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 :)