Blog Post 3

After watching the movie Tank Girl, a lot of questions ran through my mind and this idea of camp. When our professor first sent out the link about camp I had no idea what it was going to be about. I then realized that this idea of camp was all throughout Tank Girl. One main point that Susan Sontag points out was this idea of exaggeration in that something is so exaggerated it becomes unrealistic,


"Camp is a vision of the world in terms of style -- but a particular kind of style. It is the love of the exaggerated, the "off," of things-being-what-they-are-not. The best example is in Art Nouveau, the most typical and fully developed Camp style. Art Nouveau objects, typically, convert one thing into something else: the lighting fixtures in the form of flowering plants, the living room which is really a grotto. A remarkable example: the Paris Métro entrances designed by Hector Guimard in the late 1890s in the shape of cast-iron orchid stalks."


"As a taste in persons, Camp responds particularly to the markedly attenuated and to the strongly exaggerated."


Both the characters and setting in Tank Girl, I found very unrealistic and exaggerated. While this movie was supposed to be pro woman and show woman power, it was almost too exaggerated in that I didn't believe it. I knew most of these situations would not happen in real life so it was hard to focus on her being strong. It was all very unrealistic to me. Not only are the situations unrealistic but so is Tank Girls language and personality. She was so dramatic and sarcastic I didn't find her believable. She didn't give off the pro woman character I was hoping for. It was almost as if she was making fun of the character she was supposed to portray.


So I guess my question is, why do you think they used such exaggeration in both the characters and the situations in this movie? Do you think the pro woman message would of been much more effective if they would have used real life situations and characters? Why or why not?

BLOG POST 3

In the movie Tank Girl the characters seemed to be very theatrical and many times over exaggerated. Tank Girl was supposed to be very a strong feminist, but in the movie she was over the top. Tank girl never really displayed any fear of danger. In the movie she was confronted in many scenes were rape or sexual assault could have became an issue. Instead of becoming the victim of rape, she decided to take control of her own body. Tank girl was aggressive and promiscuous throughout the movie. She especially was promiscuous when she was faced with the issue that she may become a victim of rape. The reason why I believe that Tank Girl behave in this manner because she rather be in control. She was considered a feminist, and therefore she always wanted to have power. Tank Girl was strong and seemed to be fearless, so that’s why she would have to be in control over her own sexuality. Many women are strong, have control and even are the individuals in power in our society. One issue that women seemed to not have control of is misogyny of male supremacy, which reflect the male dominance of raping women. A fear that most women have is being a victim of rape or sexual assault. Becoming a victim of these times of crimes signifies losing control and power. Tank Girl realized that if she took control of her own sexuality, then it would reduce her chances of being raped. It also gave her power of her own body, which is usually very significant to women. On the other hand jet girl was passive and very timid. She try to avoid being the victim of rape, unfortunately she always found herself bad situations. It seem like women who are often passive are more likely to be victimized and become victims of rape. In the beginning Jet Girl did not show much power and was not aggressive as Tank Girl. In a way she let the fear of being rape takes away the control she had over her own body. In the end she took control of her own sexuality and gained control. Why do you think that Tank Girl was so promiscuous? Was it a way of her staying in control of her own sexuality?

Blog Post 3

After our discussion today about Tank Girl, I began wondering how different the story would be if the original comic book would have been written by women instead of men. After viewing the film, I was not at all surprised to learn that the book was written by men.

While thinking about this, I keep coming back to the cartoon image of tank girl with rockets for breasts. This is the big thing that I feel like a woman illustrator would not have drawn. Not only does this give her large breasts, but breasts that could kill! I feel like this goes into some stereotypical male fantasies of the tough, skinny dominatrix with big boobs. This is such a sexual image that draws attention to Tank Girl's breasts, I feel like no woman would have drawn it. I am sure this goes into my own personal gender scripts, but traditionally men are the overtly sexual creatures.

Then, there is the way Tank Girl dresses. I would classify her clothing as pieces more so than whole clothes. She shows a lot of skin which goes back to the sexuality piece. These clothes, or lack thereof, show off her body and allow her to be oogled at by the male audience. I feel like a woman author would have put Tank Girl in more clothes to show that her brain and her strength, not her body and her looks, is what allows her to beat water and power.

Throughout the film, Tank Girl is tough and rather masculine and manages to take down Water & Power, with the help of Jet Girl and the Rippers. Yet, we see a feminine, maternal side of her when she deals with the little girl. This plot line brings Tank Girl back to the traditional gender roles, women are supposed to take care of children. Although, I don't believe this young girl was in the original comic book that was passed around class. This must have been something the female director added in to the film. I wonder why she would have done that.

What do you think? Do you think the film would have been different if the original story was written by women? Why do you think the director added in the storyline about the little girl that wasn't in the comic?

Blog Post #3

Reading Women Without Men by Shahrnush Parsipur I was really intrigued by the portrayal of both women and men in this novel. In class, we had talked a lot about how this novel portrays feminism and women in general. However, we did not really discuss in too much detail the impact of the novel’s author being not only a woman, but also an Iranian woman. Reading through the novel, I thought that Parsipur’s characters said a lot about the problems with life in Iran or maybe even other Middle Eastern countries in general. After all, as we discussed in class, Parsipur was jailed many times for her revolutionary and controversial ideas.

There was one specific passage that stuck out to me that really seems to portray the negative consequences of Iranian social beliefs on the population’s mentality. We clearly see Farrokhlaqa’s disgust and dislike of her husband from the very beginning. She feels like she is stuck in a horrible marriage and both her husband and her are cruel, cold, and bitterly devoid of love for one another. However, in a rare instance, we see into the mind of one of the men in the novel. Farrokhlaqa’s husband notes that, “he had known that he used this smile as a defense against her strange beauty” and, “He knew that she must not, even for one moment, know how much he desired her” (69). Shortly after this he shows his real affection to Farrokhlaqa and she accidently kills him out of shock and fear that this emotion means he wants to kill her. I think in this instance we see that the husband is afraid to show how much he loves his wife because that would make him weaker then her and, in Iranian society, he would be shamed. In this way, Parsipur shows how the confines of Iranian society have so crippled the relationships between men and women because men feel they must be dominant and the women are only allowed to be submissive. This can also be seen in the way that Munis’s brother kills her out of duty yet also cries bitterly after doing it.

So, overall, I am trying to say that I think that this novel is really critical of the social reality in Iran and is begging for change. I mean, I know that the focus is on women and their lack of freedom and rights, but I think the novel also says something about the lack of freedom men have as well. Both genders are stuck in this cycle that, in the end, hurts everyone.

So, would all of you agree? Do you think that this novel is critiquing the social structure of Iran? Do you every view the male characters with any pity? If so, why? Are there certain passages that make it hard to feel bad for the men???

Blog Post 3

My question is simple at the surface, but after really considering each character individually, and then how each character is essential to another character's story, it took me a while to decide on Toby. 

My question is, if you had to choose one of the four main characters in Moxyland, which would you choose to be your favorite and why?

As I mentioned previously, Toby would be my favorite character. Since the novel surrounds the topics of consumerism, media, and powerful corporations, Toby's personality kept reinforcing the central attitude to these central ideas. There are things I like and dislike about each character, but I happened to have more dislikes when it came to Toby. In their society (and in our own in a sense), flaws take the backseat (i.e. people try to put their best pictures on facebook, cosmetic surgery, etc) whereas in these character's perspectives these flaws take the front seat. For this is the reason why I liked Toby so much because of the paradox that he is the most unlikeable, yet he is the most interesting and fun to read-an analogy for the character's real world, and their own flaw-filled world. I couldn't help but hate him, I mean "Diary of Cunt"...? He is only concerned with himself, he is very unreliable, and extremely arrogant, and yet again I could not stop thinking that I was happy his voice and presence in Moxyland was significant. 

"'You were late fifteen minutes ago, my darling,' she says by way of greeting and it's true, I've forgotten that she's scheduled one of our 'we have to talks' over a civilized brunch, but with the amount of sugar I'm doing, she's lucky I can remember that colour of my eyes without a mirror. I've told her to upload appointments to my phone. Whore." (P.17). 

I felt anger, but I also saw relevance to the world of consumption when reading this. He takes control of every situation, and it made me think of the corporations today: controlling, self-involved, and outspoken (his jacket that has images of his choice)-corporations/industries today (Facebook, Porn, etc) are only concerned with themselves and making a profit. They do not worry about the damaging affects because those who decide to participate will be the ones to deal with the consequences, and yet they control media and seem to thrive. 

Overall, I hated Toby, but his lifestyle really made me think about our society's industries, and in the end, I enjoyed his character.

Does you guys like Toby the best as well, and if so, why? If not, who would be our favorite character and why?

Lauren Ruben 

Blog Post 2

"When Simone de Beauvoir claims,"one is notborn, but, rather, becomes a woman,"
she is appropriating and reinterpreting this doctrine of constituting acts from the
phenomenological tradition.l In this sense, gender is in no way a stable identity or
locus of agency from which various acts proceede; rather, it is an identity tenuously
constituted in time-an identity instituted through a stylized repetition of acts. Further,
gender is instituted through the stylization of the body and, hence, must be understood
as the mundane way in which bodily gestures, movements, and enactments
of various kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self" (Butler 2).

I thouroughly enjoyed this article by Judith Butler. At times, some of her points were a bit confusing but I understood the main concept she was trying to get across, which is the fact that gender is an act and that we are not born a certain way. That throughout time we are formed to act a certain way. This idea reminded me of John Locke's theory that everyone is born as a blank slate and it's through life experiences that make them who they are and what they believe.

This article and theme really got me thinking about how much we do in the world and whether or not it's an act. Is everything we do and feel just a role that we're playing in society? Something that really stuck out to me was the emotion of love. Are we actually feeling the emotion of love or marriage or are they just an act. Are our emoitions a role, or are we actually experiencing them. Do we feel sad when someone passes away because we are actually sad or because we know and society tells us to be sad?

I'm really looking forward to hearing your ideas. I know there is no true anwser to this question but it will be interesting to hear what other people think about this topic!

Emma

Blog Post 2

I have been thinking a lot about the film Orlando and how throughout the film he changes from a man to a woman, but he/she never ages. The film spans several-hundred years but Orlando is just as young at the end as she was at the beginning. What is the significance of Orlando's immortality?

The one idea I could come up with is that by not aging, the film is able to show how women were treated throughout time without age being a factor. In the beginning, Orlando is betrothed to the woman (I don't know if we are ever told her name) but leaves her for the Russian woman. He chooses an attractive woman with more power over a less attractive, less powerful woman.

Later, after he transforms into a woman we see her struggling in her big dress. This shows that appearance is still important. Men expect women to be feminine with big hair and big dresses.

Then, she falls in love with the American man and she seems to gain power when she chooses not to go exploring with him. She is given the option of what she wants to do with her life. Yet, that the power is quickly taken away when she is informed that because she is no longer a man, she has no right to own property and she either has to bear a son, marry that man (was he a duke? I can't remember), or lose all of her possessions. She ends up having a daughter, so she loses it all because she did not stay a man and chose not to marry. Men still have the power. Men can still try force women into relationships they do not want, but the women do have a choice.

It ends in the 1900's when women are not expected to dress as feminine and they are able to own property (she has a motorcycle and a video camera). Women are able to survive at this time without men. At this point we realize that the child does not age either.

Why do you think Orlando does not age? What significance does this have?

BLOG POST 2

The movie Othello had many interesting scenes that seemed to be related to other scenes in the movie. Many of these scenes happened when she was a male character. Then a similar situation would happen to Othello as a woman.

One particular scene was when Othello had fell in love with young lady. He really cared for her and cherished her. The girl decides to leave Othello. Othello beg for her to stay and tell the lady that he adores her. When the girl leaves the she is depressed and heartbroken. After a while Othello had anger towards all women.

A scene that was similar to this scene was when Othello became a woman. One of the gentlemen asks for Othello hands in marriage. Othello declined and said some similar comments that the girl said to Othello when he was a male. Another scene that was in comparison was when Othello heart was broken, was when she met the guy that was the father of her child. She fell in love with him, but he soon had to leave her. When he left she handles it pretty well. She did not beg for him to stay like she did in the first scene.

Do you think that by having these comparisons have any significance? Also do you think the way that Othello behave in each situation contradict with gender roles?

I was thinking that that Othello behaved differently in similar situations. When Othello was a male he behaved one way, and when Othello was a female she behave in a different way. The thing that was interesting to me is that I expected for her be depressed and heartbroken in the scene when she was a female. These characterics are usually associated with women after someone leaves or break up with them. Othello expresses these emotions more when she was a male and barely expressed these emotions as a woman. It seemed to me that Othello was stronger when she became a female, this could have been from experience. I think that the movie was trying to show that emotions and behavior should not be associated with gender. We should not think that women are always emotional and that men show fewer emotions. It’s depending on the individual not based on what sex you are.

This was my interpretation of the overlaps in the movie let me know you interpretation, or let me know if you agree.

Blog Post #2: Darkness? Light? What’s it all about???

Le Guin’s novel is nothing short of complicated, to be sure. This can make it hard to pick one aspect to really analyze but I was most intrigued with the poem that Estraven tells Ai.

Light is the left hand of darkness

and darkness the right hand of light.

Two are one, life and death, lying

together like lovers in kemmer,

like hands joined together,

like the end and the way.

(233)

When I first read this poem I knew it had to have significance (after all, the title of the novel is The Left Hand of Darkness). After a lot of thought and listening to the ideas floating around in class, I think I understand its meaning. This poem is, in essence, one of the climatic ideas in Le Guin’s novel. Her novel is complicated, with many different important themes, such as communication, gender, cultural barriers, and so on. However, when it comes down to it, the novel really is about one specific overarching theme: mankind as a whole and the things that bind us all. Ai says this best when talking to the king at the end of the novel. Ai notes that Estraven “served the master [he serves]” and when the king confusingly mistakes this for the Ekumen, Ai replies, “No. Mankind” (293).

Therefore, I think the light and darkness in this poem can best be seen as the female and male gender. This poem seems to be trying to represent the idea that we have both genders inside of us, that people are part of a common mankind, not feminine or masculine. This can best be seen in the lines that say “two are one, life and death” and “like hands joined together”. This poem takes on even more significance in light of the Gethenians’ unique physical being of both male and female simultaneously. They, unlike Ai, are not defined by gender; they physically have both the “light” and the “darkness” in them. Le Guin, through this interesting phenomenon, highlights the idea of gender as a performance or the idea that gender is a social construction. Even more, Le Guin creates this world of ice and blinding sun that emphasizes the shadows, darkness, and light of life, the idea that everything coexists. The environment becomes a symbol for her idea of a humanity that share all qualities rather than being limited by their gender or their cultural differences. When it comes down to it, people are all a little “light”, a little “dark”, and a little “shadow”.

So I guess my big question would be: Do any of you see this poem in this way? If not, what way do you see it/ what do you think it represents? I could be completely wrong on this interpretation so feel free to disagree!!!

Blog Post 2

I found an interesting blog about The Left Hand of Darkness:

http://tamaranth.blogspot.com/2010/11/201082-left-hand-of-darkness.html

The part of this blog that has me thinking is: "The word shifgrethor, which describes the underlying code of conduct that governs Gethenian society -- "prestige, face, place, the pride-relationship" (p. 14) -- is rooted in a word for shadow: and The Left Hand of Darkness is about shadows and light, from the bland Orgota ('it was as if they did not cast shadows', p. 147) to the depthless disorientation of a snowscape without sunshine -- without shadow, which aids perception."

I hadn't really thought deeply about the title in relation to the Gethenian society, but I really like her opinion. The more I searched for different opinions, I came across a statement that many have posted about, one that I wanted to ask you guys if you believe because I'm not sure what to think. 

"In one of her essays Ursula LeGuin has since appologized for ruling homosexuality out of her book The Left Hand of Darkness. (That said, the narrator of the book seems freaked out enough when one of the mutable-gender characters becomes _feminine_ and attractive....)"

Do you guys think LeGuin ruled out homosexuality in her novel, or as stated earlier, do the underlying code of conduct that governs Gethenian society that is rooted in a word for shadow actually include all types of sex and sexuality: heterosexuality, homosexuality, and female and male? That all of these define a certain "prestige, face, place, the pride-relationship"? Just as some of the characters in the novel felt uncomfortable without knowing the sex of other characters, society feels that same uncomfortable feeling if they are unsure of the sex/sexuality of a person. 

Blog Post 1

After reading Herland, I really started thinking about what I would describe as my ultimate Utopia. This question is a lot harder to answer than I thought it would be. What would the people look and act like? Would everyone get along or would there be controversy? Would there be both genders, and would people be allowed to have children. All these details would then play a part in how this Utopia functioned. Would not having children make the world a better place? Or would everyone getting along really solve all the problems in the world, or just create new ones? I guess its quite impossible to know the answers to these questions but it's interesting to think about.

"Everything was beauty, order, perfect cleanness, and the pleasantest sense of home over it all. As we neared the center of the town the houses stood thicker, ran together as it were, grew into rambling palaces grouped among parks and open squares, something as college buildings stand in their quiet greens"(15).

"I assured her that no one could be homesick in such a paradise as theirs, but she would have none of it"(99).

In the story, Herland was described as this perfect society, or utopia. There are only women, everyone gets along. Everyone are almost clones of one another. There were many differences provided in the text between Herland and America. Most of which made Herland seem like the more, civil peaceful in other words "better" country. My question is, are there any ideas or aspects of America that you think are more civil or correct or that you like better than Herland? What are they and what makes them better in your prospective? Also, what aspects to you believe would make your perfect society? Or is there even such a thing as a Utopia?

I look forward to your thoughts and ideas!!
Emma

Blog Post 1

I have been thinking about the part in The Female Man where "I" transforms into a female man. I believe that the "I" is Joanna because on page 5 she says “When Janet Evason returned to the New Forest and the experimenters at the Pole Station were laughing their heads off (for it was not a dream) I sat in a cocktail party in mid-Manhattan. I had just changed into a man, me, Joanna. I mean a female man, of course; my body and soul were exactly the same." I think on page 133 she is detailing this transformation.

In the passage beginning on page 133, she explains that she starts out as a neuter, as "One Of The Boys". When she's neuter she seems thoroughly confused. "I'm not a woman; I'm a man. I'm a man with a woman's face. I'm a woman with a man's mind. Everybody says so" (p. 134). It seems that she transforms into a female around the line on page 134 that says "I went away - "forever feminine," as the man says -and I cried as I drove my car..." This passage is very stereotypically female and dramatic: "O of all diseases self-hate is the worst and I don't mean for the one who suffers it" (p. 135).

During this passage "I" seems to realize that men have all the power and that if she wants to have power, she must be a man. But she is female, so she must become a female man: "You told me ghouls were male. Rodan is male - and asinine. King Kong is male. I could have been a witch, but the Devil is male. Faust is male. The man who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was male. I was never on the moon" (p. 135).

"What I learned late in life...was that there is one and only one way to possess that in which we are defective, that which we need, there fore that which we cant. Become it" (p. 139). She turns into a man become she wants to have power. "I think I am a man; I think you had better call me a Man; I think you will write about me as a man from now on...If you don't, by God and all the Saints, I'll break your neck" (p. 140). I think this is all about equality. She (or should I say he?) wants to be equal. She wants to be included in the term "man" and "mankind". She wants to be able to take off the sandwich board and not have people question her qualifications. She doesn't want to have to be "One of the Boys" to fit in. She wants to be an intelligent, qualified woman. No longer "a woman with a man's mind" but just a woman with a woman's mind.

Blog Post One

After reading Herland I began to wonder about others idea of marriage. One of the passages that I thought was interesting was a comment from the character Terry

“Might as well not be married at all,” growled Terry. “They only got up that ceremony to please us-please Jeff, mostly. They’ve no real idea of being married.”

Do you think the woman of Herland had the wrong idea of marriage or could it just be that today’s society have just developed the concept marriage?

My perception of this question is that the women of Herland did not have the wrong idea of marriage. Terry had a stereotypical view of marriage, he believed that the men was suppose to have the dominate role in the relationship. The women of Herland did not agree with the concept of men being superior. When I think of marriage I think of two individuals who join a union because of the strong love they have for each other. Herland was questioning the western society idea of marriage. In our society we cannot have a marriage without with men. Men are suppose to protect their wives and have the dominate role in the family. Women in the family are suppose to be nurturing and they have the responsibility to care for the children. In Herland the women played both roles, and therefore they did not need a man. So the only thing that their marriage was based on was love.

Another question that I had is do you think that women in today’s society are more like the women in Herland than the women in the past, when the story was written?

As I think of the women In Herland I see a lot of similarities to the women in today’s society. The women today have become more independent than ever. Women have their own jobs and make their own money. Many women today play both roles as mothers and fathers, just like the women in Herland. A lot of the women in today’s society do not depend on any man, and have developed the concept that they do not need a man to be whole. When this book was published, women were not as independent as we are today. It seems like the author wrote a book that relate to the women in her future, which is us. She wrote a book where women were independent, and a couple of decades later we have accomplished a part of her goal.

Hello everyone, I read this passage over and over again, and I am starting to formalize my own perceptions, but I still have some questions that perhaps you all can answer, or if you perceive this passage differently, I would love to hear your thoughts.

I wanted to revert back to the idea of mankind, man as the universal law, or rule. In the Handmaid's Tale, on page 45, there is a sentence in paragraph 2 that draws my attention and raises some questions.

"All flesh is weak. All flesh is grass, I corrected her in my head. They can't help it, she said, God made them that way but He did not make you that way." 

It was not the intersection of God that caught me off guard, it was that the G in God was capitalized, and the H in He was capitalized. This paradox has stumped me. In a place where avoiding men is the ideal, and where men are hung on the Wall which is one of the few things these women ARE allowed to look at, why is God made to be a He? 

This is my interpretation, Aunt Lydia is saying that God, who is a He, a man, created mankind, of which only consists of men. God also made another kind, women, of which He made differently then men, and as Aunt Lydia continues, she says that the women will be thanked later on, if they set the boundaries. 

I believe mankind was made by God the way they are, "all flesh is weak" without the opportunity to change, whereas women were made with the opportunity to choose, either to displease, or follow the boundaries in which they will be later thanked (perhaps this is the difference, between those who are fertile and follow the boundaries, and those women who are not and step beyond the boundaries?). 

Why then, is God made to be a He? The only reason I could think of was that God, He, is "The Eye" who has set boundaries (like taking away temptation through signs illustrated at the market, and black tinted windows so the women cannot look at men in the eyes) and if you follow God's boundaries, you'll be "thanked later". Or was God made to be a He in order to add a fear factor? 

Also, my last question, I couldn't think of an explanation, what does "All flesh is grass" mean? 

Blog Post #1

The Female Man: “I” as “Everywoman”

Looking back on our discussion about the “I” character in the book, I was intrigued and want to delve a little further into this mysterious “I”. When we had discussed the “I” character in class I was ahead in the reading and thought that the character was most definitely Jael. However, as I read on and finished the entire book, I was much less sure. Yes, at times the “I” seemed to be Jael, secretly in the presence of the other ladies, commenting on their life choices. For instance, it seems probable that Jael is the “I” in the italicized sections of the novel, hinting that she will appear in person later. She after all, is the one who pulls all the women together at the end of the novel to make her proposition. However, while Jael might possibly be the “I” character at times, I find it much more likely that the “I” is something of every character, of every woman.

This ties in nicely then to Russ’s comments about “Everywoman” and that, “Jeannine is Everywoman” as is Jael (212). Russ, in this concept of Everywoman seems to imply that women, in their state of gender inequality, are bound together, no matter their differences. Meek and mild Jeannine is as much a part of Everywoman as is aggressive and severe Jael. Therefore, it would make sense that the “I” character is included in this Everywoman, that she might at times sound more like Jael than Janet, or might even sound like the author Joanna Russ or some other woman who is not even a character in this book. Everywoman implies a bond, a similarity, and an idea that no matter how different one woman might be from another, they are connected.

After making this connection between the “I” character and the concept of ‘Everywoman” I became more intrigued by what might make women have a common bond, a common classification as ‘Everywoman”. Interestingly enough, when Russ introduces this concept, right after Janet seems to be excluded from the term. As Russ states, “We all stared accusingly at Janet but Miss Evason was not moved… Janet got up to go” (212). At this time Jael is trying to convince the other woman to let her put a base on their planets and Janet shows the most resistance. Janet does not seem to fit in, the term “Everywoman” almost seeming not to include her. This is best hinted by her leaving. Quite possibly, Janet, living in a world without men, cannot be an “Everywoman” because an “Everywoman” is only created in the presence of men. In other words, Jael, Jeannine, and Joanna are ‘Everywoman” in that they are subordinate to men, an oppressed group that is often seen as all being the same and having the same needs by the male population. This makes sense in the idea that no matter how different the worlds might seem or how different the woman act, they are a collective “Everywoman” in the face of male dominance. Janet, not having the pressures of male dominance, has her individuality and is not grouped by her gender as the other women are. In this way, Joanna Russ seems to imply that “Everywoman” is a negative term, created by gender dystopias in which females are generally oppressed. It seems that the idea that “I’m Everywoman” might not be empowering, but instead yet another consequence of gendered society.

Paper 1 Question

Hi everyone! For paper one I wanted to focus on Twilight, and here is the question I came up with.

In the film, Twilight, Edward consistently tells Bella that he is going to kill her but she refuses to stay away from him. What does this say about the filmmakers view of young women today?

Your advice is appreciated :)

Potential Paper 1 Topic

Hello everyone, hope you all enjoyed the first snow day since 1976!

In class, we discussed how a utopia can mean two things; "no" place or "good" place, and I wanted to write my paper on a more refined definition of utopia, one that I believe Joanna Russ was trying to portray through her character "I". "I" believes that utopia's are illustrated as a place that can become something better, have potential to learn understand from the past in order to create a more beneficial place. So, instead of "no" place, it becomes a "possibility" place, which needs to strive to became a "better" place. With that said, here is my question:

Does Joanna Russ intersect the character "I" to portray a nontraditional definition of an utopia, where passages are written by "I" to explain that the feminist issues at hand have been considered, but need to be taken into real consideration to make that transition from a "no" place to a "good" place? 

"I" seems to play the role of what a typical woman would do in a given situation, like in the passage where "I" said they laughed, not because the joke was funny, but because if they did not they would appear to be prude. Therefore, "I" illustrates what is done in our society by laughing, but also what should be done, how women should think in a "good" place. 

I would use a bunch of examples taken from the stereotypes Joanna Russ writes in her book from how women are looked at in our society as they age, to the passage which shows adjectives of a "girly" girl, to a more masculine women and how our society disproves of masculine women, and instead prefer women wear dresses to the bar and laugh at men's not-so-funny jokes. 

Sorry you all had to read so much, but I look forward to reading everyone's comments! 

Questions for paper

Hey guys I would really aprpeciate your info! I'm having a hard time thinking of a question that isn't too broad! I want to talk about Twilight so any help would be great :)

1.) In many of the scenes in Twilight, Edward is making Bella feel that she is wrong and almost stupid for believing he is a Vampire, when really he is. Does this represent society today and the relationship between men and women?

2.) In Twilight, while all the Vampires have special powers, the women seem to have the less "important" ones. Is this a reflection in today's society with women in the work force and their contribution to society?

3.) In the scene in Twilight, when Edward tells Bella that he is a Vampire and that he may kill her, Bella responds with "I don't care". How does this represent women in today's society and their willingness for love?


Thank you!!

Essay Questions

Hey Everyone, I'm having a hard time with my questions and I don't really know which one to pick.

If you have any suggestions please let me know.

1.Does the perception of women in Twilight reflect the stereotypes of women’s role and behavior in today’s society?

2. How do the women compare to the vampire women in regarding the way that they conduct themselves in Twilight?

3. In the movie Twilight Bella becomes inseparable from Edward. Does this signify certain stereotypes of women? How would the meaning of the novel differ if the Bella was the vampire?

Thanks for reading :)

Essay Questions

Ok, I have two questions because I cannot decide what I want to write about yet!

Herland

1. While Gilman attempts to show a utopian female society, how does her own limitations as a female writer in a masculine dominated world show up throughout the text and what does this imply?

The Female Man

2. In a comparison of Jeannine and Jael, in what ways can it be argued that they both are incredibly similar, even though they come off on complete opposite ends of the spectrum?

(I am having trouble wording this question, but what I mean to say is, even though Jeannine seems weak and Jael strong, how are they actually both very similar? Is Jael just as weak or unable to break away from men as Jeannine and in what ways?).

Please be completely honest with your advice! I won't be offended!