it seems as though women talk poorly about men more so than men talk poorly about women.
So, what is the solution that feminists are looking for? Is it neutrality among both sexes? Feminists don't want to rid the world of the difference between femininity and masculinity, but rather change the idea that masculinity prevails over femininity.
My opinion of the matter from a neutral standpoint is that if we continue to victimize ourselves as the gender or the group of people that are suppressed in our society, then we are only contributing to the issue. By identifying or classifying ourselves as this, we are perpetuating the issue. Rather than complain about the way that it should be and recognize radical thinkers as feminists, why not just do it? Why don't we stop talking about doing it or the things that are wrong in our society and just prevail over men? It is statistically proven women get better grades and take more advanced placement classes in high school. Nearly sixty-percent of undergraduate college students are women, and women earn more bachelor and graduate degrees then men. If my sources are correct, then we are already on our way to equality.
Bell Hooks states, "Within a context where desire for contact with those who are different or deemed Other is not considered bad,politically incorrect, or wrong-minded, we can begin to conceptualize and identify ways that desire informs our political choices and affiliations." Hooks' quote is saying something similar to what I am trying to say. If we continue to victimize ourselves as being suppressed, then we will continue assuming we are and we will perpetuate the issue. However, if we think of the issue as not being an issue at all, we will be enlightened and will continue to achieve our goals of equality.
One of my main concerns with the notion that men have control over women or they suppress women in a way in which women are deemed inferior to men was that this can only happen if we (women) let it happen. Being a strong-willed person myself, I do not allow men to control the things that come out of my mouth or if I speak up or not. If you allow men to have power over you, then they will. The same scenario goes for anyone, even single sexed situations. Another aspect that I touched on was the issue of men calling women sluts or whores. Sure, if we allow men to say these things or even say them ourselves, then they will perpetuate the issue. But, I believe that this can go both ways. In my perspective, it seems as though women talk poorly about men more so than men talk poorly about women.
So, what is the solution that feminists are looking for? Is it neutrality among both sexes? Feminists don't want to rid the world of the difference between femininity and masculinity, but rather change the idea that masculinity prevails over femininity.
My opinion of the matter from a neutral standpoint is that if we continue to victimize ourselves as the gender or the group of people that are suppressed in our society, then we are only contributing to the issue. By identifying or classifying ourselves as this, we are perpetuating the issue. Rather than complain about the way that it should be and recognize radical thinkers as feminists, why not just do it? Why don't we stop talking about doing it or the things that are wrong in our society and just prevail over men? It is statistically proven women get better grades and take more advanced placement classes in high school. Nearly sixty-percent of undergraduate college students are women, and women earn more bachelor and graduate degrees then men. If my sources are correct, then we are already on our way to equality.
Bell Hooks states, "Within a context where desire for contact with those who are different or deemed Other is not considered bad,politically incorrect, or wrong-minded, we can begin to conceptualize and identify ways that desire informs our political choices and affiliations." Hooks' quote is saying something similar to what I am trying to say. If we continue to victimize ourselves as being suppressed, then we will continue assuming we are and we will perpetuate the issue. However, if we think of the issue as not being an issue at all, we will be enlightened and will continue to achieve our goals of equality.
coolbeans, 5/2
The class discussion on Tuesday on Cixous and Butler was interesting because it was a sort of open-ended discussion in which any person could take the discussion in whichever direction they chose. The topic of what a feminist is and why people are so reluctant to call themselves a feminist came up in class discussion. The reason for this I think is that many people go about their days and have not really experienced injustices. Feminists are stereotyped to always be fighting for some sort of cause so many people think that if they do not have a cause to fight for that they are not a part of the label. Another reason why some people may be reluctant to call themselves feminists is that they see the radical feminists who seem so extreme and then they see themselves their own behavior as the opposite of extreme and do not wish to be associated with it. Another interesting thing that came up in discussion was the statement that women who allow “injustices” to get to them allow themselves to be affected by them. I think that this is generally true. The best way to deal with it seems to be to ignore it. If a guy says something that could be considered degrading to a girl the best way to react would be to a) laugh about it (if it is a joke) or b) just ignore it (if it is not a joke). Both of these reactions show that one is stronger and holds control over the situation whereas if one lets it get to them one allows the situation to have control over her. It seems that many times the women who take on more “masculine” qualities do seem to gain the respect of both men and women. Women and men are just different by nature. Many of the so called “inequalities” are because of this. If we stop looking at these as inequalities but rather as personality differences then people will be much happier. Although men are paid more in the workforce than women, women are given maternity leave. It seems to be a trade-off in my opinion. Yes men are paid more, but I am sure that many men would be happy to be able to spend some extra time with their children.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
thestig, 4/30
The Last Discussion: a tribute to Cixous and Butler.
I am appreciative of the nature of our discussion, i.e. only the women in the room could speak. This provided the opportunity for something that men experience very seldom, if at all.
I have realized, from the discussion, how important it is to think before you speak. Even in normal discourse, both men and women may say things, which, unknowingly, may have an effect on someone. This is not reserved just for the topic of gender relations, but race relations, health related issues, and so on. We must be more critical of ourselves.
I think out of all the post modern critical theorists we’ve studied throughout the CMC program are those who suggest that we have to be more critical of ourselves as opposed to being critical of our society. Yes, our society is created by us, and therefore a critique of society is a critique of ourselves, but it’s not as direct. As we have learned throughout the year, there are many structures in place that prevent the critique of society to have an immediate effect on social outcomes; e.g. alienation and exploitation of laborers. People should not be making comments like, “You’re smart for a girl,” or, “You can’t do X, Y, and Z because you’re a girl” because these notions are based on ideologies that we’ve consumed through film, pictures, and popular magazines. It’s as if it is accepted in society.
Being critical of ourselves and of our discourse can have an immediate effect on our life and the people who live amongst us each day. That famous statement, we can change the world one small step at a time, may be realized. If we are all more self reflective of our actions and our words, than we can begin taking responsibility for the problems we face as individuals, as a culture, and as a human race: then we will be global citizens.
This is thestig, signing off.
I am appreciative of the nature of our discussion, i.e. only the women in the room could speak. This provided the opportunity for something that men experience very seldom, if at all.
I have realized, from the discussion, how important it is to think before you speak. Even in normal discourse, both men and women may say things, which, unknowingly, may have an effect on someone. This is not reserved just for the topic of gender relations, but race relations, health related issues, and so on. We must be more critical of ourselves.
I think out of all the post modern critical theorists we’ve studied throughout the CMC program are those who suggest that we have to be more critical of ourselves as opposed to being critical of our society. Yes, our society is created by us, and therefore a critique of society is a critique of ourselves, but it’s not as direct. As we have learned throughout the year, there are many structures in place that prevent the critique of society to have an immediate effect on social outcomes; e.g. alienation and exploitation of laborers. People should not be making comments like, “You’re smart for a girl,” or, “You can’t do X, Y, and Z because you’re a girl” because these notions are based on ideologies that we’ve consumed through film, pictures, and popular magazines. It’s as if it is accepted in society.
Being critical of ourselves and of our discourse can have an immediate effect on our life and the people who live amongst us each day. That famous statement, we can change the world one small step at a time, may be realized. If we are all more self reflective of our actions and our words, than we can begin taking responsibility for the problems we face as individuals, as a culture, and as a human race: then we will be global citizens.
This is thestig, signing off.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Dba123, 4/28
Yesterday’s class a much different exercise than any of my previous teacher’s has ever proposed. By not allowing the males in the class to talk, you could definitely tell there was a different dynamic in the classroom. I think that it was interesting that Dr. Casey volunteered himself to sit in the back of the room. Not that Dr. Casey is a threatening person, but the presence of a man itself might deter female students from opening up about some of their own encounters with men putting them down. When females were the only ones conversing on the feminist theorists, it seemed easier to talk about personal experiences that some people might not of felt comfortable to talk about if there was a male figure in the front of the room. I believe that if Dr. Casey had led the class, some personal stories would not of been shared in fear putting down our teachers gender and then offending him.
There were a lot of people commenting at the end of class how they had heard students talk yesterday that they had not heard all year. Almost every female has experienced some form of gender stereotype, so it was understandable that more people participated in the discussion. I thought it was interesting that only one male is the classroom stood up for men as a whole saying how men don’t purposefully mean to put women down when they gender directed comments. I would of thought with some of the comments made that more of the males in the room would have been defensive. Overall I thought this class was an interesting experience, especially for the men in the room, and a lot of in sight on the female psyche was gained.
There were a lot of people commenting at the end of class how they had heard students talk yesterday that they had not heard all year. Almost every female has experienced some form of gender stereotype, so it was understandable that more people participated in the discussion. I thought it was interesting that only one male is the classroom stood up for men as a whole saying how men don’t purposefully mean to put women down when they gender directed comments. I would of thought with some of the comments made that more of the males in the room would have been defensive. Overall I thought this class was an interesting experience, especially for the men in the room, and a lot of in sight on the female psyche was gained.
Weezy27/4-29
Yesterday's class was quite the experience I must say. The exercise was interesting because all the men were asked not to speak and the women were told to carry a class discussing gender roles in society. I don't think that I am personally very effected by gender roles in today's society. I feel this way most likely because I am kind of a go with the flow type of person. Many of the women in class yesterday talked a lot about standing up for what they believe and being very outspoken. To a degree, I do the same, but I don't find it necessary to attack others in defense of myself. I agreed a lot with what Jen said. She said that growing up she viewed her as one of the guys and never noticed herself as a lesser person than them because of her gender. She said that if men are given the permission to treat a woman poorly then a sexist circumstance may occur.
I also found it quite strange that nearly none of the men wanted to say anything or contribute any ideas to the conversation. Maybe they felt out numbered? Or maybe they felt that their ideas would be attacked? Subsequently, if the men in the classroom did feel outnumbered or afraid to speak their minds were they getting a piece of the oppression that some women may feel when trying to speak in front of a group of men.
I also found it quite strange that nearly none of the men wanted to say anything or contribute any ideas to the conversation. Maybe they felt out numbered? Or maybe they felt that their ideas would be attacked? Subsequently, if the men in the classroom did feel outnumbered or afraid to speak their minds were they getting a piece of the oppression that some women may feel when trying to speak in front of a group of men.
LightningBolt, 4/28
The exercise we did in class today was supposed to reverse the gender roles of our culture. After reading Getting Off in cmc 200 I know that the activity we did today only increased the existence of gender roles. Getting Off explains that in order to eliminate sexism we must view everyone as humans, ignoring their sex. This way the “amount” of a person’s masculinity or femininity will be judged. It will simply be the way the person is. Today in class we did not see everyone as humans, but instead we saw males and females and drew distinctions between them. Obviously this exercise was only to prove a point.
The problem I see with eliminating masculinity and femininity to creates a group of humans where sexism does not exist, is that this would never happen. As we discussed in class men and women are biologically different and these difference cause distinctions between the genders. Most men have the ability to gain a greater amount of muscle mass than women. For this reason men and women will never be able to be seen as one entity. While this is the main point of the book Getting Off I do not think that Cixous or Butler see eliminating gender necessary to eliminate sexism. If we could simply eliminate gender connotations to oppositional words, men and women would not have different linguistics, and could be seen as equals
The problem I see with eliminating masculinity and femininity to creates a group of humans where sexism does not exist, is that this would never happen. As we discussed in class men and women are biologically different and these difference cause distinctions between the genders. Most men have the ability to gain a greater amount of muscle mass than women. For this reason men and women will never be able to be seen as one entity. While this is the main point of the book Getting Off I do not think that Cixous or Butler see eliminating gender necessary to eliminate sexism. If we could simply eliminate gender connotations to oppositional words, men and women would not have different linguistics, and could be seen as equals
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Marie89, 4/28
I found today’s class to be very interesting as I had never partaken in anything like it before. The idea of silencing all males in a classroom was a very strange concept as it gave women complete control over a situation. I did not think it would feel as strange as it did, however, as there were only about 5 males in our class of over 30, yet it was a weird concept to have no male input whatsoever. It was interesting to hear what the females of our class had to say when it came to the idea that they had felt suppressed by males within the classroom and therefore held back from voicing opinions in the past. I was unaware that this was still a prevalent issue, especially when we believe our culture to be “progressive” when it comes to gender differences/discrimination, etc. At first, I was unsure as to how the activity would pan out, as I almost expected that we would be confused as to how to go about teaching ourselves the quotes as there was no one to lead or tell us what to do. However, it was clear that we would be able to carry on conversation for a while as leaders began to emerge, and women began to speak who had rarely spoken before in class. I guess it was the feeling of dominance that the women had or the security that they had control which gave females courage to speak whereas when males are allowed to speak as well, women do not have all of the power are therefore feel threatened. It is as if the patriarchal order has been etched into all of our brains in that we subconsciously are aware of male presence and the idea that they have historically held more dominant positions within our culture. I also find it interesting that the term feminism is talked about in so many ways. That is why it may be difficult to associate with the term. Not because one necessarily believes it to connote negativity, but because people are unsure as to what other people consider the term to connote. It is such an ambiguous term in which many people have different definitions making it difficult for anyone to label themselves feminist for fear of what it may connote to others.
Murphy, 4/28
The most interesting part of today's class is how it relates to my behavior right this second. I did not participate in the class or speak my mind even when the entire premise was that the men were not aloud to speak and the women were encouraged to. But for some reason I still did not feel comfortable contributing, although I had a lot of thoughts, feelings, and opinions on the subject, some actually very strong ones. But I can now sit here and type endlessly on the subject and on my behavior. I am not sure if it is because I don't have the entire class looking at me, or because I can think through my ideas and organize them before I just blurt them out (although I don't extensively edit my posts), or because it is completely anonymous on blogger.com with our made-up posting names. Whatever the reason I fit the mold that is set up in the quote "writing is women's" (160)
Although this is a public forum, I am writing it privately, and almost hoping that it isn't read by the mass public. I do not always act so reserved, but I thought that my actions today were extremely fitting for our discussion, and I almost felt disappointed that I supported the quote and was made an example of.
On another note, this entire semester has been a great test of critical thought and the way we analyze texts of all kinds. Taking CMC 300 without 200 was interesting, and I am excited to now go back to the 200 level and see what I can apply from 300 instead of the normal progression that most students take. I had a great semester and looking back at my notes the first thing I wrote was "Postmodernism: What is it anyway?" I'm not sure I could have an answer for that question that is an end-all for students and scholars, but I have a better idea of what postmodernism means to me, and I think the more I study the subject, the closer I will get to the answer I am looking for. Thanks for everything Dr.Rog and Starfish:)
Although this is a public forum, I am writing it privately, and almost hoping that it isn't read by the mass public. I do not always act so reserved, but I thought that my actions today were extremely fitting for our discussion, and I almost felt disappointed that I supported the quote and was made an example of.
On another note, this entire semester has been a great test of critical thought and the way we analyze texts of all kinds. Taking CMC 300 without 200 was interesting, and I am excited to now go back to the 200 level and see what I can apply from 300 instead of the normal progression that most students take. I had a great semester and looking back at my notes the first thing I wrote was "Postmodernism: What is it anyway?" I'm not sure I could have an answer for that question that is an end-all for students and scholars, but I have a better idea of what postmodernism means to me, and I think the more I study the subject, the closer I will get to the answer I am looking for. Thanks for everything Dr.Rog and Starfish:)
000ooo000ooo 4/28
I found the social experiment we did in class today extremely interesting. I have never sat in on a discussion and not been allowed to talk or had to write something down before it could be said. It was frustrating for a number of reasons. First, if I had a thought about what was going on I had to write it down and by the time I was done writing we had moved to a new subject and my comment was kind of irrelevant. Also, when all you can do is write it is very difficult to defend anything you say. If people disagreed with me or misunderstood me I knew it would be virtually impossible to defend myself because I would have to write down a response and people probably wouldn't want to just wait for me to write something, the conversation would move on. On top of all of this, the person next to me chose to silence me by not reading anything I wrote.
One question that was asked that I most wanted to talk was, why aren't more people feminist? and are you feminist? I hate when people ask this question and I actually really don't like the term feminist. Today I think I finally figured out how to articulate why I don't like the term "feminist". First of all, it is not the ideas behind feminism that I don't like. In fact, I agree with most feminist ideas. However, the term "feminism" has no consistent definition. Everyone thinks of something different when they hear the term "feminist". So when I am asked that I don't want to say that I am a feminist because I never know what I'm saying I am. The original definition of feminism that I learned is someone who believes men and women are equal and should be treated as such. I completely agree with this. But I also think most people would agree with this and I don't think most people consider themselves feminists. To me feminism has been transformed from a simple belief into a set of beliefs like "Republican" or "Democrat". When people ask me if I am a Republican or Democrat I never know what to say because there are parts of each I agree with and to identify as just one means that I agree with every part of it.
Although I have always found it frustrating that feminism has no definition - I think this problem greatly detracts from a noble movement - I think I can finally understand why. Derrida, De Saussure, and Butler all describe that we only understand what things are by comparing them with what they are not. As such, every word needs a concrete opposition in order to have meaning. There is no "opposite" to feminism; no masculism. One could say that hegemonic ideologies or male dominance systems are an opposite but even these ideas are problematic. Feminism doesn't attempt to break down all hegemonic ideologies and the opposite of male dominance would be female dominance, which is not what feminism is about.
Without a widely accepted definition I don't think feminism will ever gain widespread popular support. Even many girls in the class were not prepared to call themselves feminists, this doesn't bode well for feminism's future.
One question that was asked that I most wanted to talk was, why aren't more people feminist? and are you feminist? I hate when people ask this question and I actually really don't like the term feminist. Today I think I finally figured out how to articulate why I don't like the term "feminist". First of all, it is not the ideas behind feminism that I don't like. In fact, I agree with most feminist ideas. However, the term "feminism" has no consistent definition. Everyone thinks of something different when they hear the term "feminist". So when I am asked that I don't want to say that I am a feminist because I never know what I'm saying I am. The original definition of feminism that I learned is someone who believes men and women are equal and should be treated as such. I completely agree with this. But I also think most people would agree with this and I don't think most people consider themselves feminists. To me feminism has been transformed from a simple belief into a set of beliefs like "Republican" or "Democrat". When people ask me if I am a Republican or Democrat I never know what to say because there are parts of each I agree with and to identify as just one means that I agree with every part of it.
Although I have always found it frustrating that feminism has no definition - I think this problem greatly detracts from a noble movement - I think I can finally understand why. Derrida, De Saussure, and Butler all describe that we only understand what things are by comparing them with what they are not. As such, every word needs a concrete opposition in order to have meaning. There is no "opposite" to feminism; no masculism. One could say that hegemonic ideologies or male dominance systems are an opposite but even these ideas are problematic. Feminism doesn't attempt to break down all hegemonic ideologies and the opposite of male dominance would be female dominance, which is not what feminism is about.
Without a widely accepted definition I don't think feminism will ever gain widespread popular support. Even many girls in the class were not prepared to call themselves feminists, this doesn't bode well for feminism's future.
Scorpio, 4/28
Today’s class was one of the most interesting I have ever participated in at Rollins. Theorists and feminists like Butler and Cixous question the structure of speech as inherently masculine. They also say the art of writing is owned by a woman. I agree that while men tend to be more outspoken in society, women are in the background and more passive than men. I think this is ingrained into us at a young age. Boys are raised to be social and aggressive beings that interact through team-oriented relationships. In a schoolyard, boys pick teams to belong to, where they have the ability to potentially lead the group. On the other hand, young girls are socialized in a much different manner. While playing with dolls (which usually never talk back to them) and having play-dates with one or two more friends, girls become accustomed to being “out-numbered” by boys. I think in a way this affects girls and self-confidence. In school, many girls feel there is pressure to be smart and well spoken. Therefore, they might not always speak aloud in class. Maybe boys feel more of a sense in security that they will not come off as dumb if they get the answer wrong. I question how many teachers also encourage girls to speak in the classroom. Dr. Casey practiced this theory in affect today in class. Although I can admit I was a little empowered, I also felt sorry for the guys in the class. They seemed to be unresponsive in the discussion. Maybe it was too much work for them to write their thought down on paper instead of speak to the class. The opposite goes for me; I would rather at times take notes and jot my thoughts down than speak out loud. This class made me wonder if I’m truly reaching my potential in the classroom if I am socialized to be silenced?
dmariel, 4/28
After doing the reading last night, I was not sure exactly where Cixous and Butler were going with their argument. After class today I realize that they are speaking out for women around the world. Women have commonly been oppressed in our culture and it is in the past few decades that we have really taken a stance in our equality. As a woman, I inevitably feel as if I have a better understanding of this than men. Therefore, I agree with Jackson when he said in class that it is apparent hat the girls would be able to run the class today due to the fact that the reading was about women. But, could we run any other class?
When Dr. Casey allowed the girls to run the class today, my first thought was one of nervousness. Personally, I am not a very outspoken person in front of my classmates. I have never thought about it in depth until today. Am I just shy? Or do I feel repressed to speak my thoughts as a woman? I definitely do feel that I can easily express myself in written word much better than spoken. When I have a personal issue that I try to solve with someone, whether it be a friend, my mom, or my boyfriend, I have trouble speaking my mind. I find it much easier to write my emotions down in order to gather my thoughts.
I have always viewed feminism much like the other girls in our class. I see crazy lesbian woman stomping around with bras and protest signs. I understand that these women are racialists, but I believe that feminism is somewhat...stupid? I don’t know if that would be an appropriate word to describe it, but I believe that any woman has the power to be as successful as a man if they stand up to the stereotypes in our society. I think women have just as much of a right to voice their opinions in our culture and that feminism is just angry women looking for a reason to feel powerful. Dr. Casey brought up a quote that Cixous states that “women are leaving their bodies”. I found this to be explaining the way that women have to leave their biological sex in order to fight fully for their equality. It is inevitable that men and women have genetical and therefore physical differences that cannot be changed. Therefore, I think that there are always going to be some aspects of women that cannot overcome men in society.
When Dr. Casey allowed the girls to run the class today, my first thought was one of nervousness. Personally, I am not a very outspoken person in front of my classmates. I have never thought about it in depth until today. Am I just shy? Or do I feel repressed to speak my thoughts as a woman? I definitely do feel that I can easily express myself in written word much better than spoken. When I have a personal issue that I try to solve with someone, whether it be a friend, my mom, or my boyfriend, I have trouble speaking my mind. I find it much easier to write my emotions down in order to gather my thoughts.
I have always viewed feminism much like the other girls in our class. I see crazy lesbian woman stomping around with bras and protest signs. I understand that these women are racialists, but I believe that feminism is somewhat...stupid? I don’t know if that would be an appropriate word to describe it, but I believe that any woman has the power to be as successful as a man if they stand up to the stereotypes in our society. I think women have just as much of a right to voice their opinions in our culture and that feminism is just angry women looking for a reason to feel powerful. Dr. Casey brought up a quote that Cixous states that “women are leaving their bodies”. I found this to be explaining the way that women have to leave their biological sex in order to fight fully for their equality. It is inevitable that men and women have genetical and therefore physical differences that cannot be changed. Therefore, I think that there are always going to be some aspects of women that cannot overcome men in society.
Smiley Face - 4/28
The format of today's class was unexpected, scary, and liberating at the same time. I have always been raised not to talk out of place or argue for something I don't really understand. That's why I found it quite right when such actions were played out today with the men not being allowed to talk, and giving the stage to women to discuss what we know best: women. As much as women gossip and chat all the time, it is rarely about our place in society or our presence in the shadow of the male. It is something that must be discussed more often, for the recognition of ones place in society sparks awareness and often times consequent actions to change the status quo.
The term that sparked my awareness for the necessity of change was about the phallologocentric nature of language and its uses. Men dominate the vocal aspect of language while women passively live in a world of written communication. The main differences between these two uses of language is that speech cannot be edited: once something is said, or not said, it can not be taken back. As a result men use this means of communication to determine hegemonic structures of hierarchy to maintain the availability of the masculine image as the goal. On the other hand, the genre of writing as a whole leaves room for someone to decide whether or not it gets communicated to a broader audience (look at publishers). Furthermore, men provide women a space to communicate when men are still the ones who determine what to broadcast. Writing acts as a controlled means of expression.
Even from a historian perspective women would take on the identity of men to be heard. The passivity of women in communication reflects their stereotype in society and is therefore an easy identity for them to hide behind. Furthermore, when looking at women who are unsatisfied with this constrained world come the stereotypes of feminists as angry lesbians when really this stereotype comes from men in everyday spoken language (for example when comments like: 'god your such a feminist' when a women rebels against any sexist comment, and within that comment is attached a tone of judgment contributing to the fear of women to speak out loud).
Another point I would like to discuss briefly is history and, quite frankly, the irony of it. The information and actions of the past are meant to be presented as unbiased truths that have evidence of occurring. One question I have is, how are we going to know the real history? What's done is done and all we can do is look at the evidence that remains, but even then there is so much missing in our collection of the past, its easy for the dominant gender to take what is left and use it to perpetuate further superiority to attain masculinity. One quick example would be Queen Elizabeth I, a woman who were honored world-wide for her rule of England at a time it needed it yet at the same time she never married and did not even fight for women's rights while in the most powerful position in the world. As much as she was in a position of power, her history still comes from the perspective of men.
At the end of the day, these discussions help spark awareness that is crucial to any form of change. Sure one could see todays class as a bunch of girls talking about girls, but I see it as a reflection on our experiences as women in a society directed by men and therefore a new awareness that others often times feel the same and that it's ok to speak out.
The term that sparked my awareness for the necessity of change was about the phallologocentric nature of language and its uses. Men dominate the vocal aspect of language while women passively live in a world of written communication. The main differences between these two uses of language is that speech cannot be edited: once something is said, or not said, it can not be taken back. As a result men use this means of communication to determine hegemonic structures of hierarchy to maintain the availability of the masculine image as the goal. On the other hand, the genre of writing as a whole leaves room for someone to decide whether or not it gets communicated to a broader audience (look at publishers). Furthermore, men provide women a space to communicate when men are still the ones who determine what to broadcast. Writing acts as a controlled means of expression.
Even from a historian perspective women would take on the identity of men to be heard. The passivity of women in communication reflects their stereotype in society and is therefore an easy identity for them to hide behind. Furthermore, when looking at women who are unsatisfied with this constrained world come the stereotypes of feminists as angry lesbians when really this stereotype comes from men in everyday spoken language (for example when comments like: 'god your such a feminist' when a women rebels against any sexist comment, and within that comment is attached a tone of judgment contributing to the fear of women to speak out loud).
Another point I would like to discuss briefly is history and, quite frankly, the irony of it. The information and actions of the past are meant to be presented as unbiased truths that have evidence of occurring. One question I have is, how are we going to know the real history? What's done is done and all we can do is look at the evidence that remains, but even then there is so much missing in our collection of the past, its easy for the dominant gender to take what is left and use it to perpetuate further superiority to attain masculinity. One quick example would be Queen Elizabeth I, a woman who were honored world-wide for her rule of England at a time it needed it yet at the same time she never married and did not even fight for women's rights while in the most powerful position in the world. As much as she was in a position of power, her history still comes from the perspective of men.
At the end of the day, these discussions help spark awareness that is crucial to any form of change. Sure one could see todays class as a bunch of girls talking about girls, but I see it as a reflection on our experiences as women in a society directed by men and therefore a new awareness that others often times feel the same and that it's ok to speak out.
brookes77, 4/28
Todays class was very successful in the way that it was structured. Allowing women to have the voice and men not to have voice at all changed the dynamic of the class and i heard people speak that have not been voicing their thoughts recently. It was good to hear the argument and opinions of other women. Most people were feminist in the class, and before i came to college and took feminist theatre with Dr. (Mrs.) Cavenaugh, i had a completely different view of feminist. I believed as someone mentioned in class that they are women who are bitter, do not shave their arm pits, etc. When really we are all feminist but their are different levels of feminist, and one can be.
Cixous states- “every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud” (163). This quote consumed much of our discussion in class. I agreed to what Jen Z was arguing. In the human world is everything is a competition, no matter what gender you are in there is even competition between men and men and men and women. Therefore we should not let men control us and the way we think making us more timid. It is our own insecurities that might have started somewhere from men, but it is not the 1800's anymore we have our own voice ( as women) we just need to believe it and use it. We must stop defining our femininity with masculinity, this must be separated and women should not be as sensitive. Saying this men should be more carful knowing their words and actions are taken a different way to women. There is a happy medium here it just needs to be found from both genders. We are beginning to "other" feminist" showing how different they are, only highlighting and exaggerating their words and actions. Everywhere in every race and gender culture has to "other" something or someone, it is very hard world to succeed with pride in yourself with out being picked apart by someone who is different from you.
Cixous states- “every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud” (163). This quote consumed much of our discussion in class. I agreed to what Jen Z was arguing. In the human world is everything is a competition, no matter what gender you are in there is even competition between men and men and men and women. Therefore we should not let men control us and the way we think making us more timid. It is our own insecurities that might have started somewhere from men, but it is not the 1800's anymore we have our own voice ( as women) we just need to believe it and use it. We must stop defining our femininity with masculinity, this must be separated and women should not be as sensitive. Saying this men should be more carful knowing their words and actions are taken a different way to women. There is a happy medium here it just needs to be found from both genders. We are beginning to "other" feminist" showing how different they are, only highlighting and exaggerating their words and actions. Everywhere in every race and gender culture has to "other" something or someone, it is very hard world to succeed with pride in yourself with out being picked apart by someone who is different from you.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Trapnest, Cixous
The introduction to Cixous’ work “Sorties” seems very strange to me. Perhaps she is setting up a premise that we have inherent associations of what is masculine and what is feminine about things, even words. These distinctions are clear and immobile to us and our understanding of the world. These distinctions also carry interpretations of power and hierarchy. I am however open to suggestions of the proper interpretation to this introduction.
She then talks about masculinity, one of the key points I got from this section is, “Why does man fear being a woman?” I feel one of the main points in her article is that women gain a power out of the fear from men. These things include the benefit that women can gain from things like bisexuality. Cixous also discusses how women are capable of loving, while still retaining themselves. I think what she means here is that men are viewed as unable, or not supposed to love as women love.
Then she discusses the voice. This I feel is also very interesting, how she perceives women as having a voice and how that voice alters their conditions and affects their lives. She discusses the written word as being this voice for women and an empowerment. I’m not sure if she perceives this as being enough to change expectations or perspectives or just as a way to assist them.
I feel that she takes an interesting perspective on hegemony and masculinity. While I feel she believes that the male gender holds more power in society than the female he also fears her. And she gains power from that fear and her roles. All of it seems a bit jumbled to me personally, but I think she’s lending another perspective on how gender roles have an emphasis on day to day life and the interactions which occur between men and women.
She then talks about masculinity, one of the key points I got from this section is, “Why does man fear being a woman?” I feel one of the main points in her article is that women gain a power out of the fear from men. These things include the benefit that women can gain from things like bisexuality. Cixous also discusses how women are capable of loving, while still retaining themselves. I think what she means here is that men are viewed as unable, or not supposed to love as women love.
Then she discusses the voice. This I feel is also very interesting, how she perceives women as having a voice and how that voice alters their conditions and affects their lives. She discusses the written word as being this voice for women and an empowerment. I’m not sure if she perceives this as being enough to change expectations or perspectives or just as a way to assist them.
I feel that she takes an interesting perspective on hegemony and masculinity. While I feel she believes that the male gender holds more power in society than the female he also fears her. And she gains power from that fear and her roles. All of it seems a bit jumbled to me personally, but I think she’s lending another perspective on how gender roles have an emphasis on day to day life and the interactions which occur between men and women.
coobeans, Cixous and Butler
The readings on Cixous and Butler made me think about some things that we have been discussing in my English lit class called Gender Adaptations. It seems that Cixous is talking about male dominance and hegemonic masculinity in from Sorties. These topics correlate very strongly with Laura Mulvey’s concepts of hegemonic masculinity and female looked-at-ness. Laura Mulvey’s main point was that women are viewed as objects to be seen by men. In the class we looked at many examples of this. In many ads for products targeted towards men (such as beer, cars, etc…) or high fashion ads women were posed or dressed provocatively and in ways that they are subject to the male gaze. This goes along with Cixous’ message that men are in the dominant position and define the ways in which women are portrayed.
Butler seems to discuss what the words feminism and feminist become associated with because of politics. Once again, in our Gender Adaptations class our professor had asked everyone in the class (mostly consisting of girls), “Who considers themselves to be a feminist?” I remember only about two people raised their hands and everyone else did not. This is because the political nature of things has caused the words feminism and feminist to become associated with extreme radicalism. When many people hear the word feminist they think of someone who refuses to shaves all her hair off and walks around protesting and holding signs. Butler says, “By conforming to a requirement of representational politics that feminism articulate a stable subject, feminism thus opens itself to charges of gross misrepresentation.” This means that when people try to fit the stereotype of what constitutes being a feminist then it becomes easy for the term feminism to be misconstrued. Butler means that by people getting involved in the politics of what makes a person feminist they are perpetuating the illusion that feminism is that way (highly glamorized).
Butler seems to discuss what the words feminism and feminist become associated with because of politics. Once again, in our Gender Adaptations class our professor had asked everyone in the class (mostly consisting of girls), “Who considers themselves to be a feminist?” I remember only about two people raised their hands and everyone else did not. This is because the political nature of things has caused the words feminism and feminist to become associated with extreme radicalism. When many people hear the word feminist they think of someone who refuses to shaves all her hair off and walks around protesting and holding signs. Butler says, “By conforming to a requirement of representational politics that feminism articulate a stable subject, feminism thus opens itself to charges of gross misrepresentation.” This means that when people try to fit the stereotype of what constitutes being a feminist then it becomes easy for the term feminism to be misconstrued. Butler means that by people getting involved in the politics of what makes a person feminist they are perpetuating the illusion that feminism is that way (highly glamorized).
Rubber Soul, Cixous
“If woman has always functioned ‘within’ man’s discourse, a signifier referring always to the opposing signifier that annihilates its particular energy, puts down or stifles its very different sounds, now it is time for her to displace this ‘within,’ explode it, overturn it, grab it, make it hers, take it in…” Cixous, like Lyotard, calls for waging a war on totalizing metanarratives. Only Cixous has specified which ideology to destroy—the one that suffocates the feminine. Man has created polarizations for all concepts, and woman is the opposition of powerful, active man. She is the passive and receptive symbol. The less important, most often ignored, and least valued individual in society. Cixous argues that woman is not taken seriously when speaking because “her word almost always falls on the deaf, masculine ear, which can only hear language that speaks in the masculine.” Men have always run our world. Marx would say that the winners write history, thus the roles women have played in history have been those of guilt and servitude. Man’s greed for conquest has resulted in complete ignorance to the gender that brought them into the world. Cixous urges woman to gain recognition through writing—a mode complimentary of the characteristics of the feminine. Cixous says, “That is why writing is good, letting the tongue to try itself out—as one attempts a caress, taking the time a phrase or a thought needs to make oneself loved, to make oneself reverberate.” Women are characterized by nurturing, repairing, accepting. And how does one characterize a man? “A man is always proving something; he has to ‘show off,’ show up the others. Masculine profit is almost always mixed up with a success that is socially defined.” I mentioned in my last post that in order for a prosperous change, humans should view each other equally. Many people have the misconception that women are equals in American society. They hold major offices and participate in the same roles men participate in, but the fact is that it is not true. Cixous is calling for women to make their voices heard and then prosperous change can finally happen.
Savvy, Cixous, 4/27/09
When reading this article I couldn't help but do think of the ways in which it related to so many of the class discussions that I have had here at Rollins. From my anthropology classes, to womens studied, to cmc, to religion. This topic of the "male dominance" has always come up in relation to gender issues, world stereotypes, and heigharchy. I think the most significant question that Cixous poses is the question of "why does man fear being a woman?"(159). I myself can't help but to ask this question. Constantly within our society male's are trying to prove that they are 'tough' and 'man enough'. What does this even really mean? Why has our society created the notion that a male has to be 'tough' and that this is what represents masculinity? In my CMC100 class we looked at a clothing ads in a magazine for Gucci and other name brands. This article remind me of the ads that we had seen because in all of these ads there was male dominance. In one had was a woman laying on the ground with three men placing each one of their feet upon her chest. I can't help put to ask the question, why does this type of marketing sell?
In many of the religion classes that i have taken we have discussed male dominance in literature, practices, rituals, and traditions. Recently, in my Modern/Contemporary Jewish Though class we analyzed feminist scholarship. Many of these Jewish feminist scholars posed the same question that Cixous did in asking why men are so afraid of becoming female and why is there a fear of giving women power? Women oppression can be seen throughout religious literature. For instance, a women can read from the Hebrew bible that she can be sold as a slave by her brothers or father. This may be getting a little far away from the point that Cixous made, but I thought that it had relevance to me when I was reading this piece.
Another quote that stood out to me was, "every woman has known the torture of begining to speak aloud...because for women speaking-even just opening her mouth - in public is something rash, a transgression." This may not be the case in many circumstances, but there are times where this quote does prove a point. When I was a freshman at Rollins a took an international business class. Often I was scared to speak up in class because there were only two other girls in my class. When I would speak, often I would feel as if the men in the class would look at me as if they were saying, "are you really talking or saying something right now". I do think that this quote has some truth, and I also do believe that there are circumstances that counteract this quote. It is all a matter of looking at where our society stands today in it's gender issues.
In many of the religion classes that i have taken we have discussed male dominance in literature, practices, rituals, and traditions. Recently, in my Modern/Contemporary Jewish Though class we analyzed feminist scholarship. Many of these Jewish feminist scholars posed the same question that Cixous did in asking why men are so afraid of becoming female and why is there a fear of giving women power? Women oppression can be seen throughout religious literature. For instance, a women can read from the Hebrew bible that she can be sold as a slave by her brothers or father. This may be getting a little far away from the point that Cixous made, but I thought that it had relevance to me when I was reading this piece.
Another quote that stood out to me was, "every woman has known the torture of begining to speak aloud...because for women speaking-even just opening her mouth - in public is something rash, a transgression." This may not be the case in many circumstances, but there are times where this quote does prove a point. When I was a freshman at Rollins a took an international business class. Often I was scared to speak up in class because there were only two other girls in my class. When I would speak, often I would feel as if the men in the class would look at me as if they were saying, "are you really talking or saying something right now". I do think that this quote has some truth, and I also do believe that there are circumstances that counteract this quote. It is all a matter of looking at where our society stands today in it's gender issues.
brookes77, Judith Butler
It was a very powerful way to start off with quotes dehumanizing the female sex: " Strictly Speaking, 'women' cannot be said to exist"- Julia Kristeva. Butler explains how feminists and women are defined, is it political? He discusses how we define gender and what breaks up the different structures. " It is not enough to inquire into how women might become more fully represented in language and politics. Feminist critique ought also to understand how the category of ' women', the subject of feminism, is produced and restrained by the very structures of power through which emancipation is sought." (192) This is a very interesting argument because he is explaining that feminist, how are very intense in many ways, get there name from how intense and persistent they are that their message is sent out, and structures of power (the hegemonic class) takes these images of feminist who are fighting hard against this class and uses this t o their benefit, insulting feminist even more. So even because feminist are trying to make a stand, in the end, it inevitably comes back to haunt them in an offensive and insulting manner.
" ...the political problem that feminism encounters in the assumption that the term women denotes a common identity. Rather than a stable signifier that commands the assent of those whom it purports to describe and represent, women, even in the plural, has become a troublesome term, a site of contest, a cause for anxiety" (193) This shows that the feminist fight might be too overwhelming to the outer sphere in our culture. Casual things people say, do, or how they act are becoming problematic and it is becoming hard to have a definition for gender, as Butler explains. One must need "cultural intersections and political intersections" to understand. He then explains that feminist have a sense of "urgency" to spread their point in this mans world (patriarchy) but this is changing categories we have only known about. This is not write or wrong but is this feminist determination causing a major change?
Butler sums up his argument when he says " My suggestion is that the presumed universality and unity of the subject of feminism is effectively undermined by the constraints if the representational discourse in which it functions." - I think this is a very important statement because in a way he says that feminist have a right to fight to be noticed and defined not because they need to define males on a higher level but the way they are fighting and the urgent mentality is not doing any favors for how they are being represented in our culture.
" ...the political problem that feminism encounters in the assumption that the term women denotes a common identity. Rather than a stable signifier that commands the assent of those whom it purports to describe and represent, women, even in the plural, has become a troublesome term, a site of contest, a cause for anxiety" (193) This shows that the feminist fight might be too overwhelming to the outer sphere in our culture. Casual things people say, do, or how they act are becoming problematic and it is becoming hard to have a definition for gender, as Butler explains. One must need "cultural intersections and political intersections" to understand. He then explains that feminist have a sense of "urgency" to spread their point in this mans world (patriarchy) but this is changing categories we have only known about. This is not write or wrong but is this feminist determination causing a major change?
Butler sums up his argument when he says " My suggestion is that the presumed universality and unity of the subject of feminism is effectively undermined by the constraints if the representational discourse in which it functions." - I think this is a very important statement because in a way he says that feminist have a right to fight to be noticed and defined not because they need to define males on a higher level but the way they are fighting and the urgent mentality is not doing any favors for how they are being represented in our culture.
aro0823, cixous
Being our first female writer, I felt a bond to Cixous that I did not experience when I was reading the other theorists. She made some interesting points that related to Derrida in terms of the prevalence of binary oppositions. Right on the first page of the text there is a solid line with the word “man” on the top, naturally asserting dominance over the weaker part of the binary, “woman.”
In CMC 200, we recently discussed the trap of masculinity—how males, since birth, are compelled to assert dominance over their terrain and be better, richer, and stronger than their female counterparts. Cixous poses the question that we often fail to consider in everyday discourse: why does man fear being a woman (159)? In answer to this question, Cixous states that it is because of the inherent desire to reinforce his phallocentric narcissism. Our society tells the insecure man that he will never be good enough, no matter how much work he puts in it will never be enough. He “is always proving something; he has to ‘show off’” (161). Being female, that seems to require a lot of effort.
Thus, employing a feminist lens, I would like to really ask why men fear being women? Women do not require a life “gravitate[d] around the penis,” but rather care about broader and deeper issues, their “consciouses are worldwide” (163). Women do not live in constant fear being usurped and can thus focus on more important things than, excuse my colloquialism, outlandish dick waving to prove their superiority. If we did not live in such a dominating culture, I would argue that we as a society could be far more productive. Women are naturally inclined toward cooperation and thus consider far more perspectives when making decisions. Thus, if men would adopt a more feminine style of leadership, not only would they ultimately be more successful in living harmoniously, but could essentially relax and take a break from their need to reassert their dominance every moment of every day.
In CMC 200, we recently discussed the trap of masculinity—how males, since birth, are compelled to assert dominance over their terrain and be better, richer, and stronger than their female counterparts. Cixous poses the question that we often fail to consider in everyday discourse: why does man fear being a woman (159)? In answer to this question, Cixous states that it is because of the inherent desire to reinforce his phallocentric narcissism. Our society tells the insecure man that he will never be good enough, no matter how much work he puts in it will never be enough. He “is always proving something; he has to ‘show off’” (161). Being female, that seems to require a lot of effort.
Thus, employing a feminist lens, I would like to really ask why men fear being women? Women do not require a life “gravitate[d] around the penis,” but rather care about broader and deeper issues, their “consciouses are worldwide” (163). Women do not live in constant fear being usurped and can thus focus on more important things than, excuse my colloquialism, outlandish dick waving to prove their superiority. If we did not live in such a dominating culture, I would argue that we as a society could be far more productive. Women are naturally inclined toward cooperation and thus consider far more perspectives when making decisions. Thus, if men would adopt a more feminine style of leadership, not only would they ultimately be more successful in living harmoniously, but could essentially relax and take a break from their need to reassert their dominance every moment of every day.
Happy Birthday!, Cixous
When reading this piece by Cixous and Butler, I found it to be very challenging for me to grasp the certain themes she was describing. I realized they were talking about women men, opposites in gende, and the double standards against each, but, I was still struggling. I read a few of my classmates blogs and I began to gain a better more solid view of what these two theorists were trying to get across. The first quote that stood out to me and made an automatic connection in my brain was when Cixous states, “through dual, hierarchial oppositions. Superior/ Inferior”. I immediately started remembering our class discussion on Derrida and his notion of alterity. Derrida claims that language is composed of difference, and there are lots of different ways to define things. Derrida states, “Every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by the systematic play of difference. This is where Derrida introduces his notion of “alterity” and how every language group privelages certain parts of concepts over another…we now de-construct language, which directly correlates with Cixous is saying.
Another interesting quote that I found to be controversial was when Cixous states, "every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud ... because for women speaking - even just opening her mouth - in public is something rash, a transgression.” I personally would have to disagree with this quote. At times I have felt that when I stand up to talk I get nervous and then feel silly for talking aloud, but I have never been ashamed to stand up and talk in front of any type crowd whether it be all male, all female, or both…especially because I am a female. My gender has never once made me feel lesser to a male except when it comes to sports and being athletic, because most of my male friends are very athletic and like to “show me up”. Athough, I can understand how some females would feel intimidated in talking in front of a bunch of males. Some people are different than others, and I think it depends on the person.
Even though i was thoroughly confused at the beginning of this reading, I feel that I have come full circle not only after reading some of my fellow colleagues blogs, but after writing my own and getting my ideas out there and making some connections. I'm interested in learning more on Tuesday to see what else these theorists are bringing to the table.
Another interesting quote that I found to be controversial was when Cixous states, "every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud ... because for women speaking - even just opening her mouth - in public is something rash, a transgression.” I personally would have to disagree with this quote. At times I have felt that when I stand up to talk I get nervous and then feel silly for talking aloud, but I have never been ashamed to stand up and talk in front of any type crowd whether it be all male, all female, or both…especially because I am a female. My gender has never once made me feel lesser to a male except when it comes to sports and being athletic, because most of my male friends are very athletic and like to “show me up”. Athough, I can understand how some females would feel intimidated in talking in front of a bunch of males. Some people are different than others, and I think it depends on the person.
Even though i was thoroughly confused at the beginning of this reading, I feel that I have come full circle not only after reading some of my fellow colleagues blogs, but after writing my own and getting my ideas out there and making some connections. I'm interested in learning more on Tuesday to see what else these theorists are bringing to the table.
Rico72, Cixous
"We have turned away from our bodies. Shamefully we have been taught to be unaware of them, to lash them with stupid modesty; we've been tricked into a fool's bargain: each one is to love the other sex. I'll give you your body and you will give me mine."
Well I was at least glad to see I wasn't the only one who was slightly lost. When reading this I started to think about how our society functions today. The quote can be related to homophobia in our society today. From the moment we are born, we are expected to pursue the opposite sex, and if we are attracted to the same sex, some people feel the need to make you feel like an outcast. The debate has gone on for years whether it is "normal" for someone to be gay. Religion always preaches that two men can not be married, and should not be together. Gay marriage is still illegal in states who "believe" in equal rights. People define marriage as love between a man and a woman. Why is this?
During my freshman year I did a semester long report on the subculture that follows The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I attended several live screenings that were shown every other weekend at a nearby movie theatre. I don't think I have ever been in a more sexually charged environment with me being the minority as a straight male. Everyone would dance with one another, and it even got to the point of some eating Twinkies off other peoples stomachs/chests. It was a different experience to say the least.
However, it was amazing to see just how comfortable everyone was with everything. No one was judging one another, they were simply having fun. It didn't matter whether you were straight, bi, or gay because everyone was comfortable with their own bodies. I was slightly envious in the sense that I wish I could be free of everything I was taught about what it means to be straight. I'm not saying I want to eat a twinkie off of some strangers stomach, but instead live in a society where people love their bodies and can live with out fear of being an "other." What would the world be like if everyone could be as open and free as those who participate at the Rocky Horror Picture Show? Would we still look down on gay, bisexual, and lesbians or instead embrace them?
Well I was at least glad to see I wasn't the only one who was slightly lost. When reading this I started to think about how our society functions today. The quote can be related to homophobia in our society today. From the moment we are born, we are expected to pursue the opposite sex, and if we are attracted to the same sex, some people feel the need to make you feel like an outcast. The debate has gone on for years whether it is "normal" for someone to be gay. Religion always preaches that two men can not be married, and should not be together. Gay marriage is still illegal in states who "believe" in equal rights. People define marriage as love between a man and a woman. Why is this?
During my freshman year I did a semester long report on the subculture that follows The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I attended several live screenings that were shown every other weekend at a nearby movie theatre. I don't think I have ever been in a more sexually charged environment with me being the minority as a straight male. Everyone would dance with one another, and it even got to the point of some eating Twinkies off other peoples stomachs/chests. It was a different experience to say the least.
However, it was amazing to see just how comfortable everyone was with everything. No one was judging one another, they were simply having fun. It didn't matter whether you were straight, bi, or gay because everyone was comfortable with their own bodies. I was slightly envious in the sense that I wish I could be free of everything I was taught about what it means to be straight. I'm not saying I want to eat a twinkie off of some strangers stomach, but instead live in a society where people love their bodies and can live with out fear of being an "other." What would the world be like if everyone could be as open and free as those who participate at the Rocky Horror Picture Show? Would we still look down on gay, bisexual, and lesbians or instead embrace them?
ashlayla, Cixous
This semester, I am taking an English class that is on Gender Adaptations. I feel that much of what we have discussed in that class is similar to what Cixous was saying in her essay. In today's society we are conditioned to believe that men and women are supposed to behave in certain ways. A feminine woman is supposed to be passive, nurturing, and dependent, while a masculine man is supposed to be strong, aggressive, and independent. I was strongly reminded of Hooks' concept of "other/othering" while reading parts of Cixous' essay. Cixous states: "But it does not mean that there is no invention possible, whether it be philosophical or poetic, without there being in the inventing subject an abundance of the other, of variety: separate-people, thought-/people, whole populations springing up of selves one didn't know..." (158) I was reminded of our discussion on Hooks' quote about how ethnicity adds spice to the media and the quote that talked about how race and ethnicity became commodified as a source for pleasure. If someone was classified as feminine or bisexual, based on Cixous' terms, then they would be considered the "other" because they are not like the larger public. If a person from a different race or ethnic background was bisexual, then they would also be considered the "other" because they have and different skin color and they have sexual behaviors that are different from everyone else. Another way that I was able to connect Cixous to Hooks and to my English was by something that was said in my English class. When we feminize "the other" we use feminization to be violent towards them. If a man were to be bisexual, most people in our society today would not be able to accept that because it is not normal. Therefore, we would use violence against them to either get them out of our towns or to get them out of our world altogether. It is like Cixous said, men are afraid of being "woman" because they are afraid "...of being reduced to a single idol with clay balls." (159)
ginger griffin, cixous
I found this particular reading to rather interesting. A year ago I took a class on gender and society and after having read this article, I immediately thought of that class. Throughout that term we came to realize that there is not much difference between a man and a woman. This passage also kind of confused me but one quote I did agree with was this, “for a woman speaking-even just opening her mouth-in public is something rash, a transgression.” I see that there is a problem in noticing that by even having a woman speak is transgression because the opposite of that would be that a woman shouldn't speak in public. And therein lies the problem.
Like Spaghetti spoke about in his/her blog, they state that in order for you to be a man, you must not be a woman, and in order for you to be a man you must not enjoy doing what women do. Therefore no man should wear women's clothes, no man (or boy) should play with barbies or with dollhouses. This is the part of the article in which I did not agree with. I do agree with defining something by what it is not, but I think that in certain cases you must make an exception, as with everything in life.
This was a rather hard passage to understand but an interesting one to say the least. Women have come so far from where they were and what they were allowed to do. Women are in a sense "bisexual" because they do play sports that men play and they do work with men and they do almost everything a man does. Again, I know I flip-flopped on this blog, but it was the only way I culd get my point across.
Like Spaghetti spoke about in his/her blog, they state that in order for you to be a man, you must not be a woman, and in order for you to be a man you must not enjoy doing what women do. Therefore no man should wear women's clothes, no man (or boy) should play with barbies or with dollhouses. This is the part of the article in which I did not agree with. I do agree with defining something by what it is not, but I think that in certain cases you must make an exception, as with everything in life.
This was a rather hard passage to understand but an interesting one to say the least. Women have come so far from where they were and what they were allowed to do. Women are in a sense "bisexual" because they do play sports that men play and they do work with men and they do almost everything a man does. Again, I know I flip-flopped on this blog, but it was the only way I culd get my point across.
Asyouwish 4/22 Cixous
This reading was extremely confusing and yet interesting. I am not sure if I understood what Cixous was truly trying to get across but I definitely formulated my own thoughts from the reading. Cixous stating, "The logic of communication requires an economy both of signs-of signifiers-and of subjectivity"(163) reminded me of De Saussare and his belief that signs make up language and that language is not universal. I believe Cixous is also arguing that language is not universal but only so in that it is not universal between the sexes but rather that women share a universal language whereas men share a universal language with each other. I agree with this and the fact that men act in one way "always proving something; he has to 'show off,' and showing up the others"(161). Whereas woman act in another way "she exposes herself. Really she makes what she thinks materialize carnally, she conveys meaning with her body. She Inscribes what she is saying because she does not deny unconscious drives the unmanageable part they play in speech"(163). Women are more in touch with their body and thus are more sensuous and not ashamed of showing their emotions to the world. Men hide their emotions because that is what they are taught to do. This reminds me of the movie A League of Their Own where a female baseball player starts to cry and her coach played by Tom Hanks, yells at her saying "there is no crying in baseball!" He then tells her the story of how when he was playing in the world series an umpire called him a pile of crap (or something like that) and that he didn't cry because there is no crying in baseball. The real reason in my opinion for the no crying in baseball rule is that it is a mans sport and "real men don't cry". In closing I believe women are better writers because they are in touch with their emotions and able to express them more easily then the average male.
ginger griffin, cixous
I found this particular reading to rather interesting. A year ago I took a class on gender and society and after having read this article, I immediately thought of that class. Throughout that term we came to realize that there is not much difference between a man and a woman. This passage also kind of confused me but one quote I did agree with was this, “for a woman speaking-even just opening her mouth-in public is something rash, a transgression.” I see that there is a problem in noticing that by even having a woman speak is transgression because the opposite of that would be that a woman shouldn't speak in public. And therein lies the problem.
Like Spaghetti spoke about in his/her blog, they state that in order for you to be a man, you must not be a woman, and in order for you to be a man you must not enjoy doing what women do. Therefore no man should wear women's clothes, no man (or boy) should play with barbies or with dollhouses. This is the part of the article in which I did not agree with. I do agree with defining something by what it is not, but I think that in certain cases you must make an exception, as with everything in life.
This was a rather hard passage to understand but an interesting one to say the least. Women have come so far from where they were and what they were allowed to do. Women are in a sense "bisexual" because they do play sports that men play and they do work with men and they do almost everything a man does. Again, I know I flip-flopped on this blog, but it was the only way I culd get my point across.
Like Spaghetti spoke about in his/her blog, they state that in order for you to be a man, you must not be a woman, and in order for you to be a man you must not enjoy doing what women do. Therefore no man should wear women's clothes, no man (or boy) should play with barbies or with dollhouses. This is the part of the article in which I did not agree with. I do agree with defining something by what it is not, but I think that in certain cases you must make an exception, as with everything in life.
This was a rather hard passage to understand but an interesting one to say the least. Women have come so far from where they were and what they were allowed to do. Women are in a sense "bisexual" because they do play sports that men play and they do work with men and they do almost everything a man does. Again, I know I flip-flopped on this blog, but it was the only way I culd get my point across.
spaghetti, cixous
I found Cixous' essay particularly relevant to my courses this semester. In one of my communication courses, we recently discussed what it means to be male and what it means to be female, and what we found in our discussion is fully supported by the claims made in this essay. I liked how Cixous introduced her ideas at the beginning of the essay with the notion of binary oppositions and their roles in society. She draws on their ubiquitous presence and strong influential power upon our society and the way in which we define ourselves when she states, "Organization by hierarchy makes all conceptual organization subject to man" (158). Her use of binary oppositions reminded me of Marx's analysis of signs of the ruling class. which we studied earlier this semester.
In my communications class, we discussed what it means to be male. We concluded that from an early age, males are socialized to define themselves and their gender identity by being "not female." Even when examining a happy meal from McDonald's, we found evidence of this. For example, the side of the box meant to appeal to little boys had scientific tools like microscopes and calculators and rulers on it. it was covered in dark colors and had sports equipment and numbers in the background--all things that the male sex is supposed to naturally enjoy. On the other side of the box, which was brightly colored with pinks, purples, and yellows, there were cartoon girls with long hair and ponies, jewelry, make-up and a note written on the box encouraging little girls to eat their protein to get beautiful nails and long shiny hair.... clearly this is something our society instills in children's minds early on in the course of their personal identity construction.
So to be male, you are not female. Meaning you should not enjoy or take part in things that females do. For example, little boys are not supposed to play with dolls, be affectionate, enjoy dancing, etc. But then my class discussed the reverse of the question. what does it mean to be female? It most certainly does not mean not enjoying the things that males do. Women wear pants, enjoy sports, are interested in science and math, etc. Therefore Cixous' claim stands true in our society today..."in a certain way woman is bisexual--man having been trained to aim for glorious phallic monosexuality." Therefore women posses characteristics traditionally attached to both conventional ideas of male and female. Men, however, are socially discouraged to host any traits other than those stereotypical of traditional male ideals.... what a shame
In my communications class, we discussed what it means to be male. We concluded that from an early age, males are socialized to define themselves and their gender identity by being "not female." Even when examining a happy meal from McDonald's, we found evidence of this. For example, the side of the box meant to appeal to little boys had scientific tools like microscopes and calculators and rulers on it. it was covered in dark colors and had sports equipment and numbers in the background--all things that the male sex is supposed to naturally enjoy. On the other side of the box, which was brightly colored with pinks, purples, and yellows, there were cartoon girls with long hair and ponies, jewelry, make-up and a note written on the box encouraging little girls to eat their protein to get beautiful nails and long shiny hair.... clearly this is something our society instills in children's minds early on in the course of their personal identity construction.
So to be male, you are not female. Meaning you should not enjoy or take part in things that females do. For example, little boys are not supposed to play with dolls, be affectionate, enjoy dancing, etc. But then my class discussed the reverse of the question. what does it mean to be female? It most certainly does not mean not enjoying the things that males do. Women wear pants, enjoy sports, are interested in science and math, etc. Therefore Cixous' claim stands true in our society today..."in a certain way woman is bisexual--man having been trained to aim for glorious phallic monosexuality." Therefore women posses characteristics traditionally attached to both conventional ideas of male and female. Men, however, are socially discouraged to host any traits other than those stereotypical of traditional male ideals.... what a shame
LightningBolt, Cixous
“Through dual, hierarchical oppositions. Superior/ Inferior” (157).
Cixous starts off by claiming that every word has an opposition and in that opposition one word is superior and the other inferior. This instantly reminded me of Derrida and his concept of alterity. I am having similar problems understanding Cixous concept as I did understanding alterity. My main struggle is that I do not necessarily see one word to be superior to the other. An example Cixous provides is “Day/Night.” I like certain aspects about day and others about night, so to me one word is not superior. If I understand the reading correctly, Cixous is claiming that the word on the left is associated with masculinity and the word on the right is associated with femininity. I drew this conclusion based on the fact that she later states, “Male privilege, shown in the opposition between activity and passivity, which he uses to sustain himself” (158). She also puts man before women in the last opposition and it appears to me that she is a feminist writer.
Assuming this to be true, her oppositions appear to be what a feminist would claim in the 80’s. Men are thought to follow their heads while women are assumed to follow their hearts. Men are considered intelligible while women are considered palpable.
“There are repercussions…one notices that it is marked by an absolute constant which orders values and which is precisely this opposition, activity/passivity” (158).
It is my impression that Cixous is saying by believing these oppositions our thought is changed. By our thought being changed out language will change. Ultimately, our culture exposing us to these oppositions changes our language. If this assumption is true, which I suppose I will find out in class tomorrow, Cixous provided answers to some questions Derrida left me with. I understood that Derrida felt that cultures valued oppositions in different ways, but I didn’t understand the purpose of studying that, or how it affects our lives. After reading Cixous I think that the reason for studying oppositions is because they change our process of thought and language.
Cixous starts off by claiming that every word has an opposition and in that opposition one word is superior and the other inferior. This instantly reminded me of Derrida and his concept of alterity. I am having similar problems understanding Cixous concept as I did understanding alterity. My main struggle is that I do not necessarily see one word to be superior to the other. An example Cixous provides is “Day/Night.” I like certain aspects about day and others about night, so to me one word is not superior. If I understand the reading correctly, Cixous is claiming that the word on the left is associated with masculinity and the word on the right is associated with femininity. I drew this conclusion based on the fact that she later states, “Male privilege, shown in the opposition between activity and passivity, which he uses to sustain himself” (158). She also puts man before women in the last opposition and it appears to me that she is a feminist writer.
Assuming this to be true, her oppositions appear to be what a feminist would claim in the 80’s. Men are thought to follow their heads while women are assumed to follow their hearts. Men are considered intelligible while women are considered palpable.
“There are repercussions…one notices that it is marked by an absolute constant which orders values and which is precisely this opposition, activity/passivity” (158).
It is my impression that Cixous is saying by believing these oppositions our thought is changed. By our thought being changed out language will change. Ultimately, our culture exposing us to these oppositions changes our language. If this assumption is true, which I suppose I will find out in class tomorrow, Cixous provided answers to some questions Derrida left me with. I understood that Derrida felt that cultures valued oppositions in different ways, but I didn’t understand the purpose of studying that, or how it affects our lives. After reading Cixous I think that the reason for studying oppositions is because they change our process of thought and language.
WoolyBully7, Cixous & Butler
“If woman has always functioned ‘within’ man’s discourse, a signifier referring always to the opposing signifier that annihilates its particular energy, puts down or stifles its very different sounds, now it is time for her to displace this ‘within,’ explode it, overturn it, grab it, make it hers…you will see how easily she will well up from this ‘within’ where she hidden and dormant…” (165-166).
As hard as this reading was, I think I was able to muster up some sense out of this paragraph. This quote was the only one with substance that I thought I somewhat understood. Even to this day, women are still being overshadowed by men. On the outside it seems like women have earned so much equality but they really haven’t. I’m going to preface this by saying that I grew up in a very, very matriarchal household. I don’t believe women can do great things; I know they can do great things and I have lived to see this happen on numerous occasions. There are female CEOs, governors, senators, cabinet members, TV show hosts, professional athletes, etc. The CEOs of Xerox and EBay are women, Hilary Clinton ran as an potential presidential candidate, the Chancellor of Germany as well as the President of Chile are women, and then there’s Oprah, who brings both gender and race into the spotlight. Hilary used to function underneath her ex-president husband, Bill Clinton, now she has taken the stage for the most part. Women are taking charge but even now, with Michelle Obama, I think it is being taken even further to help women gain equality in the workplace, at home, school, everywhere. They talk a lot about writing in this article, and I thought that writing was one of the only real mediums left today that knows no gender. Sure some writings may make more sense if we know what gender the author is but for the most part, all writers are created and treated equally.
As hard as this reading was, I think I was able to muster up some sense out of this paragraph. This quote was the only one with substance that I thought I somewhat understood. Even to this day, women are still being overshadowed by men. On the outside it seems like women have earned so much equality but they really haven’t. I’m going to preface this by saying that I grew up in a very, very matriarchal household. I don’t believe women can do great things; I know they can do great things and I have lived to see this happen on numerous occasions. There are female CEOs, governors, senators, cabinet members, TV show hosts, professional athletes, etc. The CEOs of Xerox and EBay are women, Hilary Clinton ran as an potential presidential candidate, the Chancellor of Germany as well as the President of Chile are women, and then there’s Oprah, who brings both gender and race into the spotlight. Hilary used to function underneath her ex-president husband, Bill Clinton, now she has taken the stage for the most part. Women are taking charge but even now, with Michelle Obama, I think it is being taken even further to help women gain equality in the workplace, at home, school, everywhere. They talk a lot about writing in this article, and I thought that writing was one of the only real mediums left today that knows no gender. Sure some writings may make more sense if we know what gender the author is but for the most part, all writers are created and treated equally.
yellowdaisy 4, cixous & butler
I found the Cixous and Butler reading about women and opposites in gender to be interesting yet quite confusing. Cixous begins by talking about binary oppositions then goes on to discuss bisexuality and femininity. I had a hard time figuring out what exactly she was arguing. I do agree with a lot of their views on feminism especially when Cixous talks about the femininity in writing and how it is much more difficult for women to speak up then for men. These readings made me think of a Christina Aguilera song called “Can’t Hold Us Down” in which she discusses the double standard of women not being able to stick up for themselves. The song is about how males get to speak out against someone or take a stand for something but when women do it, it’s a way bigger deal. Christina, in this particular song, was discussing how the media talks bad about her because she’s not afraid to write about or speak out against male artists.She sings lyrics like “so what am I not supposed to have an opinion? Should I be quiet just because I'm a woman? Call me a bitch cause I speak what's on my mind, guess it's easier for you to swallow if I sat and smiled. She puts herself out there and like Cixous says “for a woman speaking-even just opening her mouth-in public is something rash, a transgression.” To me, Christina Aguilera, in this song in particular, is a modern feminist because she is speaking out against ill treatment toward women. Today, it is still hard to believe there are problems because many women are gaining so many more opportunities then they once did in the past especially with women like Hilary Clinton even running for president. However, women are still stereotypically seen as bitches or divas if they take control like a man, sluts if they “get around” too much like a man, or masculine and inappropriate if they speak up against something like a man. Although these double standards are sad and not encouraging, women still need to fight until we are treated completely equal.
Petite Etoile, Cixious
So Cixious says, "every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud ... because for women speaking - even just opening her mouth - in public is something rash, a transgression.” Now I have to agree, I have begun to speak and felt awkward or stupid, it would be difficult to find anyone who never has. But I can’t remember a time when it was because I was a female. I’ve spoken in classes before and faltered halfway through because the sudden thought that I sound like an idiot would smack me in the face. Or I’ve begun to speak and realized I said something that might upset someone. Such as a couple weeks ago when I was at a conference at UCF to help train activists and I compared guaranteeing freshman housing to guaranteeing women and children and life vests because they are weaker. The words no sooner came out of my mouth that I cringed and closed my eyes before the feminists in the back of the room started to shout. My friend backed me up and said that I had not obviously meant anything by the statement, we were talking about solutions to a housing problem on campus as an example for problem solving. And I think this is a good example of how sometimes people really just look too far into things. Yes some people will discriminate against women. But I think it is more on a personal level than a national conspiracy against women. I think the way an individual is raised, how his father treats his mother, how his mother treats him and other things like that, will affect the way they see women. Just in the same way with racism and other types of discrimination. I think the media does portray women poorly, as sexy play things or stupid or housewives, but I don’t think that it has such a huge affect that it might curb my salary someday. If that does occur, I think it would be because my boss personally thinks less of women. And I think the only way to fix that is some form of education or counseling for him. I also think the main problem here is that if men do have the upper hand, why would they want to change that? They have the upper hand… it is in their best interest to keep it that way.
Dba123, Butler and Cixous
Reading Butler and Cixous definitely proved to be a challenge for me, but from what I did understand I thought they both made some interesting connections between feminism and post modernism
Butler, I especially thought related to some of the previous theorists we have discussed. On page 192, she refers to Foucault and his ideas of power structures end up creating how subjects present themselves. “Juridical notions of power appear to regulate political life in purely negative terms—that is, through the limitation, prohibition, regulation, control and even ‘protection’ of individuals related to that political structure though the contingent and retractable operation of choice. But the subjects regulated by such structures are, by virtue of being subjected to them, formed, defined, and reproduced in accordance with the requirements of those structures,” (192). Not only did I think this related to Foucault concepts, but also Althusser and his notion of the repressive State Apparatuses and Ideological State Apparatuses. Butler relates how power structures have reinforced what the ideal of women and feminism is what it is today. Althusser believed our identity is shaped by outside agents, some by force and some that we are not even aware of at all. Butler applies the same ideas to a larger group instead of individuals themselves, this group being women. Ideas of how women should be are engrained in everyone, both men and women, due to the power politics have in deciding how we should think women should be. I think Butler was saying how not all women are the same, so that the common ideology of how women should be cannot be applied to all women, or at all.
thestig, butler
“Women denotes a common identity… it becomes impossible to separate out ‘gender’ from the political and cultural intersections in which it is invariably produced and maintained” (193).
The term ‘women’ is tossed around in modern society in ways in which are demeaning and unfair – when it comes down to the malaise of modern society – to members of both genders. In other words, the word ‘women’ is part of the root to the problem as a whole: that females are reduced to “women.” Why is this the case in today’s society, one might ask, where females are supposedly equal? Statistics do show that the females are getting jobs, some of which are high paying, however when compared to the income of males in equal positions, statistics show females are generally paid less. In addition, even though the glass ceiling effect may not be as evident today as it was 50 years ago, it still exists. The word ‘women’ is thrown around too much, and our media certainly doesn’t help to improve the situation.
‘Women’ are often portrayed as fulfilling the roles of housewives in media. When this notion is consumed, it becomes an accepted ideology. Females are not limited to being housewives, but as Butler presents, it becomes difficult to see the potential of ‘women’ when always portrayed in roles which fulfill the stereotype of the life of a women.
Every once in a while, a movie will come out of Hollywood where there is a man fulfilling the role of what one might expect a women to fulfill. The films identify this paradox, and the result is comedy: i.e. Ben Stiller plays the role of a “MALE nurse” in Meet the Parents. Every scene in which he is introduced or introduces himself, he says, “male nurse.” The fact that he says, “male” further perpetuates the denotation of women. Therefore, ‘women’ are objectified not only through the objectifying females in media, but also through objectifying males playing a character usually expected to be played by a female.
Juice15, Cixous
“Why does man fear being a woman” (Cixous 159)?
This Cixous reading was very interesting and had many ideas that I have never really thought about. Being a male, this reading was very interesting to read, considering its use of “we” as in females. This was a very intense and seemingly harsh reading and I am still trying to grasp onto where these concepts came from and how they came about.
The quote above is one that I read a few different times and not sure of an answer. If Freud couldn’t come up with an answer I am not so sure I can also. This question seems to interest me and I will be sure to ask around and see what the answers are and how they vary between male and female.
The idea of bisexuality being a fantasy of a complete being and the fantasy of unity is another interesting concept. I never have thought of this idea in such a way. It is supposed to be the location within oneself the presence of both sexes, it is strange to see such an in depth idea other than just a choice of sexual preference.
The excessive talk about the “phallus” was interesting also. The “Phallocentric Performing Theater”, the primacy of the phallus, pahllic monosexuality, phallocentric narcissism ect. I felt attacked during this whole reading and not sure what to think about all this, especially since most this stuff feels like it would occur subconsciously.
This Cixous reading was very interesting and had many ideas that I have never really thought about. Being a male, this reading was very interesting to read, considering its use of “we” as in females. This was a very intense and seemingly harsh reading and I am still trying to grasp onto where these concepts came from and how they came about.
The quote above is one that I read a few different times and not sure of an answer. If Freud couldn’t come up with an answer I am not so sure I can also. This question seems to interest me and I will be sure to ask around and see what the answers are and how they vary between male and female.
The idea of bisexuality being a fantasy of a complete being and the fantasy of unity is another interesting concept. I never have thought of this idea in such a way. It is supposed to be the location within oneself the presence of both sexes, it is strange to see such an in depth idea other than just a choice of sexual preference.
The excessive talk about the “phallus” was interesting also. The “Phallocentric Performing Theater”, the primacy of the phallus, pahllic monosexuality, phallocentric narcissism ect. I felt attacked during this whole reading and not sure what to think about all this, especially since most this stuff feels like it would occur subconsciously.
Dot, Cixous and Butler
Although I do believe the men and women should be treated equally and that both genders should be given the same opportunities, I have never considered myself as being a feminist in any sense of the word. In our society, there is a very negative connotation associated with feminism and most people, in my generation at least, strive to not be called one. Our culture largely sees feminist as being dirty women, who hate men and do not shave their armpits, but after reading the article by Cixous and Butler, I have found that there may be more to that assumption.
Sure there are some feminists who fall into the previously mentioned categories, but as Butler mentions, "the term women denotes a common identity" and even if all women are not self-proclaimed feminists, we all do have similar notions of how women are treated and should be treated (193). I was surprised how easy it was for me to relate to numerous things said in both articles, as I do not normally agree with radically feminist viewpoints I had originally thought that I would not like the things said by these authors. However, I found many of their claims easy to relate to.
I especially liked Cixous' quote which states that "every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud ... because for women speaking - even just opening her mouth - in public is something rash, a transgression" (163). I found this insight to be extremely enlightening and sad at the same time. I have definitely felt this fear, mostly in male dominated class room settings, and I know the reality of it. However, I have never really thought about it as a universal feeling and am sort of glad to know others feel it. It is however, discouraging that all women are affected by the power that men seemingly hold over us and even fear what will happen if we voice our own points of view.
Thinking deeper on this point, and examining the males around me, I wonder if they even realize the power they have over us. I am sure my guy friends would not agree that women should not speak up in classrooms, but still there is something intimidating about speaking out in front of strange men.
What is it about our inferiority that makes women feel so threatened by merely speaking? In a culture as accepting as ours, it seems silly that such a thing would be so scary, but really it is. I would hope that one day all women can get passed this fear and loudly voice our opinions to males... Maybe I am a feminist after all.
dmariel, Cixous and Butler
Cixous discusses the way in which we live in a world full of binary oppositions. Everything we think of is in relation to its opposite, or compared to something else. Much like
our previous theorist Macherey believed, we rely on interconnecting things in order to understand. Everything we know and understand is intertextual. Cixous presents the question of whether or not all of these binary’s relate back to the concept of man and woman, activity and passivity. “Are all concepts, codes and values-to a binary system, related to ‘the’ couple, man/woman?”
Cixous and Butler both discuss their essays in the form of gender and binary oppositions. Cixous explains how these binary oppositions create hierarchies, and Butler continues on by saying that “power produces the subjects they subsequently come to represent”. It is in this way that feminism has been defined, or not defined...”this has seemed obviously important considering the pervasive cultural condition in which women’s lives were either misrepresented or not represented at all.”
Earlier in the semester, we discussed binary opposition when learning about the theorists Roland Barthes and DeSaussure. DeSaussure states that “language is a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others”, therefore reiterating the fact that the words within a binary opposition define one another by comparing themselves. In addition, Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism comes into play here. We learn most about other cultures by creating them as a binary to ours. They are different and exotic, therefore the opposite of ourselves. Binary oppositions are constantly at work, and I would agree with DeSaussure that they are the foundation of our literary existence and understanding. I think that both Cixous and Butler are trying to get across the point that women are constantly being described as this ‘other’ to men, they are always the opposite of the strong binary. This is how the perception of feminism has been created from the roots of the English language.
our previous theorist Macherey believed, we rely on interconnecting things in order to understand. Everything we know and understand is intertextual. Cixous presents the question of whether or not all of these binary’s relate back to the concept of man and woman, activity and passivity. “Are all concepts, codes and values-to a binary system, related to ‘the’ couple, man/woman?”
Cixous and Butler both discuss their essays in the form of gender and binary oppositions. Cixous explains how these binary oppositions create hierarchies, and Butler continues on by saying that “power produces the subjects they subsequently come to represent”. It is in this way that feminism has been defined, or not defined...”this has seemed obviously important considering the pervasive cultural condition in which women’s lives were either misrepresented or not represented at all.”
Earlier in the semester, we discussed binary opposition when learning about the theorists Roland Barthes and DeSaussure. DeSaussure states that “language is a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others”, therefore reiterating the fact that the words within a binary opposition define one another by comparing themselves. In addition, Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism comes into play here. We learn most about other cultures by creating them as a binary to ours. They are different and exotic, therefore the opposite of ourselves. Binary oppositions are constantly at work, and I would agree with DeSaussure that they are the foundation of our literary existence and understanding. I think that both Cixous and Butler are trying to get across the point that women are constantly being described as this ‘other’ to men, they are always the opposite of the strong binary. This is how the perception of feminism has been created from the roots of the English language.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Marie89, Cixous and Butler
“If one ‘is’ a woman, that is surely not all one is; the term fails to be exhaustive, not because gender is not always constitutes coherently or consistently in different historical contexts, and because gender intersects with racial, class, ethnic, sexual, and regional modalities of discursively constituted identities” (193). Both Cixous and Butler speak of the binary in their articles, expanding upon the fact that gender has taken on a subject-like persona. In this sense, the female and the male are separate entities that are specific in their characteristics and do not vary at all. Both authors expand on the fact that gender is not necessarily a subjective description, being either all female or all male, but rather one may obtain characteristic of both the female and the male. The idea that “women” are presume to be the object of feminism feed to the argument that there is, in fact, a binary within our culture. As stated, “Feminist critique ought also to understand how the category of ‘women,’ the subject of feminism, is produced and restrained by the very structures of power through which emancipation is sought” (192). The idea of the binary also goes back to earlier in class when we discussed how the binary opposition is at work within our society. We continuously feel the need to label aspects of our culture as to organize our thoughts and ideas and to feel comfortable with concepts. Another way in which we do this is through othering in that we are not ok with that which is different so we must either categorize it or exoticize it. The binary is an extremely prevalent concept today as it is at work in almost every aspect of our culture. Both Butler and Cixous agree that we will not be able to make any change as far as feminism is concerned until the binaries are broken down. The world is not black and white as it is argued by the authors, and it will take much time for our society to realize the fact that we are ignorant of the gray area as it scares us. In other words, “And the feminist subject turns out to be discursively constituted by the very political system that is supposed to facilitate its emancipation” (192).
Smiley Face - Cixous and Mulvey
These readings reflect on the nature of humans and the presence of society and media in differentiating men and women. Cixous looks at the nature of writing with expressing oneself, while Mulvey focuses on the technological advances on cinema and how it constructs the way the audience's unconscious of seeing women.
First of all, the Cixous reading reminded me very much of the work of Macherey. When Cixous discusses the notion of 'active/passive' it reminded me of when Macherey talks about the way to say something is by not saying other things. Both theorists recognize the constant imbalance found between different aspects of life. Cixous applies the imbalance to sexuality and claims that bisexuality is the ultimate balance between male and female. She goes on the state how it is easier for women to find bisexuality because men are under scrutiny of society to live up to certain expectations and are thus restricted from experiencing wholeness. A consequence to the masculinity ideology is the need for a revenue to further confirm the socially defined term masculinity. Cixous also reflects on how men restrict themselves from giving into their socially condemned natural tendencies as they are considered 'feminine' and therefore not masculine, as clearly stated in the quote "We have turned away from our bodies...taught to be unaware of them" (164-165).
The second theorist, Mulvey, looks at the way technological advances of cinema instigate different ways of looking at a text: scopophilia and fetishistic scopophilia (concepts learned in CMC 100). They both refer to Barthes's idea of playing with the text and the gaping of the garment: jouissance. Mulvey concludes by stating how the viewing of cinema and the actual images of passive women and active men all contribute to the illusionistic narrative film.
Therefore, Cixous and Mulvey present the reader to a more in-depth analysis of women and gender in media, yet these depictions of women is media has been under the scrutiny of the male gaze it will be a long process for change to occur.
First of all, the Cixous reading reminded me very much of the work of Macherey. When Cixous discusses the notion of 'active/passive' it reminded me of when Macherey talks about the way to say something is by not saying other things. Both theorists recognize the constant imbalance found between different aspects of life. Cixous applies the imbalance to sexuality and claims that bisexuality is the ultimate balance between male and female. She goes on the state how it is easier for women to find bisexuality because men are under scrutiny of society to live up to certain expectations and are thus restricted from experiencing wholeness. A consequence to the masculinity ideology is the need for a revenue to further confirm the socially defined term masculinity. Cixous also reflects on how men restrict themselves from giving into their socially condemned natural tendencies as they are considered 'feminine' and therefore not masculine, as clearly stated in the quote "We have turned away from our bodies...taught to be unaware of them" (164-165).
The second theorist, Mulvey, looks at the way technological advances of cinema instigate different ways of looking at a text: scopophilia and fetishistic scopophilia (concepts learned in CMC 100). They both refer to Barthes's idea of playing with the text and the gaping of the garment: jouissance. Mulvey concludes by stating how the viewing of cinema and the actual images of passive women and active men all contribute to the illusionistic narrative film.
Therefore, Cixous and Mulvey present the reader to a more in-depth analysis of women and gender in media, yet these depictions of women is media has been under the scrutiny of the male gaze it will be a long process for change to occur.
Trapnest, 4/26
Given the class is almost over and this is the next to lass post-class blog post, I feel the need to discuss something. Actually, get off my chest may be a better wording than discuss, though it’s always something open for discussion!
My frustration comes from this; all the theorists have told us how to better live our lives. To fight against the hegemony in which we live or better see the world. We’ve had theorists tell us we need to read into every sign and every understanding we have. We need to question the world we live in, and what we perceive is real. We need to understand how media works, the capitalism behind it, and even the culture industry. These theorists have told us we live in a world designed for us by others, dictating our opinions, and so on.
How do they expect us to do all of these things, and still function in a society? If we sit at a four-way stop questioning a stop sign, “Why is it red? Who said it was red? Should I stop or am I feeding into a dominant ideology? Why do I think to stop in the first place?” We could never get anything done! I feel like the ‘ideal’ society would almost be one in which society couldn’t exist. We would have no interactions so no oppressions for dominant ideologies.
I feel it is the things that the theorists ban against that defines what connects us. It is our shared understandings that the theorists ban against because of how they’re formed. And perhaps they could be formed in more proper ways, but my question is this a reasonable expectation?
While I realize this wasn’t exclusively about what we discussed in class, but it’s something that’s been bothering me about all of these theorists. They all seem to have good ideas, but unreasonable expectations for what could really occur in a society. And I realize that perhaps they write on the ideal situation, but if it’s near impossible to enact, what’s the point?
My frustration comes from this; all the theorists have told us how to better live our lives. To fight against the hegemony in which we live or better see the world. We’ve had theorists tell us we need to read into every sign and every understanding we have. We need to question the world we live in, and what we perceive is real. We need to understand how media works, the capitalism behind it, and even the culture industry. These theorists have told us we live in a world designed for us by others, dictating our opinions, and so on.
How do they expect us to do all of these things, and still function in a society? If we sit at a four-way stop questioning a stop sign, “Why is it red? Who said it was red? Should I stop or am I feeding into a dominant ideology? Why do I think to stop in the first place?” We could never get anything done! I feel like the ‘ideal’ society would almost be one in which society couldn’t exist. We would have no interactions so no oppressions for dominant ideologies.
I feel it is the things that the theorists ban against that defines what connects us. It is our shared understandings that the theorists ban against because of how they’re formed. And perhaps they could be formed in more proper ways, but my question is this a reasonable expectation?
While I realize this wasn’t exclusively about what we discussed in class, but it’s something that’s been bothering me about all of these theorists. They all seem to have good ideas, but unreasonable expectations for what could really occur in a society. And I realize that perhaps they write on the ideal situation, but if it’s near impossible to enact, what’s the point?
spaghetti, 4/26
hook's article reminded me of a reading we did in CMC200 about racial stereotypes in the movie Rush Hour 2. The article, by Ji Hoon Park, pointed out the racial stereotypes used within the movie for comedic purposes. the two main characters, a black american investigator and a Chinese detective are not members of the dominant white culture that hooks describes in his article. Even though a main character who exemplifies dominant white culture is not present in the movie, the culture still is. The characters are constantly cracking jokes about one another's race and culture throughout the entire film, most of which would be considered offensive outside of the context of the entertainment industry. In the article by Park, the researcher gathered a group of students of varying ethnicities (which were represented in the film) to watch the movie. Afterwards, he lead a discussion of the student's feelings about the racist stereotypes portrayed in the movie. He found in interviewing them, that even though all of the students were aware of the stereotypes, they did not seem to have a problem with them. They considered them humorous, which reminds me of the idea that "to be entertained is to be in agreement." The students had to set themselves apart from the offensive nature of the stereotypes in order to enjoy the film and all of them did so.
They bought into this idea of the white culture as dominant and their own culture as "other," even though it was offensive. This attitude is precisely what perpetuates the attitudes towards race portrayed in the media today. If no one challenges the offensive stereotypes, then they continue to be made and "enjoyed" by the masses. It's not jut that they aren't being challenged. It's the fact that those who challenge these main stream stereotypes and offensive images portrayed of any culture other than the dominant white culture are not given a voice that even speaks remotely as loudly as that of the major corporations who create these texts with these offensive stereotypes. The fact of the matter is that people do watch these movies, and people do get offended and disagree. And if these people choose to do or say anything in opposition to these major texts of the mass media, their voices are drowned out by those larger ones of the mega corporations who create those texts in the first place.
They bought into this idea of the white culture as dominant and their own culture as "other," even though it was offensive. This attitude is precisely what perpetuates the attitudes towards race portrayed in the media today. If no one challenges the offensive stereotypes, then they continue to be made and "enjoyed" by the masses. It's not jut that they aren't being challenged. It's the fact that those who challenge these main stream stereotypes and offensive images portrayed of any culture other than the dominant white culture are not given a voice that even speaks remotely as loudly as that of the major corporations who create these texts with these offensive stereotypes. The fact of the matter is that people do watch these movies, and people do get offended and disagree. And if these people choose to do or say anything in opposition to these major texts of the mass media, their voices are drowned out by those larger ones of the mega corporations who create those texts in the first place.
ashlayla, 4/23
I enjoyed our discussion in Thursday's class. Although I already had a grasp on the content in Hooks' essay, I was able to understand it even more after class. When we discussed this quote, “Within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture” (366), I was able to understand othering more when we talked about movies such as Hairspray. In Hairspray, the main actor was the "other" because she looked different from everyone else. The producers of the show she wanted to be on didn't want her because she was overweight but because the general public liked her, they gave her a chance. I thought of multiculturalism when I read this quote. Multiculturalism is the spice added to media television shows and movies to make them more enjoyable. Multiculturalism adds more than spice to the media, it adds flavor.
When we also talked about this quote, “When race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relationships with the Other” (367) I was a little disgusted by people who use sites like the Planet Love website. Sites like these are degrading to women and turn them into an object not a human being. Women on these sites are being commodified, they are paid for and then "shipped" to the door step of whoever bought them. It makes me wonder what kind of people would participate with sites like these because I have never known someone to purchase the wife. Sites like Planet Love are disgusting and I just can't believe that someone would want to buy love instead of falling in love the more traditional way.
When we also talked about this quote, “When race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relationships with the Other” (367) I was a little disgusted by people who use sites like the Planet Love website. Sites like these are degrading to women and turn them into an object not a human being. Women on these sites are being commodified, they are paid for and then "shipped" to the door step of whoever bought them. It makes me wonder what kind of people would participate with sites like these because I have never known someone to purchase the wife. Sites like Planet Love are disgusting and I just can't believe that someone would want to buy love instead of falling in love the more traditional way.
Rico72, 4/26
"When race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relationships with the Other" (Hooks, 367).
The idea of "othering" has been around for hundreds of years. What I find interesting is how the use of it has changed. We "othered" black people by forcing them to be slaves and doing anything possible to make them feel lower than white people. However now we thrust racial stereotypes into mass media to make money and profit out of it. Somehow, in doing this we have made it ok to make these racist remarks. Sometimes it will even go completely unnoticed until one returns to the text and realizes it. The example of Rush Hour 2 is perfect because it is a movie built on racist stereotypes, but was well received by most audiences. We live in a world that is becoming fueled by stereotypes and "othering" for a profit.
In CMC 200 we discussed the difference between two texts, Rush Hour 2 and the Chapelle Show. We asked, are these jokes exposing stereotypes or simply making them stronger? We concluded that The Chappelle Show exposed how ridiculous all of these stereotypes were and therefore was a better form of media compared to Rush Hour 2 which is just strengthening this stereotypes in peoples mind. However, both were very popular so one must ask, is this what we want in our comedy/media?
It is still and will continue to be a huge issue. I stumbled across an article this weekend on the website www.cracked.com which reports "amusing" news stories or facts that you won't really see anywhere else. In a March article, they discussed transcripts between George Lucas and Steven Spielberg while "spit-balling" ideas on the new Indiana Jones movie. I was simply shocked at some of the comments both men made and could not believe it was true. I'm not going to post any of it here since it can be very offensive but if your interested here is the link.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/indiana-jones/
It is the presentation of different cultures much like this that are hurting the media today. It is even worse when coming from two of the most successful film-makers of all time. Hopefully, in the next generation people will stop "othering" although I don't see it happening...do you?
The idea of "othering" has been around for hundreds of years. What I find interesting is how the use of it has changed. We "othered" black people by forcing them to be slaves and doing anything possible to make them feel lower than white people. However now we thrust racial stereotypes into mass media to make money and profit out of it. Somehow, in doing this we have made it ok to make these racist remarks. Sometimes it will even go completely unnoticed until one returns to the text and realizes it. The example of Rush Hour 2 is perfect because it is a movie built on racist stereotypes, but was well received by most audiences. We live in a world that is becoming fueled by stereotypes and "othering" for a profit.
In CMC 200 we discussed the difference between two texts, Rush Hour 2 and the Chapelle Show. We asked, are these jokes exposing stereotypes or simply making them stronger? We concluded that The Chappelle Show exposed how ridiculous all of these stereotypes were and therefore was a better form of media compared to Rush Hour 2 which is just strengthening this stereotypes in peoples mind. However, both were very popular so one must ask, is this what we want in our comedy/media?
It is still and will continue to be a huge issue. I stumbled across an article this weekend on the website www.cracked.com which reports "amusing" news stories or facts that you won't really see anywhere else. In a March article, they discussed transcripts between George Lucas and Steven Spielberg while "spit-balling" ideas on the new Indiana Jones movie. I was simply shocked at some of the comments both men made and could not believe it was true. I'm not going to post any of it here since it can be very offensive but if your interested here is the link.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/indiana-jones/
It is the presentation of different cultures much like this that are hurting the media today. It is even worse when coming from two of the most successful film-makers of all time. Hopefully, in the next generation people will stop "othering" although I don't see it happening...do you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)