Similarities of Dissimilar Bodies

My final project is about how Gothic literature has transcended into modern popular culture. After taking a look at the pieces designated for today's lecture, I am more convinced than ever that Gothic literature played a major role in transforming body image onto the big screen in the 21st century. Our obsession with thinness, beauty standards and the eugenics revolving around society is due to the archetypal roles expressed and designed to be attached to something larger than a character. The roles made expressly for Gothic women are to be the damsel (in distress). What's more distressing than a standard waif white woman? Not a content obese woman of color. Not an obese white woman. Not a working Chinese woman. The standard thin white woman is idolized and prized as the normative in anti-fat biased nations, such as America, Australia and Poland. This is due to an idea that these cultures are "individualist cultures that emphasize personal freedom" (LeBesco, 2), because everyone striving for a thin beautiful white body is a personal freedom and extremely individual. However, it is argued that the discrimination against fat people is for a lively culture, "By the time you've finished preventing discrimination against the ugly, the short, the skinny, the bald, the knobbly-kneed, the flat-chested and the stupid, you're living in a totalitarian state." (LeBesco, 2)

This is a remarkable concept, because as some argue for the NEED to discriminate, they insist it rallies people to judge based on differences, which need to be changed. The ugly ones are fixed, the fat ones get lipo, the stupid ones, the bald ones get hair implants, and thus change what once they were discriminated for, thus relieving the ability to discriminate against anyone, because they're all the same. The idea that to stop discrimination and tolerate everyone will lead to totalitarianism, seems remarkably backwards. Thank you, Dictionary.com for the definition of 'totalitarian': of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. The people who enjoy finding the differences among people's outside aesthetics, generally, do not want their freedom of expression taken away. Is that a double standard or what? Basically, the pretty ones can revel in their beautiful distinctions, while the ones deemed not applicable in beauty pageants must change beautify themselves to also revel in their now BEAUTIFUL distinctions. WHAT!?


Basically, the point of this got a little off track, but my project is Gothic lit's contributions to today's standards of beauty in society. The distinctions between size is not the only stipulation for Utopia, but race and class also play a huge part in rip-tiding the divide. Stated by African American creative writer, Donna ALlegra, "white women are kept in line by racist devices as well-their beauty measured by how much they don't look like people of color. We are said to wear the characteristics, like weight on a woman's body, that are deemed unacceptable by white American beauty standards." 'The racist power of internalized fat-phobia is a surefire tool to keep white bodies "pure" in shape and size.' (LeBesco, 6) So, the damsel from Gothic lit is mostly seen as the white woman's burden, whereas "Colored women densely code sex, animal, dark, dangerous, fecund, pathological." (Hartman in-text, Lutz, 319) Women of color are not expected to be comparable to the white woman's beauteous expectations. Though women of color have struck the chords of French imaginists, the main female characters in literature past and media today in Western popular culture remain characteristically linear in that they are white and they are damsels of thin design.

In this, I'm posting a youtube video of hot comic book women. This brings up the idea of the Madonna and the whore. Standardized beauty is regenerated time and again for the idea of pleasing men in society. Comic books appealed to me for this, because they display prominently the Madonna (pure and chaste, sweet and innocent, waiting to be ravaged) and the whore (the badass, full of superpowers, fighting off bad guys, with jiggling breasts in skimpy outfits that tear easily). "While they value large size, some Jamaicans differentiate between "good" and "bad" fat...a conclusion that begs feminist deconstruction for its overreliance on male sanctification of female bodies." (LeBesco, 9)







This all may have been a little jumbled, and I'm fairly positive I didn't use any excerpts from any Gothic novels...so, I'll also post a picture of a typical damsel in distress and a picture from a woman in popular culture to demonstrate the similarities.

Final Project Idea

For my final project in WMS, I'd like to take a look at women in literature. I have two choices for this project; women writers, and their effects on society in the 1600s; how women are portrayed in Gothic literature. My audience for this will be anyone who wants to listen, I guess. My purpose for this project is to see how society reflects women in the seventeenth century. I may also take a look at how modern western civilization reflects women in literature. I will see if and how religion, race, class and gender intertwine.

I will begin looking into either Gothic literature, or Aphra Behn, the first English woman writer in the seventeenth century. I don't suppose I'm claiming anything, I'm just interested in seeing how women are portrayed, and why. Gothic literature is well known for having spooky settings with a damsel in distress, and is heavy laden with a lot of Freudian reflections. Gothic lit stresses scare tactics, sexual desires, a form of religion or piousness, and familial relations; often it delves into a character harboring incestuous fantasies. I think, actually, I'd like to focus on Gothic literature, and how gender is stemmed around the eighteenth century. The look at what a woman's role is supposed to be, and how society today can have been shaped by it.

I'm unsure, as of now, how I will be presenting this project; I might use a powerpoint to display images of the allegedly archaic representations of Gothic women, to show some of the many different stereotypes of women today.

I guess, in response to the "UN's Millennium Goals," piece, we can look at how society has been shaped, recognize what is important for global education, and entertainment, and create a lifestyle where everyone's needs are met, and most desires can be taken care of. After looking at the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," I am excited to see how we have grown in recognizing that everyone is expected to be treated justly and to keep a lifestyle where they are not prosecuted for what they are (unless, it's illegal, you know). In response to this, from my final presentation project, Gothic literature allows asylum (especially for religious purposes), but we can see how women are not given a chance to take part in government, their education is much different from the men's, and how differently they are treated due to their sex. Race and class in Gothic lit are most of the time, submitted into the same category. If you are of a particular race, you are of that particular class.

Gender, labor and justice. Why it is important to take an intersectional approach to gender when analyzing issues of labor on a global scale? From my own thoughts, it seems that when we look at gender and labor, it really depends on location. I watch the show, "Ice Road Truckers," and it's mostly men in Alaska or Canada. I've seen maybe two women on the show. There are probably more, but I think you'd have to be pretty strong and used to the cold the handle wide-load and heavy laden trucks over the ocean, and up frosted hills. We can also take a look at education and class, if we delve deeper. The people who take trucking jobs generally really need the money, and you get big money fast for driving where no one else will drive. You have to have extreme mental prowess and will power to keep going, despite the danger. Belay what we see from "Ice Road Truckers," and the examples I picked out, we can see more specific examples from the readings.

From "The Gendered Politics and Violence of Structural Adjustment; A View from Jamaica" by Faye V. Harrison, the subject of class and family is brought up in terms of employment and labor, "then a middle-aged woman responsible for a two-generation household and extended family, worked as a community health aide under the combined aegis of a government health program and a local urban redevelopment agency...A woman with strong civic consciousness and organizing skills, she had worked her way into the leadership of the PNP group... No matter how much work she did, she never seemed to be able to do more than barely make ends meet." (Harrison, 476) The idea of a woman known as "Nurse Brown" who can't make ends meet is saddening. Is it due to location, or due to her gender or her age? "Her sisters abroad had often invited her to visit them, and they had also encouraged her to migrate so that she too, could benefit from better opportunities." (Harrison, 477) Though some of her family has left Jamaica, Mrs. Brown insisted that her home was in Jamaica, and she should stay to prove a prime example that hard work can keep you happy and alive. This is until Jamaica's economy plummets and she has no choice but to visit America and Canada for employment opportunities. In relation to employment, is gender a matter of importance, specifically in Jamaica? "Harsh circumstances forced Mrs. Brown to join the larger wave of female emigrants from the Caribbean who, since the late 1960s, have outnumbered their male counterparts." (Harrison, 477) Though Mrs. Brown is away from Jamaica, she still sends money to take care of her home, and manages to take care of herself, while she works in North America. Why is it so few males work? I'm thinking it might have something to do with the Armed Forces blooming with opportunities.

Specifically in relation to gender and labor, we are focusing on third world countries, or states of immigration, and we shall continue to proceed in this manner, by looking at Winnie Woodhull's, "Global Feminists, Transnational Political Economies, Third World Cultural Production." Woodhull argues that though the third wave of feminists is helping to encourage women in technological advances, and business, there is a lack of communication between western feminists and women from third world countries, which is a step away from what the second-wave feminists were striving for. This piece speaks about the separation of western civilization from third world cultures, and the difference between generally everything.

Malawi

As I read "Malawi," from the "I Live Here" series, I was heartbroken, and confused. I don't even know about Malawi, or where it is. I know of Darfur, Xhosa/Khosa, Nigeria, and I know about AIDS/HIV, and Malaria. I don't know what I would even do to change this. The "wasting disease," people, young children jailed for stealing corn and phones; children making coffins, it's remarkable. Where do the orphans go when they're released from jail? Back to jail, or in a hospital, after getting diseases from the jail. "I do not want to come back, but where will I go?" I noticed in the intro of "Malawi," the narrator called it the "anarchy of Lilongwe," and I think that's really important to note, because this story is really chaotic. All the stories and little tangents all stem from a concrete base and end up spiraling out of control. All of it mashes together and forms a tangled mass of wide-eyed survival. (Malawi Notebook)

What I looked into, to find home made help from Malawis for Malawis sent me to EISA Malawi: Malawi Human Rights Commission. It's promoting democracy, which I think is really important to setting up a stable environment, and creating basic order, eventually leading to better and more expansive lives and homes for the peoples of Malawi. It began in 1994, but didn't get fully activated or accepted until 1999. "The MHRC is mandated to investigate cases where it is alleged that a person has suffered injustice and it does not appear that there is any remedy reasonably available by way of proceedings in a court or by way of appeal from a court or where there is no other practical remedy." Court seems to be very pressing in Malawi, "And who put the law that when one is wrong he should be imprisoned and when did this law start and which country did it start in?" (Malawi Notebook)

"The MHRC also expressed concern over reports of parents forcing their daughters into marriages for food. The MHRC was charged with monitoring, auditing, and promoting human rights and conducting investigations regarding violations of human rights; however, a shortage of resources resulted in a backlog of cases, delayed production of reports and failure to expand human rights monitoring." Holy crapola! Exchanging daughters for food? This can't be real. This is insanity. Why don't people in Malawi have food? Why are they so poor? What sparked this? What made it keep going down? What's keeping this nation so down? Is it the diseases? Are they just spiritless ghouls, waiting for death, writhing in poor spirals, confused and degenerating? "The whole village is in front of us, staring. Some people smile-I've never seen such wide, beautiful smiles. Huge eyes that light up with joy so fresh it looks like it could smudge." (Malawi Notebook.) At least the depression hasn't diminished the hope of this village.

Why is it that we aren't helping our people? (Our people; a global effort to stop hunger, violence, and injustices? A global effort to get us all to hit the malls, to eat together and ride horses!) "After a New York Times article was published about prison conditions in Malawi, the boys were quietly shuffled to the current facility." (Malawi Notebook) Why was it quietly changed? Did the New York Times have anything else to say about this? Was there any more follow up?

Here is EISA Malawi. I'm actually unsure if it IS a home root organization, but it's cool, nonetheless.
http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/malagency1.htm

"I am whatever you say I am"

Particularly in American culture, we perceive things in a certain light. Most of the older generations find gauging, expanding your ear piercing, to be disgusting; but in younger alternative generations and circles, it represents a certain social standing, and is a way of expression. In light of Richard Miner's assessment of the Nacireman body rituals, where they poke, prod and defecate for certain reasons, the thought is gag invoking. However, even though the 'Holy-Mouth-Men' are honored and respected, Miner points out how we assume cruelty involved in their rites; "One has but to watch the gleam in the eye of a holy-mouth-man, as he jabs an awl into an exposed nerve, to suspect that a certain amount of sadism is involved. If this can be established, a very interesting pattern emerges, for most of the population shows masochistic tendencies." (Miner, 3) In relation to American culture, where going to the dentist is torturous, the idea of making yearly visits with an incurable eagerness seems downright imbecilic. However, though the American norm is to pay notable attention to the mouth, most enjoy skipping the dentist, and picking up a four buck bottle of whitener, and maybe a packet of floss, which we'll ignore after about four days of excessive use.
In relation to Miner's piece, we can look at Australia's apology to its aborigines. "We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians." (A.A., 1) Even if we think the treatments involved in Nacireman rites are cruel and sincerely unusual, we cannot think to measure them by what our socially constructed ideals of personal care are; because what's important to them might not seem right to us, we can't make them change, or it'd be just like when we forced out the Native Americans, or when the Trek-Boers in Capetown tried to change the Xhosa into believing their religion was worthless (it ended up obliterating a whole culture). In the Australian Apology, the government apologized for treating the Indigenous peoples of Australia as if they were a plague, and their inclinations toward certain practices were not worthy of preserving.

" A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country," (A.A., 1) We can look at Australia's Apology as a way to interpret the Nacirema culture, and not judge so heavily on the things that differ between us but as we are all people, and we can learn from each other. Novel ideas, combining with some tradition can help move everybody forward, with respect to most cultures still intact.

However, there is another facet of Miner's piece that is barely touched upon. Most of what Miner discusses is the interaction between men, mouths, sacred vessels, and excrement; what he doesn't explain is the interaction of women and the holy-mouth-men. "Female clients, on the other hand, find their naked bodies are subjected to the scrutiny, manipulation and prodding of the medicine men." (Miner, 3) What exactly is he getting at? Women in the Nacirema culture seem to have double standards (Maybe men of every culture tend to want women two ways; "a lady on the streets, but a freak in the --") "When pregnant, women dress so as to hide their condition. Parturition takes place in secret...women do not nurse their infants." and "General dissatisfaction with breast shape is symbolized in the fact that the ideal form is virtually outside the range of human variation. A few women afflicted with almost inhuman hyper-mammary development are so idolized that they make a handsome living by simply going from village to village and permitting the natives to stare at them for a fee." (Miner, 4) This is reminiscent of Sarah Baartman's case in France. "But it’s clear what Dunlop had in mind – to display her as a “freak”, a “scientific curiosity”, and make money from these shows, some of which he promised to give to her." (Davie) I would like to see more about this idea of "freak" looks and understand the curiosity for why some people are considered to be freakish based on a look outside the normative ideology.

I also had some questions about the holy-mouth-men, from Miner's paper. Are the holy-mouth-men subjected to yearly visits from other holy-mouth-men? What does it take to be a holy-mouth-man? Can holy-mouth-men carry, or do they? Intercourse is taboo, but I'd be interested in seeing the take on gay or lesbian love in the Nacireman society.

Questions

I read Emily Webb's blog before I wrote this, and I really agree with a few of her questions concerning Carole Vance's piece (concerning social construction, I was really unclear about the whole thing, and what her stance was.), and what 'Queer' was. I've also been thinking about the people who really want change. I get through the readings that a lot of hardship goes on when people are just trying to live, and they get picked on for looking a certain way or acting a certain way, but I don't understand how they get mad for people noticing the differences from a normative expression of a girl or a boy, but then they want people to notice the differences, so they can be ---I guess I kind of just figured it out; You want people to understand the differences, so they won't give you spit, because now you resemble something they can point out in a magazine; a poster child for a particular group of people. (Are we allowed to cuss in this?)

I have a few questions, about definitions and terms that I think I need spelled out for me: What is "natural" thinking, how does it go against social construction (which is just more Carole Vance confusion)? Why exactly are we looking for the gene to find why we are gay, trans, bi, etc? Some animals are bisexual. Why do we care? I constantly ask why we have to know about other peoples' sexual orientations; how does it relate to physics, or sports, or anything? How, by knowing my cashier's love for men influence my purchase or anything that has to do with my life? It's none of my business! Why is it everyone's business to know or care what you like? I get that it's a form of self-expression, to declare and escape from the "closet," and that's great, but why does it have to be such a big deal? Why aren't heterosexuals given "coming out" parties? Why don't we have the same celebrations for straight people that we have for glbtq people? I get that it's a mountain we've crossed, like the feminist waves, because we've had to push hard to be accepted and safe, but aren't there more important things? I just want to know why it's so massively important to know everyone's orientation; I feel like it's going to be like the Stars of David during the Holocaust, and we're all going to have to conform to a particular spectrum, while there is always going to be a morph about to happen. Is this a fad?

It's everywhere

These pieces frustrated me, left me puzzled and frazzled. I was consistently blindsided by the different terms expressed and the constant arguments of what social constructing is, and what it does, where it begins and where it may never end. Social, scientific, and political agendas are running in circles attempting to catch a wildfire sparked by opposing teams made of biologists and humanists. Biologists aren't allowed to be humanistic or emotions, but all scientists are biased. This question of what it is to be homosexual, hetero, bisexual, male, female will never be answered. One question from 'Heterosexual Quiz,' by Julie D. Moncada, "15. Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly restricted, stereotyped sex-roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?" made me realize that the problems we have about identifying male/female relations and identification arise from "these ideas of what a "real" woman or man should be straightjacket the freedom of individual self-expression." (Feinberg, 4) If we keep questioning people about whether they feel more masculine or more feminine, we'll drive around in circles, not considering that these outdated modes of identity no longer apply to an ever-changing culture.

'Social Construction Theory' by Carole S. Vance argued with a vicious bias against and sometimes for social construction theory, which left me in a red-seeing daze. "The punch line, "it's only socially constructed"...revealing their belief that only biologically determined phenomena could have any significance in human social life." (Vance, 30) I'm unsure if this is really the punch line or if biologists even think that biology can't coexist with socially constructed culture. It reminds me of the evolution v. creation argument. I always like to pose the question, "What if we were just created to evolve?" What if the culture of sexual identity was created to morph?

Going back to Feinberg's piece, in this, she identifies as a 'female who is more masculine than those prominently portrayed in mass culture.' (Feinberg, 5) I can agree with that, and I constantly see the idea of choosing a color to define myself (even for a baby) would be tremendously limiting. I can't understand, though, what our big issue is about choosing a sexual identity. "Because a sexual identity does not carry with it a universal social meaning, it follows that the relationship between sexual acts and sexual identities is not a fixed one, and it is projected from the observer's time and place to others at great peril." (Vance, 30). Ah.

Vance calls us "sexual objects," and for the life of me, I cannot grasp that we can't just be humans. The idea of claiming a sexual identity and acknowledging others for their individual selves means we must ACKNOWLEDGE there is a DIFFERENCE, and that breeds contempt. To get rid of boxes, we must make MORE boxes? This just seems incredibly tedious, long-winded and backwards. What is our obsession with understand sexual identity?

Yes, sex is everywhere. I just changed the title of my blog and saw the 'b' for 'bold,' and the 'i' for 'italic,' but before I knew it was 'bold' or 'italic,' I registered it as 'Bi' for bisexual. I believe sexual identity is socially constructed, intertwining with history and geography; it's just morphing, as it always has, to work for the culture of today.