Reading Notes (on Feminism)

This article I was editing for TSWL cites Susan Gubar's 2006 work, Rooms of Our Own, and I was so struck by the description of the book that I decided to take it home and read it. While I did have to go through the text really fast because it was on Interlibrary Loan, I would definitely like to check it out again since it sort of exemplifies this weird genre that I have been trying to conceptualize in my mind (and perhaps even write about in the near future). [Although at this point I should totally thank my friend Court for helping me think through some of these ideas and for even coming up with some impetus for me to pursue this idea.]

I think one of the best ways to classify this genre is creative criticism. Sort of like a variation on creative non-fiction. I have been finding some works that fit into the genre and was thankful to come across The Intimate Critique--a bright prospect for future reading!

Well, what I want to share comes from Gubar's text. In her rift on Woolf's Chapter One and talking about first-wave feminism, Gubar writes:

"Still the poorer half of humanity, still woefully unrepresented in political circles, women have nevertheless begun to earn wages nearly equal to those of men. The Pill, birth control, abortion: did these trigger transmutations in sex (the biological manipulation of the body) and in gender (the societal manipulation of the roles of mother, caregiver, nurturer), or was the real basis for change economic, the opening up of virtually all professions to women for the first time in history? In any case, birth control and woman's greater employment had driven home and the real point behind Wollstonecraft's and Fuller's, Mill's and Schreiner's polemics, their attack on biological determinism, their resistance to the idea that anatomy is destiny, that biology justifies or dictates social norms." (pg. 32)

This particular question really got me thinking. Is one of the reasons that we have a shift in how we conceptualize gender today because of the technologies of birth? And how much does our understanding of genetics and hormones influence it? Gubar's question made me realize the significance that birth plays in how we think of gender. If woman uses the pill and aborts fetuses, is she not a woman? If a woman hates her offspring, is she a man? I had thought of these questions in some form or another before, but it was reading this that catalyzed these thoughts. And yet even if anatomy is not always destiny, it is important to remember that anatomy is important sometimes. So, I guess it is a good question. What causes a change in people's thinking, woman's control of their body or woman's ability to be equal in the social arena? And doesn't woman's ability to be equal socially (say in the workforce in particular) may entail a control and manipulation of their biology?

More Anticpation

Now, I have something to look forward to after the new Byatt is published in May. Margaret Atwood's new book is coming out in September (unless they move the publication date).

Here's some scoop I found out, (thanks Fantastic Fiction)

The Year of the Flood by Margaret Atwood

"An epic of biblical proportions, The Year of the Flood is a feast of imagination and a journey to the end of the world. Adam One is the leader of the God's Gardeners, a religious group devoted to living under the command of the natural world. They wear beige cloth-sacks, cultivate mushrooms, harvest honey and curse each other by shouting: Pig-Eater! Their community is only tolerated by the CorpSeCorps, the ruling power, because they are not perceived as threatening. But, this is a world where gene-splicing is the norm; where lions and lambs have become Liobams and pigs have human DNA. The times, and species, are changing at a rapid rate, and with loyalites as thin as environmental stability, the future is a dangerous place. And, if the Waterless Flood does indeed arrive, as predicted by the Gardeners, will there even be a future to contemplate? Ren is a trapeze dancer at Scales and Tails, and can work a plank just as well. After a rip in her biofilm she is placed in solitary confinement until they can guarantee she is without disease. Her story is one part of our gateway into this uniquely constructed world. The other is Toby, an ex-counter-girl at SecretBurger ('Because we all love a Secret'), a natural cynic and source of extensive homeopathic knowledge; she knows her aminatas from her puffballs. Their stories weave beneath the holy teachings and saintly-songs of Adam One to create a truly apocalyptic vision, a world that harnesses Atwood's wit, dystopic imagination and sharp insight. The result is a collective blast of a novel and one that will remain with you until the Waterless Flood comes."

I love Atwood's novel. If you haven't read anything by her, I would recommend starting with The Handmaid's Tale or Oryx and Crake. Check her out when you get some time.

Movie of the Month: Revolutionary Road

Please let this be fair warning, but if you didn't see Revolutionary Road, you may not want to read the rest of this blog entry. There is a part of me that does not want to share any of this information with someone who hasn't seen the film and there is this other part of me that feels like I need to be like a newsie on the street corner begging people to see this film. Needless to say, if you haven't seen this great movie yet, you need to. In fact, you need to go as soon as possible because I don't know how much longer it will be at the theatres, and you should see it before the Oscars so that you might have a good vantage in judging it in comparison to other films. Also, as just a side note, I think I might start this new "Movie of the Month" entry post. So, Revolutionary Road will be my selection for the month of January, consider this post two days late.

The films stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet as Frank and April Wheeler, two people disillusioned and maybe reillusioned by 1950s American culture. Plot-wise, the film follows Frank to his city job where he feels like nothing but a machine in a cog, while April remains at home in the suburbs as nothing more than a copy of those around her. Both are jaded by their intellectual understanding of what it means to fit in. One of the lines in the movie suggests that once thought they were above it all, but as April soon realizes, they are not above anything--that they are nothing but copies/machines, things that they hated before moving to suburbia. Of course, the film contains a number of other sub characters, but perhaps the one worth mentioning would be Frank and April's realtor's son, a former mathematics PhD who has been previously committed in a mental home/insane asylum. While seemingly "abnormal," this character, whose names escapes me, acts as the Shakespearean "fool" who contains all of the knowledge, who attempts to inform the Wheelers of the full impact of their decisions, and in fact, seems to be the only one that can understand them and their lives.

Non-plot wise, what I found interesting was the film's indictment/assessment/evaluation of American suburbia. I was able to do a minimal bit of research about the film and the book in which the film is based off of. The film seems to take on not only problems about life outside of the city, but also issues of gender, sanity, economics, sexuality, and parenthood. What does it mean to have children? What causes someone to fall out of love? How much danger is involved in having an abortion? Why do men's desires take precedence over women's in relationships? All interesting questions. All questions tackled with in the film.

Now, the little bit about the film that I truly want to talk about is the ending, which, of course, I know have to give a spoiler warning about. [So don't read on if you don't want to know what happens.] The "climax" of the film seems to be when April gives herself an abortion, post-12 weeks, which the film has repeatedly claimed is dangerous to do after 12 weeks. When April does give herself an abortion, she walks downstairs and stands in the open window way--what we see is Revolutionary Road, we see the street they live on, the world they inhabit. She stands there as if claiming, "Look at what you have done to me. Look what you made me do." As she remains there, the camera shows blood spots on her dress and a pool of blood forming below her. As the point, the viewer sort of realizes that things aren't going all that well. She runs to the phone, calls for help....next thing, Frank is in the hospital telling his neighbor that she waited to long to get to the hospital. I think this is the crux of the film, and for me, something I really want to debate with people. Is she just giving herself an abortion because that is what she wants to do, or is she committing suicide? There are so many signs that suggest the latter. Perhaps that was the only way out of escaping suburbia.

For me the scene echoed a number of instances in Byatt's Babel Tower when Daniel gets calls at the hotline from mothers who abandoned their children, wandering about England and wondering if it was the right thing to do. They were so illusioned as to what life was supposed to be like, what women's roles where supposed to be. This film just made me think about this more and more. Is the only way to escape something is complete abandonment? But it also made me re-evaluate my own desires and my own wants/needs. This is a question that I have continually asked myself, again and again, and I am sure it is a question that I will continue to grapple with more and more in the coming years as I mature into adulthood.

Go out and see Revolutionary Road. Hopefully you will think it is a great film! And if you enjoy it, hopefully you also cried because of how sad it was.

What will we be known as? Or using office hours productively!

I just had one of the most fascinating conversations about postmodern theory with the most unlikely of people--my favorite librarian who specializes in government and military history. I stopped by to inquire about getting my old summer job again. Then, one thing led to another, I was already late for my office hours, and I decided to stay and continue talking to her about this most interesting topic we arrived at. After the witty banter and catch-up, she sort of posed this odd question that took me a while to answer: "In the future what age will the 20th century be known as?" I was kinda stuck on the answer. She continued with some great speculation and started to explain her reasoning. She mentioned how in all the centuries before use there were some many adjectives and qualifiers to describe the time: Augustan, Victorian, Renaissance, Neolithic Era, etc. And then she got to the point of mentioning the reason, which was she never understood why we ("English majors") came up with postmodernism. Why not just have a new word altogether. Of course, I then got onto my spiel about Grand Narratives, explained some stuff about capitol letters and lower case letters. Ultimately, she stumped me yet again with semantics that I had not really put together.

"It would seem that every age or time period were modern if you in it in the present moment so using modernism as a designations seems strange."

Of course, I started to draw on some pop culture references and mention words like technological age or post-industrial as a good qualifier. And yet, at the same time were seemed not necessarily to really be talking time periods but rather about the concept of experience. (One of my newly discovered favorite imaginative and intellectual wandering topics.) She posed a rather great question that made us both laugh, "How do I know my desk is in my office if I am not in there?" I immediately thought of Toy Story having just mentioned it was one of the few VHSs that I have left. And yet it so true. And all this ultimately got me to think about last night's Contemporary American Lit course and our discussion of Adrienne Rich's "Diving Into the Wreck."

I was so completely ready to call the book of myths patriarchy. Patriarchy is fueled off of adventure and exploration; it is how a man is made. And patriarchy is where the name of woman does not exist. For the name of woman cannot exist in patriarchy, for in patriarchy man creates the name of woman. Man names. Woman is named. I was working up this great speech that I left undelivered for class about how the book of myths feature women merely as props for male fantasies and how myths are romantic and adventurous and, yet, woman becomes nothing more than a prop or creation of man within them. And how, of course, Rich would want to associate myth with patriarchy because she wants to unmask the myths that patriarchy has, have, and will continue to perpetuate within society.

That is why the experience of Rich and the experience of reading her poetry is so interesting and fascinating. Of course, everything will be modern for someone in the present moment, just how every person can only see through there own eyes and there own experiences. Azar Nafisi said that it is when we accept difference and attempt to embody difference--to immerse ourselves in the lives of the Other--do we truly appreciate and understand our own culture. We know ourselves much more than we let on, and it is only through an understanding of others--walking in someone else's shoes--that we can truly learn or experience something unique.

Web Art from the Cabinet

Everyone should check out this awesome web-art feature on the Cabinet's website. It's called "There There" by Jackie Goss. It's very informative, and the graphics are kinda awesome.

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/art/webart/jackie_goss/index.php

I hope you enjoy and feel free to post your favorite factoids. Mine happens to be: "In a map of 1900 you see the Philippines tucked under California" or maybe "Henry Garnett, chief cartographer and pizza lover, chooses 'souvenir'--a font he recognizes from Pizza Hot menus."

I never really think about space or place really all that much outsides of wanting to find places to go out for vacation. But in reading this, I remember a really interesting West Wing episode where some people tried to convince Leo or Sam that the United States should back this organization that wanted to redraw the map of the world. We very rarely think about the world at large in a geographical sense...or so I think. Although of course as of late we have been obssessed with ecological issues. Look at films like Wall-E or The Happening.


There really is such a large space out there, but it is seriously dwindling each day. We are not only losing space and resources at an alarming rate, but we are increasingly destroying the Earth with our horrible habits. How many times have we kept the lights on too long? Wasted food? Or abused our access to gas and water? In ecofem, I remember reading an article about how women in some countries walk five hours a day to reach available water sources.

One Of The Places Where I Want To Live...

I was perusing the NY Times site, and I often like to look at the pictures that accompany ads. I was so excited when I came across this one, and I was even more excited to see that this house was actually in Rhode Island, a place that I have always dreamed about moving to. And by dream, I mean think about a lot and know that it probably won't happen. However, if I had enough money, I would totally buy this place (after Mt. St. Michael, Mt. St. Michel, and the Biltmore...although I technically think this house would be the cheapest).

The house is named Clingstone, and it sits in Narrangensett Bay of RI. It was built by the Mr. J. S. Lovering Walton and Mr. William Trost Richards in 1895. It was eventually purchased by Henry Wood, a distant family relative in 1961 for only $3,600 dollars. Since then, Wood has made the house practically a completely green house with solar power, seawater composts for water, collecting basin for purifying rain water, etc. So yeah, that makes the house completely great...but I want it because it looks so beautiful. I can just see myself sitting at a window typing on an old school typewriter thinking of my youth traveling abroad.....

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/garden/07clingstone.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Running Red Lights

I hope that the following link does not ever die out there in cyberland:

http://blog.nola.com/chrisrose/2008/08/shouldnt_it_be_national_stop_o.html

The above link is to an article by Chris Rose, a writer for the Time-Picayune in New Orleans. Of course, my native city is quite the interesting place...especially as of late. However, Rose's condemnation/critique of the city's adoption of this week's national fad is quite poignant and hilarious.

I guess I love the part "But is it really necessary to have an awareness campaign to get people to obey the law, particularly a law that everyone -- and I mean EVERYONE -- knows is the law?" since its the best (rhetorical) question Rose's article poses.

This article should also be read by every Tulsan, since that seems to be quite a huge problem here as well. In fact, I think its more of a problem here than back home where speeding is the real issue.

Gossip Girl (and the Gays)

With numerous reruns crowding the television channels that I watch, I finally segued into an old, favorite station that I've abandoned in recent years--the CW, which was once the glorious WB. Thanks for a wonderful recommendation from a dear friends (shout out to Fink), I found myself watching a rerun of Gossip Girl on Monday night. Catching the season in mid-stride--I was actually watching the Christmas episode--I had no idea what came before or after this rather interesting episode. Of course, the first one I happened to have seen was missing the two of the three reasons I was watching the show. Michael Ausiello, TV Guide's amazing gossip boy and columnist, recently revealed via the Paley Festival that one of the three main male characters was going to be thrown out of the closet when the show's new episodes air in a few weeks. In a desire to see more gays on television, I thought I would scope of the terrain created by the show and check out these possible gays. Two of the main male characters did not happen to be on the show that night, which then led to me to finding full episodes online. Tuesday night arrives, and I ended up watching the only four full episodes that on the CW website.

Well, it looks like they might be some interesting prospects and possibilities as to who will be outed in the near future. Immediately stepping back from the Gossip Girl show, I became obsessed with trying to find out about ever-diminishing population of gay characters on television. So, here is a quick run through of what I watch and what I know: Queer as Folk, The L Word, Will and Grace, Ellen, Brothers and Sisters (one main, two minor characters), As the World Turns (two minor characters, not the whole show) ... [I can't go on any further than this because of something that I think is really interesting.]

Surely there must be more gays on television, you ask? We've all been in theatre, dance, and music departments on campus. To say homosexuality was in vogue would be an understatement. Is it that the gays are more attracted to the stage (i.e., the rather notorious thanked partner at the Tony's rather than lover/spouse at the Oscars) than they are on celluloid? Well, as a matter of fact, there are a number of homosexuals acting in Hollywood, except that a large majority of them on television seem to be playing heterosexuals. [Here, I would say my flair for hyperbole should be evoked since I only actually know of two prominent examples.] Why is it that some of the more prominent members of the gay Hollywood elite aren't playing homosexual characters? Why are people hiding behind the sex-crazed Barney (Neil Patrick Harris on How I Met Your Mother) and the adorable nerd George (T. R. Knight on Grey's Anatomy)? And why is that heterosexuals are playing some of the great homosexuals out there--Brian Kinney (Gale Harold), Will Truman (Eric McCormack), Jack MacFarland (Sean Hayes)?

The reason why I find the need to expound upon this is because of some of my recent viewings, in particular Jennie Livingston's documentary, Paris Is Burning. Watching the film suggested to me that there is a facet of culture (transvestites) that truly epitomize the idea that gender is a construction. In their desires and dreams to be more "heterosexual," the drag kings and queens of the documentary demonstrate that everything under the sun--from sexuality to class to intellect to gender to identity--is about performance. Of course, Judith Butler states all of this rather high-handedly in her works/essays that I've read, and while I've understood the concept for some five years now, it is only recently that I beginning to understand the impact it might have on me and the culture that I inhabit.

Therefore, does it matter that gays or playing straight and straights are playing gay? Yes, it does. Even though it is all about performance and everything we do is about creating and performing who we think we are, I think by passing as heterosexual is somehow inherently false, and I apologize for perhaps not articulating this a bit more clearly. And the very fact that prominent and recognized shows with a major homosexual theme are being canceled disturbs me. Was the cultural swing into accepting homosexuality, particularly of the male variety, via the hot metrosexual male about to shift in the other direction? Unfortunately, I feel that it already has. Look at the number of canceled and failed shows that highlight homosexuality--Queer as Folk, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy/Girl, Boy Meets Boy (which only lasted one season), The L Word (with only one season to go), Will and Grace, and the abysmal, Lifetime failure Gay, Straight, or Taken. It's almost as if those shows that highlighted or fore-fronted homosexuality is gone or about to leave the television screen. Are the gays doomed to reruns (at least of syndicated television)?

I don't have to answers, but I would at least like to return to the first subject--Gossip Girl. Show likes this seem to be doing fine. Heterosexual love and intrigue have always worked well in the entertainment industry, and I think this show does a fine job hooking an audience. It's refreshing to see a show where the primary couple doesn't break up every week to sustain a season worth of episodes. I certainly recommend the show to those still nostalgic about high school, those slightly romantic, and those who think that being an adult makes things easier (because it doesn't). However, I wonder if this show is emblematic of the show for the new 21st century, where the romance and relationships of the adolescents parallel the adults and gays are relegated to a minority?

Enough ranting, peace out.