"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?
Monday, April 27, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)