Monday, October 29, 2007
Why Conrad is Not a Racist
Is Conrad a “bloody racist”? I Believe it depends which way you look at the idea. Of course many people can argue why he is a racist such as what Achebe does. But I feel there is more in reading that can prove that he is not a racist. The story Conrad’s Heart of Darkness takes place in an environment where they is some kind of slavery going on, and a division of race. In the story we see that Conrad tend to call African’s names such as savages and cannibals, refer to African’s as lower human, maybe even animals which is part of Achebe’s argument is that Conrad is racist. But lets look at this text for a moment and interpret it “They were dying slowly—it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation lying confusedly in the greenish gloom. Brought from all the recesses of the coast in all the leagality of time contracts, lost in uncongenial surroundings, fed on unfamiliar food, they sickend, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and rest.” In the quote you see that Conrad refers to there African’s as “black shadows of disease” which is fine if you want to use that and call Conrad a racist. But lets look at the rest of the text “they were not enemies, they were not criminals” “Brought from all the recesses of the coast in all the legality of time contracts, lost in ucongenial surroundings, fed on unfamiliar food” this text shows that Conrad and the europeans were definetly ahead in the world with “technology” and everything. And the fact of the matter is that they were not Criminals or enemies and ate weird food but you get the idea from the text that it was a social norm for Conrad to be talking about the Africans in this way, because they are from two different worlds. So is it racist to call these people savages because they did things that in Conrad’s culture be not be savage like? Today people such as Achebe may look back at this story and call it racist but understanding the time of the text and the setting you can argue that at the time it was a social norm to have slaves and see these people as different beings. (in conrad’s eyes, as different).
The ponce was a racist
Is Conrad a bloody racist? I would have to agree with Achebe and say yes on this one. It is very clear from the get go in his text where his sentiments lie with the African natives. From early on in the excerpt and onwards, one cannot help noticing the blatancy of his comments about the people. He calls them names and uses languages that affirm that he obviously had not only absolutely utter disrespect for them, but sheer hatred towards them as well.
“They passed me within six inches, without a glance, with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages… While I stood horror-struck, one of these creatures rose to his hands and knees, and went off on all fours towards the river to drink… hate those savages -- hate them to the death…”
To make this dislike of Africans even more apparent, and Achebe also touches upon this in his response, Conrad makes a sharp and distinct turn around when describing Europeans, the other “white” males:
“When near the buildings I met a white man, in such an unexpected elegance of getup that in the first moment I took him for a sort of vision… I shook hands with this miracle…”
No doubt about it, the facts show that this bugger (British term meaning f****r) was a bloody racist.
Interestingly and on a side note, the way other critics have overlooked the author’s prejudices reminded me how those of the patriarchal society had overlooked the wife-beatings and other misogynist behaviors in Thing’s Fall apart (which, ironically, happens to have been written by the very critic of this text, Chinua Achebe himself)
“They passed me within six inches, without a glance, with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages… While I stood horror-struck, one of these creatures rose to his hands and knees, and went off on all fours towards the river to drink… hate those savages -- hate them to the death…”
To make this dislike of Africans even more apparent, and Achebe also touches upon this in his response, Conrad makes a sharp and distinct turn around when describing Europeans, the other “white” males:
“When near the buildings I met a white man, in such an unexpected elegance of getup that in the first moment I took him for a sort of vision… I shook hands with this miracle…”
No doubt about it, the facts show that this bugger (British term meaning f****r) was a bloody racist.
Interestingly and on a side note, the way other critics have overlooked the author’s prejudices reminded me how those of the patriarchal society had overlooked the wife-beatings and other misogynist behaviors in Thing’s Fall apart (which, ironically, happens to have been written by the very critic of this text, Chinua Achebe himself)
Sunday, October 28, 2007
10.29
Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is a work which would not be considered unusually racist for it’s time. The treatment of black people in the piece was normal by the standards set in the time Conrad lived and as such the piece does not make him a racist; or, at least, no more of a racist than anyone else at that time was. Unfortunately, everybody was racist at that time, Conrad included, if you view their values through the lens of today’s society. This leads us to be unable to conclusively state whether or not Conrad could be considered a racist, because his level of racism changes greatly relative to the views of society in his time and ours.
He is a racist if you view his work from our perspective, as he depicts black people in a poor light, to say the least. However, if somebody was alive when HOD was released read it, they would have a vastly different opinion. Such suffering and depreciation of black people was standard practice then, and as such did not warrant special attention. Which raises another argument, can Conrad be considered racist if he is simply reflecting what is actually going on in the world? If somebody did a report on the terror attacks of 9/11, they could easily come off as anti-muslim or anti-arab, yet those were the feelings being circulated at the time. Would accurately reflecting those feelings make them a racist? I think not. They, like Conrad, would simply be telling it like it is, it just so happens it was awful for black folks at the time, so we view it as awful now.
He is a racist if you view his work from our perspective, as he depicts black people in a poor light, to say the least. However, if somebody was alive when HOD was released read it, they would have a vastly different opinion. Such suffering and depreciation of black people was standard practice then, and as such did not warrant special attention. Which raises another argument, can Conrad be considered racist if he is simply reflecting what is actually going on in the world? If somebody did a report on the terror attacks of 9/11, they could easily come off as anti-muslim or anti-arab, yet those were the feelings being circulated at the time. Would accurately reflecting those feelings make them a racist? I think not. They, like Conrad, would simply be telling it like it is, it just so happens it was awful for black folks at the time, so we view it as awful now.
10/29 post
Achebe’s critique of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness made me a bias when it came to reading the excerpt you provided. Every description he made, of his environment and his encounters automatically evoked thoughts on how Conrad’s explanations are or may be viewed as racist.
Conrad depicts the natives as being despondent, having no life, and utterly dependent upon the white man for existence. Even the scenery which he describes is life less, the old boiler, the railroad car carcass; portray the natives as living in an inhabitable environment, an environment that only a different “breed” of people can live in.
The six black men who were chained together walking with the buckets, kept in line by the white guard portray the white man as the dominant and the black natives as the defeated. The description of the white article around the young black mans neck as being foreign, brings light that Conrad may have seen anything white as pure or normal, and to see it on a black mans body it is no longer normal, almost foreign in relation to the body that carries it. Conrad describes the natives as being diseased infested and near death, their bodies as frail and bony, imagery that does not show the natives in a favorable light, it portrays them as not having the tools necessary for survival, completely dependent upon the colonizers for survival.
Conrad can be seen as not being racist by interpreting this reading as the negative sides of colonialism, portraying how the colonial invasion has affected the natural population. The pointless blasting of the mountain side for the train rail can be seen as a way that colonizers unnecessarily disrupt the natural environment, creating structures that are not compatible with the environment. He also notes on how colonization has forced many natives away from previous habitations. This is seen through Conrad describing the desolate villages along the route on his journey. He says that the area used to be full of villagers, but at the sight of niggers with strange weapons, they fled.
Conrad can be interpreted in many different depending on how you look at his work, it is understandable how Achebe sees Conrad as a bloody racist, and it is also visible how Conrad could have attempted at showing how the colonizers hurt rather than helped.
Conrad depicts the natives as being despondent, having no life, and utterly dependent upon the white man for existence. Even the scenery which he describes is life less, the old boiler, the railroad car carcass; portray the natives as living in an inhabitable environment, an environment that only a different “breed” of people can live in.
The six black men who were chained together walking with the buckets, kept in line by the white guard portray the white man as the dominant and the black natives as the defeated. The description of the white article around the young black mans neck as being foreign, brings light that Conrad may have seen anything white as pure or normal, and to see it on a black mans body it is no longer normal, almost foreign in relation to the body that carries it. Conrad describes the natives as being diseased infested and near death, their bodies as frail and bony, imagery that does not show the natives in a favorable light, it portrays them as not having the tools necessary for survival, completely dependent upon the colonizers for survival.
Conrad can be seen as not being racist by interpreting this reading as the negative sides of colonialism, portraying how the colonial invasion has affected the natural population. The pointless blasting of the mountain side for the train rail can be seen as a way that colonizers unnecessarily disrupt the natural environment, creating structures that are not compatible with the environment. He also notes on how colonization has forced many natives away from previous habitations. This is seen through Conrad describing the desolate villages along the route on his journey. He says that the area used to be full of villagers, but at the sight of niggers with strange weapons, they fled.
Conrad can be interpreted in many different depending on how you look at his work, it is understandable how Achebe sees Conrad as a bloody racist, and it is also visible how Conrad could have attempted at showing how the colonizers hurt rather than helped.
Racist Indeed
Asking if this man was racist or not is in my opinion slightly foolish since the text clearly identifies that he is. Joe said in his post that it is easy to see why someone would identify the text as such but with lines like "Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind waggled to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope; each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking." I was swirled into a flash back of Roots and was expectant of the author to call African Americans wide nosed and big lipped beasts of burden since ultimately this was where the text was going. His deeply racially charged descriptions devalued the story and made it seem like the race of persons or characters was more important than the content of what was actually going on. His contrasts between African American's and Whites as far as description goes furthers the idea that the man is racist. "They passed me within six inches, with- out a glance, with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages" In comparison to his description of a white man which was completely positive according to the text. He was "I in such an unexpected elegance of getup that in the first moment I took him for a sort of vision. I saw a high starched collar, white cuffs, a light alpaca jacket, snowy trousers, a clean necktie, and varnished boots" He did not go into detail about any negative aspects of this mans appearance, but proceeded to paint him as some sort of pseudo saint among savages. I do have to agree with Achebe. oN the other hand the fact that so much racism is used in the text could just be the authors way of being controversial or colorful, however with the extremes and extents that the text goes to that theory wears thin.
In my opinion I think Conrad is a racist. The one specific portion of the text that caught my attention was when he is talking about his shipmate. “You wonder I didn't go ashore for a howl and a dance? Well, no -- I didn't. Fine sentiments, you say? Fine sentiments, be hanged! I had no time. I had to mess about with white-lead and strips of woolen blanket helping to put bandages on those leaky steampipes -- I tell you. I had to watch the steering, and circumvent those snags, and get the tin-pot along by hook or by crook. There was surface- truth enough in these things to save a wiser man. And between whiles I had to look after the savage who was fireman. He was an improved specimen; he could fire up a vertical boiler. He was there below me, and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat, walking on his hindlegs. A few months of training had done for that really fine chap. He squinted at the steam-gauge and at the water-guage with an evident effort of intrepidity -- and he had filed teeth, too, the poor devil, and the wool of his pate shaved into queer patterns, and three orna- mental scars on each of his cheeks. He ought to have been clapping his hands and stamping his feet on the bank, instead of which he was hard at work, a thrall to strange witchcraft, full of improving knowledge. He was useful because he had been instructed; and what he knew was this -- that should the water in that trans- parent thing disappear, the evil spirit inside the boiler would get angry through the greatness of his thirst, and take a terrible vengeance.” Before this excerpt he talks about how these people are human and how they have feelings like all other people, ugly, evil, good or whatever. He here tries to separate himself from them saying that he has important business to attend to such as fixing steam pipes. He also talks about his ship mate very condescendingly. He describes him as a dog and that when the water boiler empties that a “god” gets angered. Also the imagery and adjectives he uses that he uses to describe the people are littered throughout the piece like Achebe says.
"Bloody Racist"
Conrad can be viewed as a “bloody racist” through out the story due to certain instances. He constantly degrades the people and emphasizes on their negative aspects. This notion is illustrated when he claims that “They were called criminals, and the outraged law, like the busting shells, had come to them, an insoluble mystery from the sea. All their meager breast panted together, the violently dilated nostrils quivered, the eyes stared stonily uphill. They passed me within six inches, with out a glance, with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages.” Why would he utilize the term “savage” in order to describe a human being? We commonly, relate the term savage to animals. This can illustrate his radical belief towards racism. He compares the people to animals. He could have had simply referred to them as individuals.
There was also another scene that demonstrated his extreme and “bloody” views. He says that “They were dying slowly—it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals. They were nothing earthy now—nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the green-ish gloom.” At this point he doesn’t even consider the people as humans. They were less than dirt. He does not even strive to aid them. Instead, he observes their pitiful lives without a single heart felt emotion. He even proceeds further by calling them creatures. He claims that “While I stood horror- struck, one of these creatures rose to his hands and knees, and went off on all- fours towards the river to drink. Through the usage of the term “creatures”, he dehumanizes them. Additionally, once again he portrays them as animals by saying that “went off on all-fours towards the river to drink.” These remarks certainly give the notion of racism. If he was not a racist, he would have portrayed the people in a different light. It was not necessary to bestow animalistic characteristics upon the people.
His racist tactics can also be portrayed by his description of the man that strolled by him. He says “When near the buildings I met a white man, in such an unexpected elegance of getup that in the first moment I took him for a sort of vision…. He was amazing, and had a penholder behind his ear.” How can he be capable of noticing such explicit details while men are literally dying before his eyes? This demonstrates his lack of concern and racists beliefs towards the people.
There was also another scene that demonstrated his extreme and “bloody” views. He says that “They were dying slowly—it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals. They were nothing earthy now—nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the green-ish gloom.” At this point he doesn’t even consider the people as humans. They were less than dirt. He does not even strive to aid them. Instead, he observes their pitiful lives without a single heart felt emotion. He even proceeds further by calling them creatures. He claims that “While I stood horror- struck, one of these creatures rose to his hands and knees, and went off on all- fours towards the river to drink. Through the usage of the term “creatures”, he dehumanizes them. Additionally, once again he portrays them as animals by saying that “went off on all-fours towards the river to drink.” These remarks certainly give the notion of racism. If he was not a racist, he would have portrayed the people in a different light. It was not necessary to bestow animalistic characteristics upon the people.
His racist tactics can also be portrayed by his description of the man that strolled by him. He says “When near the buildings I met a white man, in such an unexpected elegance of getup that in the first moment I took him for a sort of vision…. He was amazing, and had a penholder behind his ear.” How can he be capable of noticing such explicit details while men are literally dying before his eyes? This demonstrates his lack of concern and racists beliefs towards the people.
Achebe
I agree hands down with Achebe that Conrad does come off as being an racist person. Through out the story Conrad constantly be Little's the African race. Conrad sees the Africans as being lower than dirt and that as we all can see is low. He made many statements in the story that where down right ignorant. For example, " what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity---- like yours- Ugly" (p 34). Conrad said out plainly that he looked at the Africans as though they where aliens from another planet yet another display of his constant downing of the Black race.
Moreover, as Achebe pointed out as I read Conrad's constant usage of referencing to Africans as "Niggers" was so disrespectful and very offensive . For it is Conrad that looks stupid and ignorant through out his journey. I wondered if maybe he couldn't see or think straight until he started talking so highly of his race. For example, "(his) calves exposed to the public gaze . . . dazzled the beholder by the splendor of their marble-like condition and their rich tone of young ivory. . . . The light of a headlong, exalted satisfaction with the world of men. . . illumined his face. . . and triumphant eyes. In passing he cast a glance of kindly curiosity and a friendly gleam of big, sound, shiny teeth. . . his white calves twinkled sturdily(P 29). I wondered why Conrad couldn't see the same beauty in Africans as he saw while describing his people.
At the end of reading the story and the analysis of Achebe just brought it home that Conrad is a racist because of his story. Maybe someone can make me see it differently but for now my opinion remains as follows.
Moreover, as Achebe pointed out as I read Conrad's constant usage of referencing to Africans as "Niggers" was so disrespectful and very offensive . For it is Conrad that looks stupid and ignorant through out his journey. I wondered if maybe he couldn't see or think straight until he started talking so highly of his race. For example, "(his) calves exposed to the public gaze . . . dazzled the beholder by the splendor of their marble-like condition and their rich tone of young ivory. . . . The light of a headlong, exalted satisfaction with the world of men. . . illumined his face. . . and triumphant eyes. In passing he cast a glance of kindly curiosity and a friendly gleam of big, sound, shiny teeth. . . his white calves twinkled sturdily(P 29). I wondered why Conrad couldn't see the same beauty in Africans as he saw while describing his people.
At the end of reading the story and the analysis of Achebe just brought it home that Conrad is a racist because of his story. Maybe someone can make me see it differently but for now my opinion remains as follows.
Is Conrad Really A "Bloody Racist"?
Taking a look at the excerpt from Heart of Darkness, the author, Joseph Conrad may seem like he is a racist. It looks pretty clear upon simply reading the text and thinking that the words of the narrator are the words of the author. There is plenty of evidence that he is a racist, an example of which being that he describes black people huddled together on a boat as "black shadows of disease and starvation". Also, one could take that and say that he is using this character's voice as his own, a la Shakespeare in The Tempest. There is also a strong argument for the idea that Conrad could not be a racist.
Conrad sets Heart of Darkness in a specific time period where racism towards black people was not only not an issue, but encouraged as part of the slavery system instilled in this time period where the story is set. The narrator is a person who is seemingly a slave owner and as such, he would have a certain bias towards black people. Given that this is a work of fiction, Conrad may not be a racist, which is what I personally believe. It just may be a simple interpretation of how white people viewed black people in the times of slavery in America. I feel as if people who believe that Conrad is using this story to voice his own views could possibly be reading too much into this text or perhaps seeing something that I am not. As far as I can see, the excerpt from Heart of Darkness is simply an interpretive view of the rich white slave owners.
Conrad sets Heart of Darkness in a specific time period where racism towards black people was not only not an issue, but encouraged as part of the slavery system instilled in this time period where the story is set. The narrator is a person who is seemingly a slave owner and as such, he would have a certain bias towards black people. Given that this is a work of fiction, Conrad may not be a racist, which is what I personally believe. It just may be a simple interpretation of how white people viewed black people in the times of slavery in America. I feel as if people who believe that Conrad is using this story to voice his own views could possibly be reading too much into this text or perhaps seeing something that I am not. As far as I can see, the excerpt from Heart of Darkness is simply an interpretive view of the rich white slave owners.
Racist?
It may be possible that Conrad is a racist and this can be proven from Conrad’s text. A reason that makes Conrad seem like a racist is the way that he refers to people. The way that he differentiates people is a bit inappropriate. Conrad uses the word black and the “n” word very often. The way he uses these vulgar words, in a way degrades the people he is talking about. One part of the text that really caught my attention was these two lines, “It came in sections during the next three weeks, each section headed by a donkey carrying a white man in new clothes and tan shoes, bowing from that elevation right and left to the impressed pilgrims. A quarrelsome band of footsore sulky niggers trod on the heels of the don- key; a lot of tents, campstools, tin boxes, white cases, brown bales would be shot down in the court-yard, and the air of mystery would deepen a little over the muddle of the station.” I found these sentences very interesting because the way he mentions white people is completely different from the way he mentions black people. These sentences are like totally opposites; first you have white people who are high and mighty with all of their new stuff on a donkey. Then there are the black people who are quarreling footsore sulky people. This was one part that really makes it seem like Conrad is a racist. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I always believed that it was inappropriate for a non-black person to use the “n” word. It was a really offensive word that people used a very long time ago.
On the other hand Conrad could possibly not be a racist at all. The text was written a while ago and it is fiction. Maybe that was how people spoke/wrote about people; also you really have to keep in mind that it is fiction. Conrad doesn’t come out in the open and just bash black people. He is telling a story and that is how his characters are seen. Anyway it is very difficult for me to think Conrad isn’t a racist from the way he writes, the evidence seems to stack up against him.
'Heart of Darkness'
When I first started reading Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness', I didn't really get the feeling that Conrad was a racist throughout his writing. A few paragraphs into it, I decided to switch over and glimpse through Achebe's essay to see it through his eyes. I now had an idea of what i should look for, more or less, and I occasionally saw what Achebe meant.
According to Achebe, "Joseph Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist" (para. 37), but he later goes on to clarify that "Conrad did not originate the image of Africa which we find in his book. It was the dominant image of Africa in the Western imagination and Conrad merely brought the peculiar gifts of his own mind to bear on it" (para. 56). If one were to back up and concur with Achebe's analysis, one could mention how Conrad repeatedly refers to these native Africans as niggers, or blacks, as opposed to just people, which they very well were. A line that struck me as a possible racist statement was: "A lot of people, mostly black and naked, moved about like ants" (para. 2); here, Conrad compares the Africans to ants, who are small, miniscule creatures of the Earth that are constantly stepped on and disregarded, for they are meaningless insects. Perhaps Conrad compared the Africans to ants because the way he, or Western civilization saw it, these people weren't worth much at all and in his novel, were just dominated or 'stepped on' by the white man.
Another instance of racism that Achebe criticizes is when Conrad describes the African race as "ugly". I was a little surprised when I read this part of 'Heart of Darkness' because Conrad was very descriptive of that statment, and it was the one statement that seemed to bother Achebe the most. I realized that Conrad constantly refers to this civilization as animals, savages, anything but human.
Although many times racism seems to be present throughout 'Heart of Darkness', it doesn't seem to be predominant. Perhaps this might be because a small amount of the novel was actually read, but the remainder of the first and second chapters to me just seem to be storyline: the sailor and his life while away from home and the lifestyle he is used to.
According to Achebe, "Joseph Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist" (para. 37), but he later goes on to clarify that "Conrad did not originate the image of Africa which we find in his book. It was the dominant image of Africa in the Western imagination and Conrad merely brought the peculiar gifts of his own mind to bear on it" (para. 56). If one were to back up and concur with Achebe's analysis, one could mention how Conrad repeatedly refers to these native Africans as niggers, or blacks, as opposed to just people, which they very well were. A line that struck me as a possible racist statement was: "A lot of people, mostly black and naked, moved about like ants" (para. 2); here, Conrad compares the Africans to ants, who are small, miniscule creatures of the Earth that are constantly stepped on and disregarded, for they are meaningless insects. Perhaps Conrad compared the Africans to ants because the way he, or Western civilization saw it, these people weren't worth much at all and in his novel, were just dominated or 'stepped on' by the white man.
Another instance of racism that Achebe criticizes is when Conrad describes the African race as "ugly". I was a little surprised when I read this part of 'Heart of Darkness' because Conrad was very descriptive of that statment, and it was the one statement that seemed to bother Achebe the most. I realized that Conrad constantly refers to this civilization as animals, savages, anything but human.
Although many times racism seems to be present throughout 'Heart of Darkness', it doesn't seem to be predominant. Perhaps this might be because a small amount of the novel was actually read, but the remainder of the first and second chapters to me just seem to be storyline: the sailor and his life while away from home and the lifestyle he is used to.
Bloody Racist
I can see how Achebe would call Conrad a "bloody racist" because he is very derogative in his depiction of the black folk, but I can also see how he is just possibly misunderstood and is really not a "bloody racist" at all, and instead is just a man who grew up in a time when they only expressed the views of what they were taught and maybe even perhaps, was just scared and intimidated and therefore came across in a way that might not have even been meant to been portrayed.
Conrad wastes no time and from the very beginning of the story, describes the black men as, "They were dying slowly--it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now--nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish-gloom." (2) This, just like the entire story, can been taken in either respect of bloody or not, however one thing that is for certain is that he is most certainly racist. Whether you want to think of him as an evil, bloody man is entirely opinion, but for him to speak about the black people so insignifacantly like his description just mentioned, I don't believe anyone could argue the point that he is a racist. "Black shadows of disease", is pretty demeaning even if that is in fact what they were. Yes, they were black, and yes, they were dying, but he could of simply also said something to the effect of, "The natives, resting up against the tree, looked bewildered and very sickly from kack of nutrition."
Conrad also describes a white man in the beginning of the story. He says, "I met a white man, in such an unexpected elegance of getup that in the first moment I took him for sort of a vision. I saw a high starched collar, white cuffs, a light alpaca jacket, snowy trousers, a clean necktie, and
varnished boots. No hat. Hair parted, brushed, oiled, under a green-lined parasol held in a big white hand. He was amazing." (3) I truly believe that with this description alone in comparison to the description of the "black shadows of disease" it goes to prove further how much of a racist he actually was. He says, the white man is "amazing". Tell me how you really feel compared to the "bony long black arms". He seems to find utter peace and solace in this wonderful white man, a complete and polar opposite from what the reader feels when he is describing the blacks.
One might then really consider if he indeed is a bloody racist, because it almost seems as if he is glad that the blacks are suffering, almost as if he is glad that they are dying. It makes him a bloody racist because he is guilty for their death, just because of the simple fact that you are guilty for what you sometimes wish for.
Conrad wastes no time and from the very beginning of the story, describes the black men as, "They were dying slowly--it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now--nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish-gloom." (2) This, just like the entire story, can been taken in either respect of bloody or not, however one thing that is for certain is that he is most certainly racist. Whether you want to think of him as an evil, bloody man is entirely opinion, but for him to speak about the black people so insignifacantly like his description just mentioned, I don't believe anyone could argue the point that he is a racist. "Black shadows of disease", is pretty demeaning even if that is in fact what they were. Yes, they were black, and yes, they were dying, but he could of simply also said something to the effect of, "The natives, resting up against the tree, looked bewildered and very sickly from kack of nutrition."
Conrad also describes a white man in the beginning of the story. He says, "I met a white man, in such an unexpected elegance of getup that in the first moment I took him for sort of a vision. I saw a high starched collar, white cuffs, a light alpaca jacket, snowy trousers, a clean necktie, and
varnished boots. No hat. Hair parted, brushed, oiled, under a green-lined parasol held in a big white hand. He was amazing." (3) I truly believe that with this description alone in comparison to the description of the "black shadows of disease" it goes to prove further how much of a racist he actually was. He says, the white man is "amazing". Tell me how you really feel compared to the "bony long black arms". He seems to find utter peace and solace in this wonderful white man, a complete and polar opposite from what the reader feels when he is describing the blacks.
One might then really consider if he indeed is a bloody racist, because it almost seems as if he is glad that the blacks are suffering, almost as if he is glad that they are dying. It makes him a bloody racist because he is guilty for their death, just because of the simple fact that you are guilty for what you sometimes wish for.
Racist "Heart"
After reading the excerpt from Heart of Darkness, I am not completely sure that I agree with Achebe assertion that Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist. Yes, the obsession with the term nigger is overly used as is the repetitive descriptive words (black legs, black arms, black bones, etc.). Yes, Conrad demoralizes the African natives, belittles them, makes them unimportant. Yet, this is a book of fiction, not history. I believe that the terminology and conception of the subject he was writing was accepted at the time he was writing it. Remember how history and cultural positions were an important factor in the Marxist writings. Of course, now both Heart of Darkness and The German Ideology are entirely outdated, but are still well read, as is Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, etc. These pieces have become part of literary history.
I can see how many, if not all, people would agree that Conrad is a bloody racist. I was disturbed by his use of the term nigger and his debasement of an entire people, their culture and home. " "And between whiles I had to look after the savage who was fireman. He was an improved specimen; he could fire up a vertical boiler. He was there below me and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat walking on his hind legs. " It seemed as though Conrad thought the Africans were not as human as he, but animals to be trained to do work for the white men (Europeans) as they saw fit. Or you could look at it as after educating the Africans in a specific trade, their role becomes an important part of business in the world.
I liked Conrad's style of writing, even though the subject was unattractive to me. I was uncomfortable reading it, as though I were doing something bad because of the racist tones in the piece. I was back and forth on whether I believe Conrad was a racist or not. I don't think I'll ever truly determine that.
I can see how many, if not all, people would agree that Conrad is a bloody racist. I was disturbed by his use of the term nigger and his debasement of an entire people, their culture and home. " "And between whiles I had to look after the savage who was fireman. He was an improved specimen; he could fire up a vertical boiler. He was there below me and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat walking on his hind legs. " It seemed as though Conrad thought the Africans were not as human as he, but animals to be trained to do work for the white men (Europeans) as they saw fit. Or you could look at it as after educating the Africans in a specific trade, their role becomes an important part of business in the world.
I liked Conrad's style of writing, even though the subject was unattractive to me. I was uncomfortable reading it, as though I were doing something bad because of the racist tones in the piece. I was back and forth on whether I believe Conrad was a racist or not. I don't think I'll ever truly determine that.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
10/24
Maxine Hong Kingston wrote:
And all the time I was having to turn myself American-feminine, or no dates.
There is a Chinese word for the female I--which is 'slave.' Break the women with their own tounges!
I refused to cook. When I had to wash dishes, I would crack one or two. "Bad girl," my mother yelled, and sometimes that made me gloat rather than cry. Isn't a bad girl almost a boy?
That's all for feminism for now, though I should have a predictable prompt for the next essay for you soon. For Monday, we begin our investigation into post-colonialism, and we'll begin with an exemplary debate over Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness' and Achebe's famous response. So, for Monday read the Conrad excerpt found to the right, which is the end of chapter one and the beginning of two, and the Achebe essay/lecture. On Monday I'm going to assume you know Heart well enough, as most of you probably have read it. If you haven't, try to read as much of it as you can, paying particular attention to the sections Achebe refers to and the beginning (in fact, if you know nothing about the book, read the excerpt then start at the beginning of the book). For that reason, I've also attached a full version of Heart.
After you've done the reading, answer the following question in a response: Is Conrad a 'bloody racist' (Achebe's original words)? More importantly, can you think of reasons why one might answer yes, and also reasons why one might answer no? Be sure to refer to specifically to Conrad's text more than once in your answer.
Also, remember you will need Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians for the following week.
And all the time I was having to turn myself American-feminine, or no dates.
There is a Chinese word for the female I--which is 'slave.' Break the women with their own tounges!
I refused to cook. When I had to wash dishes, I would crack one or two. "Bad girl," my mother yelled, and sometimes that made me gloat rather than cry. Isn't a bad girl almost a boy?
That's all for feminism for now, though I should have a predictable prompt for the next essay for you soon. For Monday, we begin our investigation into post-colonialism, and we'll begin with an exemplary debate over Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness' and Achebe's famous response. So, for Monday read the Conrad excerpt found to the right, which is the end of chapter one and the beginning of two, and the Achebe essay/lecture. On Monday I'm going to assume you know Heart well enough, as most of you probably have read it. If you haven't, try to read as much of it as you can, paying particular attention to the sections Achebe refers to and the beginning (in fact, if you know nothing about the book, read the excerpt then start at the beginning of the book). For that reason, I've also attached a full version of Heart.
After you've done the reading, answer the following question in a response: Is Conrad a 'bloody racist' (Achebe's original words)? More importantly, can you think of reasons why one might answer yes, and also reasons why one might answer no? Be sure to refer to specifically to Conrad's text more than once in your answer.
Also, remember you will need Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians for the following week.
Sexual Differences
Cixous and Irigaray both focus on reason why males are some how dominate in society. In Cixous writing she wrote "In philosophy woman are always on the side of passivity" and what these feminist critics are focusing on and their "project" being trying to figure out where male dominance comes into play in society, through philosophy beliefs and history. Cixous looks into studies from sociologists just as Singmund Freud, who tried to explain the sexual differences between males and females originates from childhood, and how little girls at a young age see males, and then see themselves as missing something on their bodies (a penis). Then then what is desired by the little girls and what they fantasize about is a penis. Which creates a "feminine desire for her father". That is one approach Cixous took by analyzing different ideas of these theorists and make sense out of them. Irigaray takes a different approach by using the "creation of space" to explain sexual differences in society. She uses the beliefs of god or gods being the creator of space and everything around us, and how god is seen as masculine. Her project is to use social beliefs in order to explain her "project" in figuring out where the idea of sexual difference originated from. Both Feminist Critics both focus on figuring out where sexual difference come from.
10/24
I think what is present in all of the authors' work is to rethink what has been thought of the sexuality, the gap between men and women. Irigaray explains this in a rather obscure terms, using the concepts of space and time, and then "the transition to a new age conincides with a change in the economy of desire, necessitating a different relationship between man and god, man and man, man and the world, man and woman." What I think this means is that, since the sexual difference existed since the beginning of the world, rethinking the relationship between different sexes is to redefine the relationship between things that are radically different and opposite, otherwise limiting this process only to the relationship of men and women would be merely an "exception".
Sexual Differences
"The transition to a new age coincides with a change in the economy of desire, necessitating a different relationship between man and god(s), man and man, man and the world, man and woman. Our own age, which is often felt to be the one in which the problem of desire has been brought to the fore, frequently theorizes about this desire on the basis of certain observations about a moment of tension, situated in historical time, whereas desire ought to be thought of as a dynamic force whose changing form can be traced in the past and occasionally the present, but never predicted." (Irigaray, 237)
I think in this passage we see that Irigaray, while thinking about the problem of the genders like our feminism readings from class, sees it in a new way. She says that to achieve this goal of more equal genders we must redefine man, in every aspect. I think she is basically saying that in order to change we must change our society from a patriarchal one. She also says that the moment that matters, that changed everything, is the moment of desire, which is one that cannot be pinpointed, it is an ever changing moment. “Of woman, upon whom he no longer depends, he retains only this space, always virginal, matter subjected to the desire that he wishes to imprint.” (Cixous) Here Helen is saying that a woman is only significant because of man. In a society like this, man and woman will never be equal.
" What is performed in drag is of course, the sign of gender, a sign that is not the same as the body that it figures, but that cannot be read without it. The sign, understood as a gender imperative -girl! - reads less as an assignment than as a command and, as such, produces its own subordinations.” (Butler 247) Here Butler is saying how everything we do is defined previously for us by our gender roles. People who dress in drag are trying to act out the opposite sex and therefore going against everything that has been defined in our society. This is important to realize that the genders are not the same and probably never will be, but who says that means they cannot still be equal?
I think in this passage we see that Irigaray, while thinking about the problem of the genders like our feminism readings from class, sees it in a new way. She says that to achieve this goal of more equal genders we must redefine man, in every aspect. I think she is basically saying that in order to change we must change our society from a patriarchal one. She also says that the moment that matters, that changed everything, is the moment of desire, which is one that cannot be pinpointed, it is an ever changing moment. “Of woman, upon whom he no longer depends, he retains only this space, always virginal, matter subjected to the desire that he wishes to imprint.” (Cixous) Here Helen is saying that a woman is only significant because of man. In a society like this, man and woman will never be equal.
" What is performed in drag is of course, the sign of gender, a sign that is not the same as the body that it figures, but that cannot be read without it. The sign, understood as a gender imperative -girl! - reads less as an assignment than as a command and, as such, produces its own subordinations.” (Butler 247) Here Butler is saying how everything we do is defined previously for us by our gender roles. People who dress in drag are trying to act out the opposite sex and therefore going against everything that has been defined in our society. This is important to realize that the genders are not the same and probably never will be, but who says that means they cannot still be equal?
Differences
In all of the readings, each author approaches the whole gender and sexual differences in their own way. Hélène Cixous looks into the whole dual opposition thing; she thoroughly analyzes why and how it relates to sexual differences. Whereas, Luce Irigaray uses the whole question of space and time to explain sexual differences. Then Judith Butler does the whole gender and sexuality thing. They are all interested in investigating the whole Phallocentric/Patriarchal ideology. As I stated already each other uses a different method to better understand the difference between masculinity and femininity. Cixous talks about things in terms of “activity/passivity” while Irigaray does it with “space and time”
Cixous writes, “A male privilege, which can be seen in the opposition by which it sustains itself, between activity and passivity. Traditionally, the question of sexual difference is couple with the same opposition: activity/passivity.” Cixous says that women have been characterized as passive throughout history and if they are not passive they are non-existant. Could women be put into the activity category and what does that make them? Cixous supports her little argument with things that Frued and Jones state. Luce Irigaray somewhat discusses the same topic but she does it terms of space and time. Women are space and men are time. Then there is a gap between the two “This space was filled instead with attraction, greed, possession, consummation, disgust, etc…” So these are the things that separate man and women? Is it possible for women to obtain these things?
I think that both authors are trying to find out the differences between men and women. They want to know what a women needs to achieve to become equal to men. In the end the interval may never be crossed.
'Sexual Difference'
In the Luce Irigaray's 'Sexual Difference', the Judith Butler 'Bodies that Matter', and Xious, all of these touch on describing the difference their is between Men and Women. In each essay they talk about different ways that men and women are different, even the tittle in Luce Irigaray's essay, 'Sexual difference', can be used as an example to portray the difference. "For the work of sexual difference to take place, a revolution in though and ethics is needed." (170) This is an example in trying to understand that in order to portray sexual difference, their must be a conflict by discussing the beliefs implemented by society, and the knowledge implemented by writings of history, between these coming to a conclusion of what would be the important difference.
It goes back in history to religion where man are different by having the superior value, "It is man who has been the subject of discourse, whether in the field of theory, morality or politics. And the gender of God, the guardian of every subject and discourse, is always paternal and masculine in the west." (170) Acts as an example in describing the difference viewed in the wst of, the masculine figure having supreme value. The difference view of women is that they are given the minor roles, "For women, there remain the so-called minor art-forms: cooking, knitting, sewing, and embroidery; and in exceptional cases, poetry, painting and music." (170) This illustrates the difference women where considered doing, that is in a way describing their position at that time. Although, comparing the sexual difference can also be used in ways of describing how there can be an opposite meaning in determining groups like in how Xious argues sayin, "I am careful here to use the qualifiers of sexual difference , in order to avoid the confusion man/masculine; women/feminine: for there are men who do not repress their femininity, women who more or less forcefully incribe their masculinity." (232) This means that sexual difference would not be a big issue in having meaning, because things may change in which men would hae different points of view, in which they would follow ideas from feminine characteristics , and also the same for women that they would follow ideas from a maculine point of view. This can be an example of how in Judith Butler, the whole theme of homosexuals, "Calling gay men 'feminine' or calling lesbians 'masculine'." (248) Therefore, the argument of sexual difference can work as viceversa, in which it can be portrayed as said by Xious, that everything has to go th opposite way, like men/women, or women/man, it will function as the same having a similar meaning, in describing their ideas. Therefore, the ideas in comparing sexual difference can describe men and women, in example of man being time, from the beggining, a superior form as described as God being masculine, to desbribing women as space as being able to having roles of minor works.
It goes back in history to religion where man are different by having the superior value, "It is man who has been the subject of discourse, whether in the field of theory, morality or politics. And the gender of God, the guardian of every subject and discourse, is always paternal and masculine in the west." (170) Acts as an example in describing the difference viewed in the wst of, the masculine figure having supreme value. The difference view of women is that they are given the minor roles, "For women, there remain the so-called minor art-forms: cooking, knitting, sewing, and embroidery; and in exceptional cases, poetry, painting and music." (170) This illustrates the difference women where considered doing, that is in a way describing their position at that time. Although, comparing the sexual difference can also be used in ways of describing how there can be an opposite meaning in determining groups like in how Xious argues sayin, "I am careful here to use the qualifiers of sexual difference , in order to avoid the confusion man/masculine; women/feminine: for there are men who do not repress their femininity, women who more or less forcefully incribe their masculinity." (232) This means that sexual difference would not be a big issue in having meaning, because things may change in which men would hae different points of view, in which they would follow ideas from feminine characteristics , and also the same for women that they would follow ideas from a maculine point of view. This can be an example of how in Judith Butler, the whole theme of homosexuals, "Calling gay men 'feminine' or calling lesbians 'masculine'." (248) Therefore, the argument of sexual difference can work as viceversa, in which it can be portrayed as said by Xious, that everything has to go th opposite way, like men/women, or women/man, it will function as the same having a similar meaning, in describing their ideas. Therefore, the ideas in comparing sexual difference can describe men and women, in example of man being time, from the beggining, a superior form as described as God being masculine, to desbribing women as space as being able to having roles of minor works.
Feminism
Reading the three essays by Cixous, Irigaray, and Butler, one can only come to the conclusion that with what we have also discussed in class, and through these readings that the only actual way to eliminate patriarchal society would be to eradicate the thought that women are different except naturally in only the physical sense. So, with that being said, would a feminist read the beginning of my passage and wonder why I left out the women's first names? By only using their last names it gives the appearance of being masculine and perhaps dominant. Why is that? Because we have all grown up in this society that is from the patriarchal perspective and it is all ingrained in us whether we like to admit it or not, especially since I am a woman myself.
Cixous says, "In philosophy, woman is always on the side of passivity...Either the woman is passive; or she doesn't exist." (230) We, as a society, need to break through this idea entirely or else the feministic movement won't really grow. This thought coincides with Luce Irigaray's idea that, "To arrive at the constitution of an ethics of sexual difference, we must at least return to what is for Descartes the first passion: wonder. This passion is not opposed to, or in conflict with, anything else, and exists always as though for the first time." (238) This idea in theory seems to be wonderful. We can actually stop people from thinking that there is a difference between us, man and woman, as long as when we meet each other we are enthralled with wonder of how amazingly wonderful we are, and share an attraction, however that is where it stops. We are both exactly the same. The only difference, or at least these women theorists would argue, is our physique. Obviously these theories are superb in thought, but how could we change the entire general public's view of man and woman? Especially to this idea that we should only be filled with wonder upon meeting.
I do agree that there needs to be some sort of change in how women are treated and our equality towards men, however I do not agree in theory that we are exactly the same. Why do we have to be exactly the same just to be equal? I think this is the underline message of these essays. It almost seems as if when reading them, there is a sense of such sarcasm bouncing off the pages.
Cixous says, "In philosophy, woman is always on the side of passivity...Either the woman is passive; or she doesn't exist." (230) We, as a society, need to break through this idea entirely or else the feministic movement won't really grow. This thought coincides with Luce Irigaray's idea that, "To arrive at the constitution of an ethics of sexual difference, we must at least return to what is for Descartes the first passion: wonder. This passion is not opposed to, or in conflict with, anything else, and exists always as though for the first time." (238) This idea in theory seems to be wonderful. We can actually stop people from thinking that there is a difference between us, man and woman, as long as when we meet each other we are enthralled with wonder of how amazingly wonderful we are, and share an attraction, however that is where it stops. We are both exactly the same. The only difference, or at least these women theorists would argue, is our physique. Obviously these theories are superb in thought, but how could we change the entire general public's view of man and woman? Especially to this idea that we should only be filled with wonder upon meeting.
I do agree that there needs to be some sort of change in how women are treated and our equality towards men, however I do not agree in theory that we are exactly the same. Why do we have to be exactly the same just to be equal? I think this is the underline message of these essays. It almost seems as if when reading them, there is a sense of such sarcasm bouncing off the pages.
woMAN
Helen Cixous, Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler all share a common interest in the subject as it has been viewed in literature, discourse, psycho-philosophical realms and even in the normative socio-economical context. The authors are alike, in that they strive to achieve a new epoch for woman to exist, and eliminate the notion a ‘dominant male patriarchal society’. The remedy is to stray away from the connotation of having any previous normative attributes expressed in discourses, literature, psychologies, philosophies, which have all historically been written by a ‘man’.
Luce Irigaray’s Revolutions of the World states that “For the work of sexual difference to take place, a revolution in thought and ethics is needed. We must re-interpret the whole relationship between the subject and discourse, the subject and the world, the subject and the cosmic, the microcosmic, and the macrocosmic” (Irigaray, 170). Her reason for such a revolution has something to do with who writes about the subject. She argues that “…subject has always been written in the masculine form, as man…” (170). Her polarized examples include the sex in which is given to man by g-d, in which is presented as something paternal and masculine. One can even stress the bible, insofar as to argue that god has created men in the image of himself. She argues that woman have been viewed as minor art forms, such that include cooking, knitting, sewing, and embroidery. From the economical stance, there appears to be a class struggle between man and woman. The solution for the problem is to create a new age for woman. A new perception and conception, a revolution to change the economy of desire, create a different relationship between men and god(s), man and man, man and world, man and woman. She wants to stray away from the conception of woman as in work of art, which is romantic, but is misinterpreted. The truth for Irigaray is that in reality, there is space between woman and man. The space is stuffed with attraction, greed, possession, disgust, and consumption.
From a psycho-philosophical stance, Helen Cixous Sorties, shares a very common interest to that of Irigaray. Cixous “calls for a radical rethinking of the subject not simply in relation to discourse, society and culture, but to the very cosmos [(space and time)] itself”. Cixous is about the possibility of appropriating Freudian or Post-Freudian psychoanalytical ideas for a theory of feminine subjectivity. Cixous argues that “Freudianism represents another example of patriarchal voyeurism”. In that “everything is reduced to the issue of having the phallus, then everything is reduced to the issue of having or not having the phallus, then woman is also and inevitably either reduced to passivity or non-existence” (226).
She also focuses on the notion of ‘man’ being at the origin of written philosophies. She states that “The philosophical constructs itself starting with the abasement of woman. Subordination of the feminine to the masculine order which appears to be the condition for the functioning of the machine” (231). It is this view that she wishes to change. This patriarchal philosophical stance has creating the affiliation of a ‘man’ as logocentrist, who caries ration power. And philosophy which plays a foundation for psychology replaces notion of rationale as power with phallocentrism, in that the one with a phallus claims sexual power. And it is phallocentrism which becomes the ‘Enemy’ for Cixous, and the subject.
Butler on the other hand focuses, or introduces the concept of a ‘drag’ as in relation to performance. Judith Butler, the feminist philosopher introduces a new term she refers to as ‘performativity’. She claims that it is the sexual performativity, or performance of an individual (e.g. drag) that manifest itself into a normative performance of gender, which reveals the hyperbolic norm itself. “Drag revels that heterosexuality itself can only be a performance, for its logic requires exclusive categories of femininity and masculinity”(229). One can conclude that a ‘drag’ can misrepresent a role of a woman as the ‘drag’ only performs. Ultimately, “the hyperbolic conformity to the command can reveal the hyperbolic status of the norm itself, indeed can become the cultural sign by which that cultural imperative might become legible.” In other words it is such literature, and discourses that allow the woman to adapt to the normative ideal of what a woman ought to perform like. Can a ‘drag’ really influence how a women ought to behave? According to Butler, it is this performance of the drag, who is performed by a male, which “opens up a difficult future terrain community, one in which the hope of every fully recognizing oneself in the terms by which one signifies is sure to be [disappointing].”
Luce Irigaray’s Revolutions of the World states that “For the work of sexual difference to take place, a revolution in thought and ethics is needed. We must re-interpret the whole relationship between the subject and discourse, the subject and the world, the subject and the cosmic, the microcosmic, and the macrocosmic” (Irigaray, 170). Her reason for such a revolution has something to do with who writes about the subject. She argues that “…subject has always been written in the masculine form, as man…” (170). Her polarized examples include the sex in which is given to man by g-d, in which is presented as something paternal and masculine. One can even stress the bible, insofar as to argue that god has created men in the image of himself. She argues that woman have been viewed as minor art forms, such that include cooking, knitting, sewing, and embroidery. From the economical stance, there appears to be a class struggle between man and woman. The solution for the problem is to create a new age for woman. A new perception and conception, a revolution to change the economy of desire, create a different relationship between men and god(s), man and man, man and world, man and woman. She wants to stray away from the conception of woman as in work of art, which is romantic, but is misinterpreted. The truth for Irigaray is that in reality, there is space between woman and man. The space is stuffed with attraction, greed, possession, disgust, and consumption.
From a psycho-philosophical stance, Helen Cixous Sorties, shares a very common interest to that of Irigaray. Cixous “calls for a radical rethinking of the subject not simply in relation to discourse, society and culture, but to the very cosmos [(space and time)] itself”. Cixous is about the possibility of appropriating Freudian or Post-Freudian psychoanalytical ideas for a theory of feminine subjectivity. Cixous argues that “Freudianism represents another example of patriarchal voyeurism”. In that “everything is reduced to the issue of having the phallus, then everything is reduced to the issue of having or not having the phallus, then woman is also and inevitably either reduced to passivity or non-existence” (226).
She also focuses on the notion of ‘man’ being at the origin of written philosophies. She states that “The philosophical constructs itself starting with the abasement of woman. Subordination of the feminine to the masculine order which appears to be the condition for the functioning of the machine” (231). It is this view that she wishes to change. This patriarchal philosophical stance has creating the affiliation of a ‘man’ as logocentrist, who caries ration power. And philosophy which plays a foundation for psychology replaces notion of rationale as power with phallocentrism, in that the one with a phallus claims sexual power. And it is phallocentrism which becomes the ‘Enemy’ for Cixous, and the subject.
Butler on the other hand focuses, or introduces the concept of a ‘drag’ as in relation to performance. Judith Butler, the feminist philosopher introduces a new term she refers to as ‘performativity’. She claims that it is the sexual performativity, or performance of an individual (e.g. drag) that manifest itself into a normative performance of gender, which reveals the hyperbolic norm itself. “Drag revels that heterosexuality itself can only be a performance, for its logic requires exclusive categories of femininity and masculinity”(229). One can conclude that a ‘drag’ can misrepresent a role of a woman as the ‘drag’ only performs. Ultimately, “the hyperbolic conformity to the command can reveal the hyperbolic status of the norm itself, indeed can become the cultural sign by which that cultural imperative might become legible.” In other words it is such literature, and discourses that allow the woman to adapt to the normative ideal of what a woman ought to perform like. Can a ‘drag’ really influence how a women ought to behave? According to Butler, it is this performance of the drag, who is performed by a male, which “opens up a difficult future terrain community, one in which the hope of every fully recognizing oneself in the terms by which one signifies is sure to be [disappointing].”
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Luce Irigaray seems to be mostly interested in the social class difference between men and women.
She starts off by pointing out how men have always appeared to control and be at the center of everything, a common practice among feminist thinkers.
“It is man who has been the subject of discourse, whether in the field of theory, morality or politics. And the gender of God, the guardian of every subject and discourse, is always paternal and masculine in the West.”
Women, on the other hand, she continues, have always been given a passive role, one that does not contribute very much in society. Helene Cixous touches upon this several times in her text:
“the boy and the girl are oriented toward a division of social roles so that women ‘inescapably’ have a lesser productivity, because they ‘sublimate’ less than men and because symbolic activity, hence the production of culture, is men’s doing.”
Luce then suggests a bit of a reversal between the two where as women are on top and men are given the subservient role:
“The gods or God first of all creates space. And time is there, more or less at the service of space… femininity is experienced as a space that often carries connotations of the depths of night (God being space and light), while masculinity is conceived of in terms of time”.
She takes it back though, stating that this would just lead us right back to the problem that started this discussion. What she wants to remove from the equation is the setback of one sex having dominance or claiming ownership over another. And this is what she brings us with her conclusion:
“One sex is never entirely consummated or consumed by another. There is always residue.”
She starts off by pointing out how men have always appeared to control and be at the center of everything, a common practice among feminist thinkers.
“It is man who has been the subject of discourse, whether in the field of theory, morality or politics. And the gender of God, the guardian of every subject and discourse, is always paternal and masculine in the West.”
Women, on the other hand, she continues, have always been given a passive role, one that does not contribute very much in society. Helene Cixous touches upon this several times in her text:
“the boy and the girl are oriented toward a division of social roles so that women ‘inescapably’ have a lesser productivity, because they ‘sublimate’ less than men and because symbolic activity, hence the production of culture, is men’s doing.”
Luce then suggests a bit of a reversal between the two where as women are on top and men are given the subservient role:
“The gods or God first of all creates space. And time is there, more or less at the service of space… femininity is experienced as a space that often carries connotations of the depths of night (God being space and light), while masculinity is conceived of in terms of time”.
She takes it back though, stating that this would just lead us right back to the problem that started this discussion. What she wants to remove from the equation is the setback of one sex having dominance or claiming ownership over another. And this is what she brings us with her conclusion:
“One sex is never entirely consummated or consumed by another. There is always residue.”
Sexual Difference by Luce Irigaray talks about a few interesting things in her writing. She talks about philosophy, god or gods, and the relationship these things have to men and women. The most interesting thing she talks about however is wonder, the irrevocability of roles, and how new things can make us wonder or astonish us. Man and woman, woman and man are therefore always meeting as though for the first time since they cannot stand in for one another. I shall never take the place of a man, never will a man take mine. Whatever identifications are possible, one will never exactly fill the place of the other – the on is irreducible to the other.” She then proceeds to talk about new things which may astonish us. I think Some Bodies takes this further. Some Bodies talks about new sexual roles in our society. Now more than ever before you have more homosexuals being public about their lifestyle. I think that at some level it does make you wonder, but as is says in Some Bodies, these new roles seem to intimidate the normal genders. I think this is important because it is different but it is automatically judged, and most would alienate anyone who tries to change their gender. The quote on 248 shows this, “… because the homophobic terror over performing homosexual acts, where it exists, is often also a terror over losing proper gender, it seems crucial to retain a theoretical apparatus that will account for how sexuality is regulated through the policing and the shaming of gender.”
" What is performed in drag is of course, the sign of gender, a sign that is not the same as the body that it figures, but that cannot be read without it. The sign, understood as a gender imperative -girl! - reads less as an assignment than as a command and, as such, produces its own subordinations.” (Butler 247)
Judith Butler describes how genders are acted out, how we respond to situations is a result of our coaching in the roles in which we perform. She brings in the idea of drag as a metaphor, people who dress in drag are acting or performing the roles of the opposite sex, the sex that was not ascribed to them at birth. Butler goes on to say that through the performance of our sexes, women are subservient and subordinate to men as their role has been played for centuries.
Cixous feels that the roles ascribed to women, who are subservient in relation to men is reflected in literature, and institutes this way of thinking through out generation. Cixous problem is that literature is validating that notion that men are different and better than women.
Irigaray, in my opinion, feels that there may not be a difference that makes women less or more valuable then men, but she does observe that there is something different between the sexes. “I shall never take the place of man, never will man take mine. Whatever identifications are possible, one will never exactly fill the place of the other- the one is irreducible to the other”. Her title Subjective gender coincides with her opinion, the differences between the sexes is intrinsic, one can not judge the other unless they have traveled in the other shoes, faced their experiences, or seen the world from their point of view.
Judith Butler describes how genders are acted out, how we respond to situations is a result of our coaching in the roles in which we perform. She brings in the idea of drag as a metaphor, people who dress in drag are acting or performing the roles of the opposite sex, the sex that was not ascribed to them at birth. Butler goes on to say that through the performance of our sexes, women are subservient and subordinate to men as their role has been played for centuries.
Cixous feels that the roles ascribed to women, who are subservient in relation to men is reflected in literature, and institutes this way of thinking through out generation. Cixous problem is that literature is validating that notion that men are different and better than women.
Irigaray, in my opinion, feels that there may not be a difference that makes women less or more valuable then men, but she does observe that there is something different between the sexes. “I shall never take the place of man, never will man take mine. Whatever identifications are possible, one will never exactly fill the place of the other- the one is irreducible to the other”. Her title Subjective gender coincides with her opinion, the differences between the sexes is intrinsic, one can not judge the other unless they have traveled in the other shoes, faced their experiences, or seen the world from their point of view.
Irigaray's "Sexual Difference"
The readings of Luce Irigaray is slightly different in that her text take a more matter-of-fact approach to the social difference between men and women in their respective texts.
In Irigaray's "Sexual Differences", she states towards the end of her argument: "Who or what the other is, I never know. But this unknowable other is that which differs sexually from me. This feeling of wonder, surprise and astonishment in the face of unknowable ought to be returned to it's proper place: the realm of sexual difference." (P. 238). What I get from this text is that Irigaray believes that the differences between men and women are more or less irreconcilable, as one would never know what the other experiences throughout their respective lives. It basically takes the whole "women are better than men" argument that many feminists seem to make and pretty much destroys it, as Irigaray is saying that it's not a matter of who's better than who, it's a matter of how they are both different, as there is no biologically possible way to have a neutral ground in this matter. The last two sentences of the reading seems to go along with this notion that no gender is better than the other: "Once sex is never entirely consumated or consumed by another. There is always a residue." (P. 238). The idea that there are differences between men and women that will always drive us apart, but at the same time, bring us together is emphasized through this last portion of her argument and I concur, as I feel as if this is the ultimate reality behind the ongoing battle of the sexes.
In Irigaray's "Sexual Differences", she states towards the end of her argument: "Who or what the other is, I never know. But this unknowable other is that which differs sexually from me. This feeling of wonder, surprise and astonishment in the face of unknowable ought to be returned to it's proper place: the realm of sexual difference." (P. 238). What I get from this text is that Irigaray believes that the differences between men and women are more or less irreconcilable, as one would never know what the other experiences throughout their respective lives. It basically takes the whole "women are better than men" argument that many feminists seem to make and pretty much destroys it, as Irigaray is saying that it's not a matter of who's better than who, it's a matter of how they are both different, as there is no biologically possible way to have a neutral ground in this matter. The last two sentences of the reading seems to go along with this notion that no gender is better than the other: "Once sex is never entirely consumated or consumed by another. There is always a residue." (P. 238). The idea that there are differences between men and women that will always drive us apart, but at the same time, bring us together is emphasized through this last portion of her argument and I concur, as I feel as if this is the ultimate reality behind the ongoing battle of the sexes.
The Differences Between Sex&Gender
To arrive at a the constitiution of an ethic of sexual difference, We must at least return to what is for Descartes the first passion: Wonder.This passion is not apposed to,or in conflict with, anything else, And exists always as though for the first time. Man an woman, Woman an Man are there for always meeting as though for the first time since they can not stand in for one another. I shall never take the place of a man,An never will a man take mine." Whatever identifications are possible,one will never exactly take the place of another.
After examining the quotations found in the text it was easy to identify Iragary's main idea. She is saying that no matter how men or women compete there can never be a true role reversal. While reading Iragary's piece I also noticed that in the beginning of the work she mentions” Reversal of values: Manual labor and art both being revalorized" While there is an obvious shift in what is considered masculine an feminine this does not change the meaning of the roles themselves.She also says that "For the work of sexual difference to take place a revolution in thought ethics in needed” This demonstrates the previous idea that the once again the roles don't change with the gender.
The quote this can be compared to can be found in "Subjectivity and Gender" as the quote states "The world is oriented around the individual each individual is different, each possesses a unique subjectivite:Also and paradoxically, each shares a common human nature" In my opinion the basic idea that overlaps in the two passages is sexual roles are dictated and based on gender. Even though Cixous says that people are different in their own unique ways based on their gender everyone is commonly tied into the same social expectations as far as their sex roles go.
After examining the quotations found in the text it was easy to identify Iragary's main idea. She is saying that no matter how men or women compete there can never be a true role reversal. While reading Iragary's piece I also noticed that in the beginning of the work she mentions” Reversal of values: Manual labor and art both being revalorized" While there is an obvious shift in what is considered masculine an feminine this does not change the meaning of the roles themselves.She also says that "For the work of sexual difference to take place a revolution in thought ethics in needed” This demonstrates the previous idea that the once again the roles don't change with the gender.
The quote this can be compared to can be found in "Subjectivity and Gender" as the quote states "The world is oriented around the individual each individual is different, each possesses a unique subjectivite:Also and paradoxically, each shares a common human nature" In my opinion the basic idea that overlaps in the two passages is sexual roles are dictated and based on gender. Even though Cixous says that people are different in their own unique ways based on their gender everyone is commonly tied into the same social expectations as far as their sex roles go.
Sexual Difference/ Philosophy/ Religion
The readings assigned definitely required a bit more attention than usual. At first I believed that the authors were quite ambiguous about their specific goals and interests. However, after reading each text a several times, the themes became more apparent. Helene Cixous’s “New French Feminism” and Luce Irigaray’s “Sexual Difference” perceive to contain similar interests. They both discuss the origin of gender/sexuality and also dwell into philosophical matters.
In Luce Irigaray’s “Sexual Difference” she states that “It is man who has been the subject of discourse, whether in the field of theory, morality or politics. And the gender of God, the guardian of every subject and discourse, is always paternal and masculine in the West. For women, there remain the so-called minor art-forms: cooking, knitting, sewing, and embroidery; and in exceptional cases, poetry, painting and music.” Perhaps religion plays a major role in our society and it surely can shape the way society views gender. Men automatically receive the upper hand due to the fact that the mightiest being, God, is viewed as paternal and masculine. Most individuals, from the time of birth until death, are exposed to religion quite excessively. It eventually becomes a natural aspect.
She then continues by stating that philosophy claims that “Time becomes interior to the subject, and space exterior.” Perhaps women are space and men are time. Time becomes interior more specifically natural and innate. Perhaps being a man is more commonly natural than being a woman. Additionally, it is more accepting when men exercise their rights. On the other hand, it will take more time for women to exercise equivalent rights due to the fact that they are exterior, more specifically unnatural aspects that dwell in this world. Since perceived as unnatural, an intellectual revolution is necessary in order to upgrade the status of women to natural. What is an intellectual revolution? An intellectual revolution consists of the modification of “thoughts and ethics”, more precisely religion and philosophy. Once these aspects are altered, women can be also viewed as interior and time. However, how can religion be modified? How can a God created aspect be altered? Since philosophy is man made, it can be altered effortlessly but when it comes to religion only time can tell.
In Luce Irigaray’s “Sexual Difference” she states that “It is man who has been the subject of discourse, whether in the field of theory, morality or politics. And the gender of God, the guardian of every subject and discourse, is always paternal and masculine in the West. For women, there remain the so-called minor art-forms: cooking, knitting, sewing, and embroidery; and in exceptional cases, poetry, painting and music.” Perhaps religion plays a major role in our society and it surely can shape the way society views gender. Men automatically receive the upper hand due to the fact that the mightiest being, God, is viewed as paternal and masculine. Most individuals, from the time of birth until death, are exposed to religion quite excessively. It eventually becomes a natural aspect.
She then continues by stating that philosophy claims that “Time becomes interior to the subject, and space exterior.” Perhaps women are space and men are time. Time becomes interior more specifically natural and innate. Perhaps being a man is more commonly natural than being a woman. Additionally, it is more accepting when men exercise their rights. On the other hand, it will take more time for women to exercise equivalent rights due to the fact that they are exterior, more specifically unnatural aspects that dwell in this world. Since perceived as unnatural, an intellectual revolution is necessary in order to upgrade the status of women to natural. What is an intellectual revolution? An intellectual revolution consists of the modification of “thoughts and ethics”, more precisely religion and philosophy. Once these aspects are altered, women can be also viewed as interior and time. However, how can religion be modified? How can a God created aspect be altered? Since philosophy is man made, it can be altered effortlessly but when it comes to religion only time can tell.
10.24.07 "Sexual Difference"
When reading Luce Irigary story, "Sexual Difference" and the Judith Butler excerpt "Bodies That Matter" each show that special separation we keep referring to when talking about men and women. When reading "Sexual Difference" by Luce Irigary I came across this paragraph that i found interesting in connecting our discussions about feminism that we have talked about so far. Luce Irigary says, "The transition to a new age in turn necessitates a new perception and a new conception of time and space, our occupation of place,and the different envelopes knows as identity." I like how she uses the term 'envelope' at the end of this quote. The term envelope insinuating covering up, wrapping, or hiding possibly ones identity. I also think she is trying to tell the reader that there has been a change in the world, and a new time has come. She says occupation of place possible meaning women entering the work place more and more as the years go by.
A conclusion I think we can draw from his quote is that no matter what happens in the future between men and women, peoples viewpoints will always be perceived to be men v. women. You can see through all the readings we have read thus far all show the same characteristics when comparing men and women. Whether its the way men seem to have the dominating role, or the way women are always refereed to being separate from men. When comparing any two feminist readings we have read thus far you see similar traits in all the readings and will continue to see those same traits throughout.
A conclusion I think we can draw from his quote is that no matter what happens in the future between men and women, peoples viewpoints will always be perceived to be men v. women. You can see through all the readings we have read thus far all show the same characteristics when comparing men and women. Whether its the way men seem to have the dominating role, or the way women are always refereed to being separate from men. When comparing any two feminist readings we have read thus far you see similar traits in all the readings and will continue to see those same traits throughout.
'Sexual Differences'
Unlike any other feminist pieces that we've read, if I'm not mistaken, 'Sexual Differences' in particular attempts to point out the root or origin of patriarchal societies as well as the significance that God has in all of this.
"For the work of sexual difference to take place, a revolution in thought and ethics is needed. We must re-interpret the whole relationship between the subject and discourse, the subject and the world, the subject and the cosmic, the microcosmic and the macrocosmic" (p. 236). Here, Irigaray signals out several relationships that can pinpoint why it is that a phrase such as sexual difference even exists. For starters, Irigaray writes that God (in Western culture) has always been referred to as a male being...I still wonder why that is. She later goes on to explain that there exists a difference between the arts and sexual difference, which can be analyzed beginning with space and time, which were of course, created by God. Further reading Irigaray's analysis, she basically goes on to say that feminity can be related to space while masculinity to time and thus we have the beginning of sexual difference and such. Although there exists a vast difference between the two, male and female, space and time, we must not confuse the two, as Cixous' 'Sorties' points out, there exists "qualifiers of sexual difference" but they must not be confused, "man/masculine, woman/feminine: for there are men who do not repress their femininity, women who more or less forcefully inscribe their masculinity" (p. 232); there are women that clearly address their masculine characteristics as there are men who cannot control their female characteristics.
"For the work of sexual difference to take place, a revolution in thought and ethics is needed. We must re-interpret the whole relationship between the subject and discourse, the subject and the world, the subject and the cosmic, the microcosmic and the macrocosmic" (p. 236). Here, Irigaray signals out several relationships that can pinpoint why it is that a phrase such as sexual difference even exists. For starters, Irigaray writes that God (in Western culture) has always been referred to as a male being...I still wonder why that is. She later goes on to explain that there exists a difference between the arts and sexual difference, which can be analyzed beginning with space and time, which were of course, created by God. Further reading Irigaray's analysis, she basically goes on to say that feminity can be related to space while masculinity to time and thus we have the beginning of sexual difference and such. Although there exists a vast difference between the two, male and female, space and time, we must not confuse the two, as Cixous' 'Sorties' points out, there exists "qualifiers of sexual difference" but they must not be confused, "man/masculine, woman/feminine: for there are men who do not repress their femininity, women who more or less forcefully inscribe their masculinity" (p. 232); there are women that clearly address their masculine characteristics as there are men who cannot control their female characteristics.
Powers Control
I would like to introduce another term to our feminist readings, one that I have seen very little if at all and one that I think has pragmatic applications to the paradoxes of the feminist ideology. I would like to explore the ramifications of utility as it pertains to the patriarch’s power over females. We’ve already explored in class the ways in which feminism (and any structure that relies on power relationships) resembles Marxism. This comparison is significant if in no other way than it describes a similar dependency. I am speaking, of course, of the dependency of participation.
In Marx we were challenged by the question of, “having identified the problem why isn’t there a revolt.” Also in feminism we are challenged by a similar question put in a more fine way by our professor, “how come there aren’t riots in the street”. At some point we were given this symptom of the would-be rioters, call them the proletariat, the public, or women. At some point in the formation of the system (already defined as defunct, corrupt, or ineffective) there was a device installed to ensure the willing participation of those subjugated. The discussion of solutions to this problem cannot exist without the discussions of the nature of this device and a proposal for its eradication.
In feminism as stated by Luce Irigaray, Judith Butler, and Helene Cixous, I see utility or to an effect dependency as that societal lynch pin that could potentially reshape the definitions of our sex relationship.
While reading the assignments for Wednesday’s class I found myself gravitating to the sensitivity of the authors to the “distance” between men and women. Within this “distance” or “gap” I found the authors playing with the ideas of subjectivity. Irigary writes “Sometimes a sense of wonder is bestowed upon a work of art. But it is never found in the gap between man and woman. This space was filled instead with attraction, greed, possession, consummation, disgust, etc., and not with that wonder which sees something as though always for the first time, and never seizes the other as its object. Wonder cannot seize, possess or subdue such an object.” Although this quote comments very specifically on “art” and uses the word “object” in the material sense I see implications that reach farther. It points to a more pure perception, one that is not yet dominated by societies compulsion to ascribe a specific utility to everything yielded by it’s producers. I believe it is the separation of the dependency of the empowered ( in this case the patriarch) from whatever it is they perceive the subjugated (in this case the feminine) has to offer that gives us the greatest chance of a just redefining of the sexes.
Similarly Butler writes, “For surely it is as unacceptable to insist that relations of sexual subordination determine gender position as it is to separate radically forms of sexuality from the workings of gender norms.” Interested by the insistence of the link between sexuality and the definition of a “gender” I see another way in which the ascribed place of the feminine in the man’s world is a function of the utility those men see in it.
To what end? How do we fix it?
Helene Cixous writes, “Of woman, upon whom he no longer depends, he retains only this space, always virginal, matter subjected to the desire that he wishes to imprint.” Here I see the author pinpointing the exact moment at which the “devise” is installed. The imprinting of subjective desires as they relate to the perceived use of the feminine. But what if this social compulsion were stopped just shy of affecting it’s goal. If we remove the dependency of the patriarch on the feminine, we then remove the patriarch’s insistence on how the female utility must be defined. By removing the overbearing restrictions of the dominators definition we are then forced to consider the feminine as distilled and as pure as it can be. Any dominator that sees utility in anything outside itself must redefine it according to the application of its usefulness in order to assert control over it. And thus we lose the true and objective representation of it.
In Marx we were challenged by the question of, “having identified the problem why isn’t there a revolt.” Also in feminism we are challenged by a similar question put in a more fine way by our professor, “how come there aren’t riots in the street”. At some point we were given this symptom of the would-be rioters, call them the proletariat, the public, or women. At some point in the formation of the system (already defined as defunct, corrupt, or ineffective) there was a device installed to ensure the willing participation of those subjugated. The discussion of solutions to this problem cannot exist without the discussions of the nature of this device and a proposal for its eradication.
In feminism as stated by Luce Irigaray, Judith Butler, and Helene Cixous, I see utility or to an effect dependency as that societal lynch pin that could potentially reshape the definitions of our sex relationship.
While reading the assignments for Wednesday’s class I found myself gravitating to the sensitivity of the authors to the “distance” between men and women. Within this “distance” or “gap” I found the authors playing with the ideas of subjectivity. Irigary writes “Sometimes a sense of wonder is bestowed upon a work of art. But it is never found in the gap between man and woman. This space was filled instead with attraction, greed, possession, consummation, disgust, etc., and not with that wonder which sees something as though always for the first time, and never seizes the other as its object. Wonder cannot seize, possess or subdue such an object.” Although this quote comments very specifically on “art” and uses the word “object” in the material sense I see implications that reach farther. It points to a more pure perception, one that is not yet dominated by societies compulsion to ascribe a specific utility to everything yielded by it’s producers. I believe it is the separation of the dependency of the empowered ( in this case the patriarch) from whatever it is they perceive the subjugated (in this case the feminine) has to offer that gives us the greatest chance of a just redefining of the sexes.
Similarly Butler writes, “For surely it is as unacceptable to insist that relations of sexual subordination determine gender position as it is to separate radically forms of sexuality from the workings of gender norms.” Interested by the insistence of the link between sexuality and the definition of a “gender” I see another way in which the ascribed place of the feminine in the man’s world is a function of the utility those men see in it.
To what end? How do we fix it?
Helene Cixous writes, “Of woman, upon whom he no longer depends, he retains only this space, always virginal, matter subjected to the desire that he wishes to imprint.” Here I see the author pinpointing the exact moment at which the “devise” is installed. The imprinting of subjective desires as they relate to the perceived use of the feminine. But what if this social compulsion were stopped just shy of affecting it’s goal. If we remove the dependency of the patriarch on the feminine, we then remove the patriarch’s insistence on how the female utility must be defined. By removing the overbearing restrictions of the dominators definition we are then forced to consider the feminine as distilled and as pure as it can be. Any dominator that sees utility in anything outside itself must redefine it according to the application of its usefulness in order to assert control over it. And thus we lose the true and objective representation of it.
Monday, October 22, 2007
10/22
For Wednesday, read Luce Irigaray's 'Sexual Difference' and the Judith Butler excerpt from Bodies that Matter, both of which are found in your book. Then choose a quotation from either of the two readings and using them, along with Cixous, try to come to a conclusion about what these authors are getting at? That is, what are they interested investigating (and it should be distinct from the projects of feminist critics as we've described them thus far)? What overlaps can you find? Can you define their project? Be sure to refer to their texts in your attempt to arrive at a coherent description.
Also, there's a link to the New Yorker article by David Denby (about Judd Apatow) I referenced in class is to the right.
Also, there's a link to the New Yorker article by David Denby (about Judd Apatow) I referenced in class is to the right.
10.22.07 Motherfuck**
When reading Motherfu**** by Aimee Bender you cant help to wonder what a feminist would think when reading a story like this. One would think how many aspects that are made would have many negative viewpoints to a feminist reader. First of all the name of the main character, "Motherfu**er"would offend a feminist knowing the main character likes to f**k women who are mothers and not go after single women who bear no children. So the women in the story are all selected before hand he is looking for a mother who has children, and is very gullible and is easy to attract. So after he is able to seduce them into finally sleeping with him and getting emotionally close to him, he has won and another women he has gotten to fall into his trap. Another aspect that might upset a feminist reader could be the way he refers to the women he has been with. He says, "Tina with the straight ahead knees in Milwaukee, Annie with the caustic laugh in Chicago, Betsy's lopsided cleavage in Bismark, crazy Heddie in Butte, that lion tamer in Vegas, the smart farm girl from Bakersfield." You can see how he has little nicknames for all the girls he has been with just to remember what they look like and even who they were. At the end of that line he doesn't even remember some of the women's names just who they were and what they did. For him all those women were like a new trophy for him to put into his case. As soon as he accomplished what he wanted from them that was the last of them and on to the next, "Motherfu**er".
Bender, Motherfu****
Women are nothing more than a piece of clay, molded and shaped by a man. This is one of the subversive messages in Aimee Bender’s Motherfucker. When reading this story, I question certain incidents, or events that would awake a feminists ‘social awareness’. The protagonist named Motherfucker is only attracted to woman with children. He appeals to the woman as charming, confident, with a mysterious personality. After he seduces the actress and makes love to her, she becomes his creation. A feminist perspective on this subversive message can only explain a sexual strength over the women.
The women in this story are not randomly selected. The protagonist is selective. He is looking for a mother with a baby. This is enough information to portray women who are very naïve and gullible, who are very easy to arouse because they are sexually deprived. It isn’t right that a woman should be portrayed as a desperate being, because she has a child. The author/narrator never mentions any facts of these woman belonging to other man. If she does belong to another man, the subject her would be adultery. If the protagonist has slept with the single mothers, then, there is a bigger picture, such as ‘woman for procreation ONLY’! If the spouse to the mothers is missing, it appears as if the women are there only for sex, and nothing more, and that they reason on a sexual level.
The women in this story are not randomly selected. The protagonist is selective. He is looking for a mother with a baby. This is enough information to portray women who are very naïve and gullible, who are very easy to arouse because they are sexually deprived. It isn’t right that a woman should be portrayed as a desperate being, because she has a child. The author/narrator never mentions any facts of these woman belonging to other man. If she does belong to another man, the subject her would be adultery. If the protagonist has slept with the single mothers, then, there is a bigger picture, such as ‘woman for procreation ONLY’! If the spouse to the mothers is missing, it appears as if the women are there only for sex, and nothing more, and that they reason on a sexual level.
Interesting Titles
After reading the two stories by Anee Bender, "Deddieland", and "Mother''''r", in "Willful Creatures",the theme of which these two talk about relates to the theme of dominant/patriarchal. Therefore, these stories talk about an authoritive figure who takes advantage of the vulnerable. In these stories, the authoritive masculinity role is portrayed in the aspect of taking advantage of the feminist sex. A way of interpreting it as a feministway, or thru the feminist literary critic, who are drawn to and emphasized by the different ways women are mistreated by the masculine figure.
Looking at the story "Debbieland", My opinion in interpreting the story was the fact that the protagonist was a woman, who beat up other women, there is a group of girls who take advantage of a vulnerable girl they think of as "Debbie". I compared the group of girls having the same attitude by trying to portray themselves as a masculine figure would, they would act superior, with authority, discriminating women. This can be compared to what was said in class, and on the reading that there is a little 'Masculinity', and 'Feminine' aspects found in both sexes, this can be related to the way the group of girl 'bullies'portray, by acting as a masculine figure, or having there 'masculine' figure show. This group of bullies talk nicely to the girl they presume is Debbie, "She tells Debbie some casual praise. Perhaps for the final net, she complimients Debbie on the skirt." (60) After this compliment, Debbie becomes vulnerable as a result of her feeling attractive, then she gets beaten up, and left there bleeding and torn of her clothes. After they get bored beating her, the goup of bullies find another victim, who they also name Debbie, I think that they name all the vulnerable victims Debbie, as a way of describing or comparing it to a person they might of have known of having that name, a possibility might be a mother who as they talk about some not having, but probably one of them did, who was probably beaten, either by a masculine figure or by bullies. In the other story "Mother''''r", this story is about a man who takes advantage of divorced women, all he seeks out of all these relationships is for his sexual desire. He was just interested in his desire, and after he acomplished it he moved on to a different women, he seeked any women, "He took a train, and met women of every size and shape in different cities." He didn't care who it was all he wanted was pleasure, and after that he never call them back. "He never liked any of them for longer than one or two times." It got to the point where he met a 'Scarlet', a famous public figure, who was a single mother. He started a conversation with this women who "Everyone else was afraid to talk to her." (76) Probably becasue she was attractive, he talk nicely to her which made her feel loved again, and then in the end he left her and never talked to her again, like all the other women he had met, he treated her the same way. In the end the way a feminist critic might interpret this story, is by focusing on the desire of this masculine figure, how he made all the women feel love for him, but in the end his desire for the scarlet was superior, he exlained it to her how she needed to tame it, but the man ends up not able to handle, it was said as "This is the house of your desire, he whispered to himself, looking at the small walls behind him, and when he closed his eyes the torrent of longing waiting inside was so thick he thought he might drown in it." In the end Women critics might interpret the story focusing on the injustices by the man in this story to the maaried women, and in the end the desire was to hard for him to control and handle.
Looking at the story "Debbieland", My opinion in interpreting the story was the fact that the protagonist was a woman, who beat up other women, there is a group of girls who take advantage of a vulnerable girl they think of as "Debbie". I compared the group of girls having the same attitude by trying to portray themselves as a masculine figure would, they would act superior, with authority, discriminating women. This can be compared to what was said in class, and on the reading that there is a little 'Masculinity', and 'Feminine' aspects found in both sexes, this can be related to the way the group of girl 'bullies'portray, by acting as a masculine figure, or having there 'masculine' figure show. This group of bullies talk nicely to the girl they presume is Debbie, "She tells Debbie some casual praise. Perhaps for the final net, she complimients Debbie on the skirt." (60) After this compliment, Debbie becomes vulnerable as a result of her feeling attractive, then she gets beaten up, and left there bleeding and torn of her clothes. After they get bored beating her, the goup of bullies find another victim, who they also name Debbie, I think that they name all the vulnerable victims Debbie, as a way of describing or comparing it to a person they might of have known of having that name, a possibility might be a mother who as they talk about some not having, but probably one of them did, who was probably beaten, either by a masculine figure or by bullies. In the other story "Mother''''r", this story is about a man who takes advantage of divorced women, all he seeks out of all these relationships is for his sexual desire. He was just interested in his desire, and after he acomplished it he moved on to a different women, he seeked any women, "He took a train, and met women of every size and shape in different cities." He didn't care who it was all he wanted was pleasure, and after that he never call them back. "He never liked any of them for longer than one or two times." It got to the point where he met a 'Scarlet', a famous public figure, who was a single mother. He started a conversation with this women who "Everyone else was afraid to talk to her." (76) Probably becasue she was attractive, he talk nicely to her which made her feel loved again, and then in the end he left her and never talked to her again, like all the other women he had met, he treated her the same way. In the end the way a feminist critic might interpret this story, is by focusing on the desire of this masculine figure, how he made all the women feel love for him, but in the end his desire for the scarlet was superior, he exlained it to her how she needed to tame it, but the man ends up not able to handle, it was said as "This is the house of your desire, he whispered to himself, looking at the small walls behind him, and when he closed his eyes the torrent of longing waiting inside was so thick he thought he might drown in it." In the end Women critics might interpret the story focusing on the injustices by the man in this story to the maaried women, and in the end the desire was to hard for him to control and handle.
Attack of the 50 ft woman
It’s funny, but when we started discussing the issue of feminism, the first thing that came to mind was Attack of the 50 ft. woman. The film stars Daryl Hannah (Elle from Kill Bill) as Nancy Archer, a timid young woman with major self-esteem issues and almost no self-confidence, problems caused by the men in her life: her overbearing, workaholic father and her condescending, misogynist husband Harry (who just happens to be cheating on her). These two would probably be the dead-end result of a total patriarchal society. They had no respect for Nancy whatsoever. They seemed always ready to berate her whenever she’d speak her mind. At times, she’d be standing in a room with them, standing right in front of them, and they’d completely ignore her and just keep talking to each other (sometimes making decisions about her) as if she was just another piece of furniture. She was the epitome of how women would usually be depicted in phallocentric literature, always relegated to the silent background while the men were in the forefront, making all the “hard choices”. The only one who Nancy ever felt comfortable, appreciated and respected with was her psychiatrist, Dr. Cushing, an older, infinitely more self-assured, successful woman whom Nancy admired more than anybody else. Since Nancy didn’t have a mother figure (her mother had died at a young age), Dr. Cushing was the only one she could identify with. The bond between those two women throughout the course of the story would only get stronger. But it was still overshadowed by the men’s resentment
Soon the fates smiled upon Nancy, giving her the ability and opportunity to get even with her male tormentors. She was traveling through the desert when she encountered a mysterious ship of alien origin and was exposed to an almost-blinding light originating from the spacecraft before it disappeared. Understandably, the ordeal left her a bit upset. Once back home, she tried explaining to everyone what happened, needing some comfort after that trauma. Dr. Cushing tried to provide that comfort, but, as always, both her father and her husband wouldn’t listen to her. They dismissed her story as some PMS-related bout of insanity and went on disregarding her in their usual male-chauvinistic way. They would live to regret that decision. Nancy soon discovered that the light that hit her did not leave her unchanged. To everyone’s surprise, including hers, she suddenly began growing in size and in power. Before long, she was standing at full fifty feet tall, a giantess looking down upon the two tiny shocked men. The tables had turned at last. No longer would she be ignored or shunned. No longer would they take her words lightly. She was finally going to receive all the respect she deserved. But Nancy wasn’t vindictive. This wasn’t about revenge. It was, as it had always been, about them treating her as an equal human being instead of some accessory. This was about the feminist goal that she would discuss with Dr. Cushing in their many sessions. Despite this incredible power she now had over them, all she wanted was for things to work out for the best equally for everyone, especially between her and Harry. But it was not to be. The bastard tried murdering her and run off with the girl he was (currently) having an affair with. His attempt failed, though, as Nancy still lived.
To make a long story short, the rest of the movie goes on with Nancy going on a rampage across town, hunting for her murderous cheating husband, capturing him, standing up to her father, being shot at by the called-in air force and rescued at the last minute by the same spacecraft as before.
The final scene is within the ship where we find Nancy, accompanied by two other equal-sized women looking into a jar containing Harry and other men like him. The final words she says to him before the credits start rolling really say it all: “It’s not just me that’s changed, it’s a whole new universe Harry and it’s up to you to catch up with us.” I think this line really gets a message across. That a strictly patriarchal society, where men like Harry or her father are in charge, is obsolete, that it’s time for change, for a new better society with equal treatment for both sexes to emerge.
Soon the fates smiled upon Nancy, giving her the ability and opportunity to get even with her male tormentors. She was traveling through the desert when she encountered a mysterious ship of alien origin and was exposed to an almost-blinding light originating from the spacecraft before it disappeared. Understandably, the ordeal left her a bit upset. Once back home, she tried explaining to everyone what happened, needing some comfort after that trauma. Dr. Cushing tried to provide that comfort, but, as always, both her father and her husband wouldn’t listen to her. They dismissed her story as some PMS-related bout of insanity and went on disregarding her in their usual male-chauvinistic way. They would live to regret that decision. Nancy soon discovered that the light that hit her did not leave her unchanged. To everyone’s surprise, including hers, she suddenly began growing in size and in power. Before long, she was standing at full fifty feet tall, a giantess looking down upon the two tiny shocked men. The tables had turned at last. No longer would she be ignored or shunned. No longer would they take her words lightly. She was finally going to receive all the respect she deserved. But Nancy wasn’t vindictive. This wasn’t about revenge. It was, as it had always been, about them treating her as an equal human being instead of some accessory. This was about the feminist goal that she would discuss with Dr. Cushing in their many sessions. Despite this incredible power she now had over them, all she wanted was for things to work out for the best equally for everyone, especially between her and Harry. But it was not to be. The bastard tried murdering her and run off with the girl he was (currently) having an affair with. His attempt failed, though, as Nancy still lived.
To make a long story short, the rest of the movie goes on with Nancy going on a rampage across town, hunting for her murderous cheating husband, capturing him, standing up to her father, being shot at by the called-in air force and rescued at the last minute by the same spacecraft as before.
The final scene is within the ship where we find Nancy, accompanied by two other equal-sized women looking into a jar containing Harry and other men like him. The final words she says to him before the credits start rolling really say it all: “It’s not just me that’s changed, it’s a whole new universe Harry and it’s up to you to catch up with us.” I think this line really gets a message across. That a strictly patriarchal society, where men like Harry or her father are in charge, is obsolete, that it’s time for change, for a new better society with equal treatment for both sexes to emerge.
10.22 mf'ers!
In Aimee Bender’s aptly titled “Motherf*cker”, the man in question f*cks mothers, go figure. It is his little fetish, which he indulges in quite heavily and with no remorse whatsoever. A feminist would read this text and be disgusted by this ‘chauvinist pig’ who twists the emotions of innocent women just to take them to bed “one or two times.” They would point out the cold and collected way in which he picks his target, lies and manipulates to get information, and then strings her along with precision, making her lust grow to the point of being unbearable. He leaves the next morning and never calls her again, and she is left to deal with his impact on how she views the world around her as well as her personal emotions. Another point to be made from the subversive view would be how he treats his previous flings while in pursuit of the starlet. He admits, through narration, to being rude and later to just plain not picking up their calls anymore. The piece even starts with his listing off the stops on his cross country f*ck fest, describing the women in question in crude terms like “Annie with the caustic laugh” and “Betsy’s lopsided cleavage.”
On the other hand, a patriarchal reading of this piece would produce quite different points on interest. For starters, and this is mentioned expressly within the text, he doesn’t f*ck married women, nor does he take them while their children are unattended. He makes them want him using whatever methods available, but the always want him. The text states that he is a more than adequate lover, so it’s not like he isn’t giving them anything. Furthermore, in the case of the starlet, he does indeed let her effect him on an emotional level. He shakes and stutters, not even daring to touch her for weeks. He teaches her a new way of expressing emotion, and as such gives her the skills which she used to get nominated no less than seven awards, while our “hero” is left alone in his small, sparse apartment.
On the other hand, a patriarchal reading of this piece would produce quite different points on interest. For starters, and this is mentioned expressly within the text, he doesn’t f*ck married women, nor does he take them while their children are unattended. He makes them want him using whatever methods available, but the always want him. The text states that he is a more than adequate lover, so it’s not like he isn’t giving them anything. Furthermore, in the case of the starlet, he does indeed let her effect him on an emotional level. He shakes and stutters, not even daring to touch her for weeks. He teaches her a new way of expressing emotion, and as such gives her the skills which she used to get nominated no less than seven awards, while our “hero” is left alone in his small, sparse apartment.
Harry potter
Based off our discussions in class and my understanding of feminist critique, I will try and analyze Harry potter from a feminist point of view. The first issue that I think feminist critiques would address is the idea of Harry Potter as another MALE hero, Ron Weasley as his sidekick, and the only substantial character Hermoine Granger who takes the backseat to the other two characters. Feminist critique will also question the nature for which Hermoine is described, she is uptight, sometimes pretentious, over achieving know it all who is often seen spending all her time in the library or in desperate need of rescue. Though Hermoine has helped with the rescue of her male peers, her contribution can been seen as minimal.
Another character that can be analyzed by feminist critiques is Dumbledore, the king of the castle, the main authority. All of the children look up to him in some way, shape or form. The question here is why Dumbledore must be a man, why couldn’t the main authoritative figure have been women. Professor Mcgonagall who is also seen as an authority figure is not revered in the same way as Dumbledore. The main characters that draw the most attention in the series are the male characters. There are no female characters who are of significant power of there male counterparts. Harry’s Aunt Petunia takes a subservient role to her husband, allowing her to influence the way she feels about Harry. Mrs. Weasley is the typical stay at home Mom who attends to the needs or her large family.
Harry Potter, though written by a female writer, still plays into the patriarchal structure for which literature is written. Making the man the center and the standard, and the female characters somewhat opposite or less pronounced would be a social interpretation that feminist analyst would see implied through literature.
Another character that can be analyzed by feminist critiques is Dumbledore, the king of the castle, the main authority. All of the children look up to him in some way, shape or form. The question here is why Dumbledore must be a man, why couldn’t the main authoritative figure have been women. Professor Mcgonagall who is also seen as an authority figure is not revered in the same way as Dumbledore. The main characters that draw the most attention in the series are the male characters. There are no female characters who are of significant power of there male counterparts. Harry’s Aunt Petunia takes a subservient role to her husband, allowing her to influence the way she feels about Harry. Mrs. Weasley is the typical stay at home Mom who attends to the needs or her large family.
Harry Potter, though written by a female writer, still plays into the patriarchal structure for which literature is written. Making the man the center and the standard, and the female characters somewhat opposite or less pronounced would be a social interpretation that feminist analyst would see implied through literature.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Anchorman
I had some trouble, at first, trying to figure out a text in which I knew enough to make feminist argument out of. I thought about books, and then I jumped to movies. I finally landed on my favorite movie Anchorman. On the surface level, it’s a comedy about how Will Farrell loses his job to Christina Applegate. After thinking about is some more, I found that this could be viewed from a feminist perspective. Christina Applegate is the only main character in the movie that is female. Although she does have some of her own time on screen where she explains who she is, she mainly is seen through the eyes of the broadcast team, who are the main characters, and who are all male. In the movie she is always seen by herself, and isn’t liked by anyone. The broadcast team has a problem with her joining because she is a woman, even though she is hardworking and is committed to her work. This could be seen as the subversive viewpoint. I think that the fact that she is alone, and that no one welcomes her are the main things that feminist critics would concentrate on. The patriarchal view of this movie is that she is just eye candy, and a “she-devil” that can come to no good but to destroy men, as Will Ferrell puts it. I also think that the dialogue that Christina Applegate has is also sort of different compared to Will Ferrell’s. There is one point where they are throwing insults at each other, and the only thing she has to say is that Will Ferrell looks like a “giant blueberry” or “his hair is stupid,” while Will Ferrell calls her a whore, and tells her that she has a “small brain” and tells her that “it’s science.”
Feminism In Dogma
In terms of religion, women aren't exactly held in the highest regard, and Kevin Smith took that dogmatic belief and ran with it in creating his 1999 film, Dogma. This film takes the patriarchal history behind the bible and turns it on it's ear as the last living relative to Jesus Christ is a woman working in an abortion clinic in Illinois, and God is shown as a woman. In the dominant view, the fact that God is a woman might be seen as quite absurd as many religious people (both men and women) look at God as a father figure, as "he" is often referred to "him". Another "absurdity" in terms of the religious view is the irony found in the last living relative of Christ being a woman working in an abortion clinic. Another thing that might be seen as strange through the patriarchal view, given that The Bible is a patriarchal text, is that a feminine muse by the name of Serendipity came up with the ideas for The Bible. This, in addition with God being a woman, is met with ridicule by the protagonist ("The Last Scion") as she does not believe the things that she is told, as the beliefs she has held were instituted by the church.
A sort of a segway into the feminist view of Dogma, the idea of God being a woman and a "woman" basically creating the foundation for The Bible could be seen as very progressive. However, the fact that the voice of God is a male could put off a feminist (despite any justification for God even needing a voice in the film), as one may feel as if God does not need a voice to speak for her, much less a man speaking for her. Also, given that Serendipity's scriptures of God being a woman were changed to the patriarchal version accepted as The Bible would also be seen as controversial. However, that could also be an inspiration for feminists to attempt to be be equal amongst men, even in a traditional setting such as a religious environment. Overall, upon looking at Dogma in the subversive view, one may find it to be a progressive film, if not controversial as it was.
A sort of a segway into the feminist view of Dogma, the idea of God being a woman and a "woman" basically creating the foundation for The Bible could be seen as very progressive. However, the fact that the voice of God is a male could put off a feminist (despite any justification for God even needing a voice in the film), as one may feel as if God does not need a voice to speak for her, much less a man speaking for her. Also, given that Serendipity's scriptures of God being a woman were changed to the patriarchal version accepted as The Bible would also be seen as controversial. However, that could also be an inspiration for feminists to attempt to be be equal amongst men, even in a traditional setting such as a religious environment. Overall, upon looking at Dogma in the subversive view, one may find it to be a progressive film, if not controversial as it was.
A Streetcar Named Desire
When coming up with a story to analyze and read with a feministic eye, the first story that popped into my head was the play A Street Car Named Desire by Tennessee Williams. A person would read this play and see it as a story about a married guy who had his wife well kept, and was aggressive towards women, In a subversive view towards the story a feminist would see it as a story about Women trying to survive in a man’s world. The story starts off with Stanley and Stella a married couple, getting and unexpected arrival from Stella’s sister, Blanche. Throughout the story you see instances where Stanley and Stella argue. Stella tries to stay tough at time, as a sign of strong woman, showing some masculinity. But just ends up running upstairs to her neighbor Eunice’s apartment, showing a sign of weakness of women just running away from problems. Blanche on the other hand is a compulsive liar, who is trying to find a perfect man to make them fall in love with her in order to survive. Her drinking and going crazy almost harmonious is perfect cliché of how women are seen in society, always complaining, going crazy etc. Blanche tries to hook up with one of Stanley’s poker buddies as an attempt to run away from her past. Which then Stanley finds out the real reason why she arrived out of nowhere. She lied and tried to marry Mitch as an attempt to survive this man’s world and failed. Stanley gets angry with Blanche and Stella gets in the way of them arguing, and stand up for her sister. Again something masculine, but Stanley ends up beating his pregnant wife. In the end after Stanley rapes Blanche and a lot of other events. Then the story ends with Stanley and Stella with the child living “happily ever after”. After all that’s happened Stella stays with Stanley and does so because she “needs” him, which in society women are seen in a sense to need a man in their life and household to maintain the norm. Or maybe she stayed because that’s the only way she is going to survive a Mans world.
Debbieland and the narrator
“Debbieland” can be quite difficult to interpret. I was originally confused about the narrator’s gender. At first I believed that the narrator was male, but after reading the story an additional time I concluded that the narrator was female. According to the narrator’s gender the story can either be viewed as dominant/ patriarchal or subversive
If the narrator is viewed as male, the reading can be interpreted as dominant/ patriarchal and the story can be perceived as anti-feminist. From the very beginning of the story the narrator portrays hate towards Debbie. His feelings towards her proceed further into abuse and harassment. Further, this anti-feminist notion is illustrated when he states “Long ago we gave up on our mothers. All of us, even though some of us don’t have mothers at all. Our mothers died, our mothers left. Our mothers changed from into a toad. Our mother became presidents of companies or jumped of buildings .Our mother gave up everything for us. One of us has a father who beats the mother. We cheer him on.” Even thought their mothers strived to provide as much service as possible, they still despised their mothers. They even supported the father who abused his wife. Also, when the narrator and his friends abused Debbie, they were confident in the fact that she will never report them to authority. He says “She will never tell on us. She will never be a rat.” Perhaps, men in general are confident in the fact that their authoritative role in society will prevent their wrong doings from going public. For example, former President, Bill Clinton, might have been quite sure that his scandal with Monica Lewinsky would never go public. He might have believed that she would refrain from speaking due to his significant role in the world. At the ending of the story the narrator realized that Debbie’s name is not really Debbie. Her name is actually Ann. This situation can illustrate that most men ignore the genuine identity of a women, such as their names, and emphasize mainly on their physical aspects, such as their skirts.
If the narrator is perceived as being a woman, the story can be interpreted quite differently. Perhaps the narrator, through her vicious tactics, might be striving to deliver a specific message. Even though women are abused, neglected, and treated as the second sex, they still continue living with the same conditions. They undermine their ability and conform to the rules of society. Instead of Debbie reporting her assaulters to authority, she adapted to the situation and received sympathy for it.
If the narrator is viewed as male, the reading can be interpreted as dominant/ patriarchal and the story can be perceived as anti-feminist. From the very beginning of the story the narrator portrays hate towards Debbie. His feelings towards her proceed further into abuse and harassment. Further, this anti-feminist notion is illustrated when he states “Long ago we gave up on our mothers. All of us, even though some of us don’t have mothers at all. Our mothers died, our mothers left. Our mothers changed from into a toad. Our mother became presidents of companies or jumped of buildings .Our mother gave up everything for us. One of us has a father who beats the mother. We cheer him on.” Even thought their mothers strived to provide as much service as possible, they still despised their mothers. They even supported the father who abused his wife. Also, when the narrator and his friends abused Debbie, they were confident in the fact that she will never report them to authority. He says “She will never tell on us. She will never be a rat.” Perhaps, men in general are confident in the fact that their authoritative role in society will prevent their wrong doings from going public. For example, former President, Bill Clinton, might have been quite sure that his scandal with Monica Lewinsky would never go public. He might have believed that she would refrain from speaking due to his significant role in the world. At the ending of the story the narrator realized that Debbie’s name is not really Debbie. Her name is actually Ann. This situation can illustrate that most men ignore the genuine identity of a women, such as their names, and emphasize mainly on their physical aspects, such as their skirts.
If the narrator is perceived as being a woman, the story can be interpreted quite differently. Perhaps the narrator, through her vicious tactics, might be striving to deliver a specific message. Even though women are abused, neglected, and treated as the second sex, they still continue living with the same conditions. They undermine their ability and conform to the rules of society. Instead of Debbie reporting her assaulters to authority, she adapted to the situation and received sympathy for it.
The Scarlet Letter
Thinking for a moment about a piece of literature that might be fitting to apply feministic anyalysis to, I have the notion that The Scarlet Letter would be very appropriate. Just from our discussion in class, and understanding that literature is produced in a patriarchal society, one can see how this wonderful classic would be allowed to enter the mainstream and would be given rights to be read. Any man, would read this novel, and probably think to himself, maybe secretly, maybe not, "She got what she dserved." Not that men want woman to be persecuted and treated degradingly, especially in this day and age, but every man, even in this day and age
has some level of innate pride. No man (or woman) wants to be cheated on and humiliated in their community, especially when Hawthorne writes this novel that takes place, in a time when people still held their moral values above all else, being God fearing people, and women most certainly even waited until their wedding night before knowing the sins of the flesh. So, being from a patriarchal society this story can be perceived as a husband scorned for his wifes' adulterous traitory and the astonishment of a fellow man and minister for that fact who betrayed his fellow man in taking his wife for himself. How dare he? How dare she? Isn't marriage or anything sacred anymore? She should wear a big bright A for the whole town to see and avoid her because she is a misfit and should be treated as such.
The subversive would be that a feminist could analyze the fact that women are treated so unbelieably unfair. We know, based on multitudes of literature as historical documentation, that men have been adulterous practically since the dawning of time. Why is it socially more acceptable for a man to commit adultery and yet if a woman commits the crime, she is chastised and punished to the fullest extent possible. We see this example in The Scarlet Letter and even in Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. Yes, having an affair is morally wrong in every sense because when a couple takes an oathe and vow that they will stay true to each other, it is scandulous that one of them could hurt the other by cheating, but for Hester to go through the horrible treatment she endures is unbearable and completely wrong. Yes, in the time that the story takes place, it is a much different time then we live in now, but if her husband had been caught cheating, what would have happened to him? Probably nothing. But because she cheated on him she was thrown in jail to suffer. She forever had to wear a scarlet A on the front of all her clothes to signify the crime she had commited. How horrible!! To be permanantly mortified and scorned and thus, her illegitimate daughter also being raised by a mother who is a "bad woman" can not break that cycle nd is also deemed a bad woman for she is her seed. What hope does that child have in this world? I believe a feminist would really empathize would that fact because not only is one life marked, but now just because of blool relation, another life is also permanantly soiled. The poor child might as well wear the letter A too.
has some level of innate pride. No man (or woman) wants to be cheated on and humiliated in their community, especially when Hawthorne writes this novel that takes place, in a time when people still held their moral values above all else, being God fearing people, and women most certainly even waited until their wedding night before knowing the sins of the flesh. So, being from a patriarchal society this story can be perceived as a husband scorned for his wifes' adulterous traitory and the astonishment of a fellow man and minister for that fact who betrayed his fellow man in taking his wife for himself. How dare he? How dare she? Isn't marriage or anything sacred anymore? She should wear a big bright A for the whole town to see and avoid her because she is a misfit and should be treated as such.
The subversive would be that a feminist could analyze the fact that women are treated so unbelieably unfair. We know, based on multitudes of literature as historical documentation, that men have been adulterous practically since the dawning of time. Why is it socially more acceptable for a man to commit adultery and yet if a woman commits the crime, she is chastised and punished to the fullest extent possible. We see this example in The Scarlet Letter and even in Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. Yes, having an affair is morally wrong in every sense because when a couple takes an oathe and vow that they will stay true to each other, it is scandulous that one of them could hurt the other by cheating, but for Hester to go through the horrible treatment she endures is unbearable and completely wrong. Yes, in the time that the story takes place, it is a much different time then we live in now, but if her husband had been caught cheating, what would have happened to him? Probably nothing. But because she cheated on him she was thrown in jail to suffer. She forever had to wear a scarlet A on the front of all her clothes to signify the crime she had commited. How horrible!! To be permanantly mortified and scorned and thus, her illegitimate daughter also being raised by a mother who is a "bad woman" can not break that cycle nd is also deemed a bad woman for she is her seed. What hope does that child have in this world? I believe a feminist would really empathize would that fact because not only is one life marked, but now just because of blool relation, another life is also permanantly soiled. The poor child might as well wear the letter A too.
10/21
One can’t talk about females in literature for too long without Emily Dickinson coming into the picture. Interesting because she only published about four or five poems in life but now in death has become synonymous with poetry. One of the unjust ways in which the patriarch keeps the free expression of women to a minimum is the tremendous bias with which works of literature get published. To this effect it was very difficult for a woman to get published while using her own name. Even Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein was first released under her husbands name just to get it on the shelves. And so following with a specific idea touched upon in class (that idea being the pressure on women to develop masculine characteristics in order to be successful within the patriarch) I’d like to look at Emily Dickinson’s Poem numbered 764 (754).
The poem is a narrative of sorts. The speaker is an inanimate object, a gun. In the first stanza there is the implication of ownership, “till a Day / The Owner passed – identified - / And Carried Me away -”. In the fourth stanza there is a value judgment made that I think is critical to the read. “And when at Night – Our good Day done - / I guard My Master’s Head - / ‘Tis better than Eider Duck’s Deep Pillow –to have shared-”. Here the speaker places protection above comfort in value to her master’s life. The poem continues to describe the deadly threat the gun represents as kind of a warning, “To foe of His – I’m deadly foe”. The poem continues to assert the value of aggressive or destructive traits, traits commonly associated with the masculine, while consistently down playing the importance of softer traits, associated with the feminine. Through the whole poem there is the constant reminder that the speaker, the gun, is but a tool, a thing of no use unless in the hands of the master.In poetry there is a thing called an ars poetica. A basic definition is “ a poem about poetry”. Reading this poem as an ars poetica aids the feminist read. With this in mind the destructive power of the gun becomes the masculine aspect she must incorporate into her writing in order to be taken seriously in the literary world. And a comment on society can be seen if we consider the last lines of the poem as a statement of sexual repression, “For I have but the power to kill, / Without the power to die-”
The poem is a narrative of sorts. The speaker is an inanimate object, a gun. In the first stanza there is the implication of ownership, “till a Day / The Owner passed – identified - / And Carried Me away -”. In the fourth stanza there is a value judgment made that I think is critical to the read. “And when at Night – Our good Day done - / I guard My Master’s Head - / ‘Tis better than Eider Duck’s Deep Pillow –to have shared-”. Here the speaker places protection above comfort in value to her master’s life. The poem continues to describe the deadly threat the gun represents as kind of a warning, “To foe of His – I’m deadly foe”. The poem continues to assert the value of aggressive or destructive traits, traits commonly associated with the masculine, while consistently down playing the importance of softer traits, associated with the feminine. Through the whole poem there is the constant reminder that the speaker, the gun, is but a tool, a thing of no use unless in the hands of the master.In poetry there is a thing called an ars poetica. A basic definition is “ a poem about poetry”. Reading this poem as an ars poetica aids the feminist read. With this in mind the destructive power of the gun becomes the masculine aspect she must incorporate into her writing in order to be taken seriously in the literary world. And a comment on society can be seen if we consider the last lines of the poem as a statement of sexual repression, “For I have but the power to kill, / Without the power to die-”
Anneland?
Debbieland by Aimee Bender is one of those stories you really have to think about. It almost seems unreal. From a dominant/patriarchal point of view one might not believe what they are reading because it isn’t what you typically expect. It is unclear but the narrator is a girl from a group of girls and she always refers to them as we. The story is about this group of punks who decide to beat up a girl who they think is called “Debbie”. They apparently beat her up because seeing her makes them sick. It could also be that “Debbie” is a lower class geek/nerd? But they do notice a lot of things about her for some reason like “She is trying, always, to lose weight.” And other things like “All day long, she has been in love with her legs swishing underneath the skirt, with how the tassels tickle her ankles.”
It isn’t stated but they planned out what they were going to do, one girl wore all of her rings, another girl talked her up, and the others waited outside. They ripped off “Debbie’s” skirt and beat her until she was bleeding. Is this really something that females do? In the process of everything they even had time to notice that “Debbie” was wearing a knockoff underwear. End of that story, they are in college now and they meet this new girl. They call her the one with the eyebrows. This girl is probably up to date with all the fashion and she takes care of her appearance I guess the opposite of “Debbie.” The narrator person hooks up with her and then the eyebrow girl breaks up with the narrator. This is one of the things that makes it difficult to interpret whether the narrator is a male or female but seeing how she has female friends you have to assume she is a female.
After the breakup is when this “Debbie” character appears again and talks to them in a coffee shop. “Debbie” asks them why they beat her up and then they apologized. Later they find out that her name wasn’t even “Debbie” but it was actually Anne. So this person “Debbie” never really existed. I am assuming that this is the dominant/ patriarchal reading whereas a subversive/feminist literary critic might focus a little more on small things like how bad “Debbie” was treated and how the group of people got what they deserved. They also might look into this group of females some more and maybe come up with some thoughts and a reason why they act they way they do. A fact that may play a role in all of that is that none of them had a mother except for one person and her mother gets beaten by the father and they applaud him for that.
'Motherf*r'
'Motherf*r' in many ways reminded me of 'Sarah Cole'. Here we have a man probably in his late 20's, early 30's, who is quite literally a motherf*r. The nameless main character, which I took the liberty of naming "Bob" (short and sweet) is described as a man that has "met women of every size and shape in different cities" (p. 75), in other words, "Bob" has been around. He takes pleasure in wooing these women, who have children and sleeps with them. These women fall for "Bob", but wind up a bit heartbroken when he never calls them back. Until he meets the starlet; unlike all the other women he's encountered, he finds something rather interesting about her. Relating to 'Sarah Cole', Ron was not physically attracted to Sarah at all, but was engaged in conversation with her, which he did in fact find very interesting. Instead of getting straight to the point with the no-name starlet, "Bob" took it slow. He wanted to get to know her, and when she finally insinuated her sexual attractiveness to him, he told her that he wanted "to make love to her in bed" (p. 83). In the end, just like in 'Sarah Cole', 'Motherf*r' ends with the male character disappearing and leaving the women alone.
Approaching 'Motherf*r' as a feminist critic would, the dominant/patriarchal reading of such a work would see how "Bob" simply used all the women that have entered and quickly exited his life as toys; he would provide them with some tender love and care, which as seperated or divorced single mothers they would be very vulnerable to, and sleep with them, and never call or see them again. On the other hand, the subversive would be represented by the vulnerability depicted in all of the women "Bob" has slept with, but most clearly in the starlet; in a life surrounded by fame and recognition, she longs to feel as normal as anybody else, and she also longs to be loved or cared for, and she mistakenly finds this in "Bob". I think that a feminist literary critic would be drawn to the description of desire that "Bob" explains to the starlet; in a way, the starlet learned to control this desire, but "Bob's" downfall was a result of him not taking his own advice. His desire was too great for him to tame.
Approaching 'Motherf*r' as a feminist critic would, the dominant/patriarchal reading of such a work would see how "Bob" simply used all the women that have entered and quickly exited his life as toys; he would provide them with some tender love and care, which as seperated or divorced single mothers they would be very vulnerable to, and sleep with them, and never call or see them again. On the other hand, the subversive would be represented by the vulnerability depicted in all of the women "Bob" has slept with, but most clearly in the starlet; in a life surrounded by fame and recognition, she longs to feel as normal as anybody else, and she also longs to be loved or cared for, and she mistakenly finds this in "Bob". I think that a feminist literary critic would be drawn to the description of desire that "Bob" explains to the starlet; in a way, the starlet learned to control this desire, but "Bob's" downfall was a result of him not taking his own advice. His desire was too great for him to tame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)