Monday Evening's Focus Group

On Monday, I attended the focus group that was conducted by the graduate student from Penn State. She was a lovely lady named Rachel, and her project revolved around stereotypes and issues that various groups face in West Virginia. For our discussion, we talked mainly about women in the state. A lot of focus was put on sexism, feminism, and a sense of belonging. Everyone who attended shared various stories about each topic. One discussion that stood out to me was about a Shepherd professor making rude, sexist comments to students. I was rather surprised. I have never had this professor for class, but I have not heard very many good things about him. I was very bothered by the story of his comments, and it hurts to think that so many students will have to endure these rude remarks in his classes. Anyway, that was just one part of the discussion. If anyone wants to know anything else about the focus group, feel free to ask. It was pretty cool. :)

On Seminar papers, luck and context.

Attention all Women's Studies folks: You are part of a discipline that values context, depth, and complicated questions over simple solutions. My favorite part of Women's Studies seminars (and as of the end of next week, I have taken part in two) is that you never know what you're going to get and you can never fail to learn something new. Our readings this semester focused on the 19th century women's experience, but covered everything from imperialism, abuse, early science, and marriage law to how to eat an orange, and why it's a bad idea to cross-dress in Cranford. Although I have several things that I could reflect upon over the course of this year, I would like to tie this seminar and last semester's Gender and Technology seminar together and talk about my paper. I am talking about the significance of the railway in Middlemarch and Cranford as a multi-layered metaphor and a mark of masculinized history in the text. As a major source I wanted to use a very difficult book I reviewed last semester in Dr. Edwards' Gender and Technology seminar called
The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and The Scientific Revolution (1980) by Carolyn Merchant.
Compiled during the tumult of the second wave feminist and environmental movements of the 70s, Merchant frames the historical developments of modern industry, science, and capitalism in reference to increasing amounts of environmental damage and curtailing of womens representations in the public sphere-- saying that these developments were made possible by modes of thought which, by objectifying nature and the nature-identified woman, made both inert, passive, and mechanical and set the scientific (coded masculine) establishment on the road toward the 20th centuries dual crises of environmental and social justice.
This was not a fun, easy read. Each chapter is a layer and the equivalent of five history course's worth of material on early modern science, culture, economy, and philosophy that never seems to have an endpoint or a moral-- mostly themes or ideas that circle around one another and appeal to intuitive connection. It's a book I never thought I would use again after my brief review about it, however-- to refer to my first sentence: Womens studies is a discipline without easy answers, but in which everything is connected.

Favorites

We've read six books this semester. Just six books in a thirteen week period. We should know these characters backwards and forwards. I started to think about who my favorite character was from one of the novels, and I decided that I couldn't choose between Jane Eyre and Ruth Hall.
Both characters are strong women from humble beginnings. They have many terrible things that happen to them through their lives. Despite hardship, both characters have happy endings, and the readers actually wish that for them. For the most part, the characters don't whine about the bad things in their lives. Both women get up and respond to the situations placed before them.
I wondered if anyone else had a favorite character? Were you able to narrow it down to just one?

"Reader, I married him"

As the semester is slowly but surely winding down, I thought I would post a blog about my favorite subject--marriage. One thing that surprised me about the works we read as a class was that the authors had many different points of view on marriage. On the one hand, you have authors like George Eliot, who portray marriage in a negative light and focus on problems rather than on accomplishments. You also have authors like Harriet Jacobs, who regard marriage as a nice but unrealistic theory that stems out of a desire for communality. On the other hand, however, we also had the opportunity to examine the novel Jane Eyre in which an optimistic, highly-romantic Charlotte Bronte see marriage as the union of two soul mates.
In review of the works we read in class, I would like to ask everyone to think about which view of marriage you most closely identify with. For me, I find that I can relate to Jane Eyre, as her undying love and perseverance make her an admirable character. Yes, I think that Mr. Rochester is quite a pompous, caustic individual but the fact of the matter is that Jane does love him. Isn't that how love works? I am a firm believer that one cannot choose who they love, one can only choose how to respond to that love once it is discovered. Jane knows that Mr. Rochester has problems and she strives to work with him to find a happy medium. From my experience thus far, I have come to believe that a good marriage in which both parties are willing to compromise. We should not, therefore, blame Jane for following her heart; instead, we should praise her for finding a way to make things work despite setbacks and difficulties.

The Times Make the (Wo)Man

Now that I am coming to a close on my Jane Eyre essay, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the questions I set out with have very different answers than what I had anticipated. My main frustrations with watching the Jane Eyre films was that I felt no one was doing Jane "justice", but I've come to realize that it will never happen. And it will never happen because people don't seem to want it to happen. Every Jane Eyre character introduced in film is different from the last, and it has everything to do with when the film was made. The culture, ideals, and set of norms all dictate how Jane will be portrayed in every film, and the hope/want to see the "original" Jane will never be fruitful. Filmmakers will only ever make a Jane (or any character at all, for that matter) that they believe the people want to see, as opposed to who the character actually is.

What happens after Middlemarch ends?

Dr. Hanrahan stated that we could write about anything this week on the blog, so here goes. I am going to talk about what I wrote in my paper just a bit, because I am Middlemarch brain-dead just about now! And of course my favorite subject of Middlemarch is....WILL LADISLAW! Well, who wouldn't want to be married to Will? He was on the cutting edge of societal evolution, not stuck in some patriarchal misogynistic role of the mid-nineteenth century England. AND, he was good-looking. He was progressive. If the book had continued for another 900 pages, in my opinion, Eliot would have most assuredly returned Dorothea to her architectural work. Dorothea would perhaps have even gone back to school to become proficient in architectural drawings. No, Dorothea wouldn't have needed to go back to school because she was smart enough to start her own architecture school after her kids had gone off to college (her girls included, because she has a few more kids after the book ends...). So Ladislaw is not the cause of Dorothea's return to the domestic sphere. Ladislaw helps Dorothea fulfill her dreams of motherhood and then Dorothea chooses to pursue her dreams of college a profession.

What does Incidents mean today?

When I really think about it, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl blows me away. Sometimes, I fall into the 21^st century reader trap and think, “Wow, I can’t believe Harriet Jacobs actually experienced all this. It’s awful. I’m so glad slavery is over.” Then, I try to think about what a reader of the 19^th century would think. The crazy thing about this novel is that it was published while slavery was occurring. Incidents was not published as a historical memoir; it was a current event. When Jacobs writes, “Reader, my story ends with freedom;” Jacobs is addressing people who have slavery in their daily lives (156). If I was reading this novel while slavery was occurring, what would I think about Incidents then? We have talked in class about what Incidents, as well as other novels this semester urge readers to do: to take action and change something.

I refuse to believe that this novel does not mean anything to the “reader” today. Jacobs can still motivate us to do something. Although slavery is no longer legal in this country, racial discrimination still does exist. Likewise; there are many instances of human trafficking that occur in this country and around the world. As readers, what can we do? What would Jacobs want us to do? Because we are still reading this text centuries later, I believe that Jacob’s text still has the power to motivate readers to be active and change human injustices. 

Here is a video I found about human trafficking in California. The Case Act that is being discussed will go to ballot in November. Just this month, West Virginia criminalized human trafficking. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa_Wo4hbh50&feature=related 

A More Recent Event...

Anne posted a comment about how harsh the class has been on Linda's actions. I seem to believe it is because slavery is so removed from our history and minds. Maybe if we compare with another soul rocking event we maybe able to sympathise with Linda and maybe just maybe understand.
Now, I agree that life no matter the era is difficult. The obstacles have just evolved with the changing in culture and society. The only event, since slavery that I can compare (I hate to say compare. but go with me) slavery against is the holocaust. A small group of people were forced to bend to another groups will. Of all the autobiographical stories I have read Anne Frank keeps creeping in.
Anne, like Linda is wise beyond her years and is forced to live in a cramped space and fear that death is around every corner. The largest differences between Anne and Linda are Linda was a mother and did escape. Anne was captured, starved and watched most of her surviving family die in a concentration camp before her own end.
What takes me aback is we has a society sympathise with Anne and her diary, however; in class and even scholars still argue that Linda is a character not a real person. Is it because we as a society are so far removed from slavery? Is Anne's story more compelling? Why do we believe Anne but no in Linda?

turnitin.com update

Hello everyone!!

I just wanted to let you all know that I was able to log into turnitin.com under my old Shepherd email address.  I was then able to change my old Shepherd email to my new Shepherd email.


Log into turnitin.com with your old Shepherd email.
Go to "User Info"
It will bring up a screen with all your information on it, including your email address
turnitin.com allows you to change whatever information you wish to change
You then just have to change your old email address to the new one
Click "Submit"
Voila! 
Your email is now up to date on turnitin.com
The next time you log in, you can do it with your new Shepherd email address.

No headaches!!!!

(Also, if someone would mark this day on the calander:  I was technically savy.)

Reading for Wednesday, 4/11

In the Norton edition of Incidents: 161-174, 193-195, 203-209.

I need to get this off of my chest....

My marriage was horribly abusive.  Make no mistake that this book has triggered a lot of emotions for me:  from reliving my abuse to doing anything possible to fight for your child, this book speaks volumes to my heart.  Yet, those are not the parts I want to blog about.  I want to talk about the part that tickles me:  Dr. Flint, big old bully that he is, is afraid of Aunt Martha (27).  I cannot tell you how much I love this part.  It is completely true:  bullies are scaredy-cats deep down.  And in my opinion, this gives Aunt Martha so much power.

I recently learned this lesson.  Last summer, I thought someone was breaking into my flat.  I have a chain on my door in addition to a door lock and a dead bolt (old habits die hard).  I woke up one morning and saw a pair of gloved hands on the inside of my door, working their way up to my chain at the top of my door.  At the time, I was enrolled in "Body and Blade Swordsman Theatre Stage Combat" class, so I had lots of testosterone.  I prepared to break fingers by slamming my door;  I peeped through the door at my soon-to-be victim and grabbed my door, bracing myself for the impact.  It wasn't a burglar:  it was a cop.  A cop and five other cops, EMTs, etc standing on the very small landing outside of my flat.  And beyond them, my mother crying hysterically.  Apparently she thought I was dead.  Oh, mom.  Anyway, the point is that I, once a victim of abuse now knew I had power.  And I walked around a little taller that day.

However, Shelby, my daughter, had a different story to tell.  One night, she was sleeping at her grandmother's. Shelby woke up in the middle of the night and went to get in bed with her father (my abuser) after a bad dream.  He woke as she was trying to get into his bed.  Shelby said his eyes got really big and he pushed himself into a ball in the far corner of his bed, screaming like a girl the whole time.  Of course, Shelby thought this hysterical while telling me, and as an innocent child will, only saw the silliness of daddy screaming like a girl.  I saw something more:  bullies ARE cowards, and he is no different than Dr. Flint.

Also, there is a distinct difference in the victim and the abuser.  In my case, I was once the victim but will never be again.  Shelby's father was the abuser, and while he's no longer my abuser, I am certain he still is an abuser. Having been once the victim, I learned how to fight:  I learned how to fight for my safety, for my freedom from him, for my peace of mind, and most importantly for my daughter.  These are things my abuser will never learn.

Therefore, I submit that throughout the rest of this book, Linda will continue to fight, even when she seems docile she is still fighting:  for her safety, for her freedom, for her piece of mind, and most importantly for her children.  But her abusers will always remain her abusers and will never change.  However, I would LOVE to see them curl up in a ball and scream like little girls; I hope to heaven we see that before the book is over.

Give Linda some slack!

In class last Wednesday and Friday, there was much interesting debate concerning Linda and the choices that she made in her life. I personally think that we're all being much too hard on her and are viewing her action's with too modern an eye. Throughout all of her decisions, Linda was forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. She was constantly put in a position of hardship and uncertainty, and all she could do was hope that she had picked the "lesser evil". I think many readers would try to find fault in any decision that she was forced to make.
     For example, Linda loves her children immensely and wants for them what she never had: freedom. In order to give them this, she had to take a risk. Both of her options are far from ideal: either she stays with her children on young Flint's plantation (and who knows how long she'd actually be able to keep her children) or she runs away, taking the risk that her family may be harmed as pay back.
     All I know is that I'd never want to have to make a decision such as this.

Female vs. Male powerplays

This book amuses me because it shows how (most) men and (most) women view manipulation.  For men, it's all about muscle, money, and power. I say this only from my experience, so If anyone is offended I apologize.  In this novel Dr. Flint uses his position in a extreme sense, he wants Linda, and will try anything and everything to get it.  However, I think he highly underestimated Linda, and how stubborn she would be. (which I find most men really do underestimate how determined ladies can be)  This back and forth game between them over the years went from him merely wanting her as a mistress , to being purely principle.  He then wanted her only because she said no, and continued to say no.  I admire Linda for her unwavering stubborness, and I also think it was her downfall.  Her refusal to give in to him or anyone was also her downfall, and created problems for her.

The Diary of a young girl...

I  can not help thinking of Anne Frank, maybe it is the cramped space, the fugitive status or a young girl leading by example. I think you as a reader forget that Linda is still quite young when everything happens. Linda assumes the role of lover, mother and struggling slave too fast. (For my opinion).

As Joey was saying in his post the ideas of what childhood should be; never existed until decades later. Even in 1942, Anne Frank was forced to assume an adult role at the young age of thirteen. All memorable stories, fiction or non-fiction are shaped by historical conflict and usually race, gender, religion or political power is the driving for outrageous inequality.

The ideology of the culture of the time is discarded like yesterday's trash and the survival instincts we all posses take over. It is sad to think a person can look their innocence due to the color of their skin. Society may be evolving but is the transformation happening fast enough, when today children are robbed of their childhood.

Aunt Martha: the Uncle Tom who Struggles

"The God-breathing machines are no more, in the sight of their masters, than the cotton they plant, or the horses they tend" (11). I feel this sentence sums up this entire book. Despite that slaves "breathe God," they are still just property to their masters, no better than a plant or a horse. Perhaps the breath of God is what renders them to the low state they're in. Does a slave's loyalty to God further enable the system of Slavery? Well, we all saw what happened to Uncle Tom.

Aunt Martha is a product of Slavery, and she reminds me so much of Uncle Tom as a result. She is God-fearing and believes utmost in virtue. She was loyal to her mistress and is now living quietly among Slavery as a free slave. She has earned respect, but why does she not refute the system that continues to enslave her grandchild and great grandchildren? She refutes not at all, then a little, and then a lot.

When Linda's father dies, Aunt Martha consoles her as most do: "'Who knows the ways of God?' said she. 'Perhaps they have been kindly taken from the evil days to come'" (12). Does Aunt Martha assume that evil days on earth are inevitable? That the only way out is through death, the path to God? Linda doesn't seem to think so, and neither does Benjamin.

When Benjamin was in jail for disobeying his master having tried to run away, her advice was: "Put your trust in God. Be humble, my child, and your master will forgive you" (22). Should a person beg the forgiveness of another who treats them as a dog, as property? I don't think so, and I'm not sure Aunt Martha really thinks so, either. Why else would she cop an attitude with Dr. Flint in later chapters and in chapter 12 say to a white soldier going through her possessions: "You may be sure we didn't pilfer 'em from your houses," (57) insulting him with the implication that he could never afford, "all dis sheet an' table clarf" (57)?

And then, as we all know, she houses Linda in her attic. This refutes Slavery to the fullest. She could be killed for this, but for some reason or another, her loyalty to God which beckons her loyalty to Slavery is shaking. She is seeing another way.

Maybe Aunt Martha's love and loyalty to God is a facade she created to fool the white men around her. She does seem clever enough to do this, but I'm still not so sure. Instead, I think she may just be realizing there's a way out, and it's not God's way at all.

letters in a chess match

I’m told that chess, like most games of strategy, are as much about manipulating your opponent’s psychology as they are about planning for contingencies-- protecting your most valuable pieces, controlling the center of the board, etc. When Linda Brent sends the letters ostensibly from New York and Boston to Dr. Flint, she adds another level to the game of wills the two have been playing. She’s become a kind of general with a network of people and resources in a war on the mind of Dr. Flint. Even with the downgrade in her standard of living, her active mind and daring allows us to see her becoming more of the free individual she wants to be. 
The letters I think are an interesting opening move. I could see Linda overplaying her hand here, not because I think Dr. Flint will find out of his own accord that the letters are false-- I think she knows how his arrogance leads him to underestimate her-- but because I don’t know how well she takes into account the pressure this puts on her troops, particularly her commanding officer-- Aunt Martha. Aunt Martha who has long been a member of the “accept what you get and hope for the best” school is now on the front lines in this scenario-- having to field the animosity of Dr. Flint’s inquiries and process the anxiety of Linda’s captivity in her home. Linda can’t share the burden in that way any longer, and I wonder if she has the presence of mind to notice when Aunt Martha reaches the breaking point, and to stop it before her collapse jeopardizes everything they’ve both worked for?

Possible Change of Heart

As I mentioned in class, I was very upset with Linda for not taking advantage of some of Dr. Flint's offers; specifically his offer to free Linda's children. I understand Linda had zero reason to trust Dr. Flint, but something about turning down his offers so easily kind of irked me. I at least felt she should have explored the options as much as possible, or at least seriously try and find a way to lock Flint into his offer.

But after putting myself into the time period, I think I've had a change of heart. (Caution: this will be super cynical)

Although I'm sure Linda really did love her children, the attitude people had towards their children in the 19th century is much, MUCH different than the attitude of today. Children were seen much more (somewhat) as a necessity than they do today. There wasn't much of an idea of adolescence, and children were a means of help for the family. So after considering a lot of points like that, I think I can understand better why it was easier for Linda to make the decisions she did. Children weren't seen as fragile as are they today, and I think Linda really did view them as being able to hold their own, so to speak.

Or maybe I'm just crazy. I don't know.

Conservation

I'm having trouble putting my thoughts together with this book, so my post this week is not going to be specifically directed toward Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. It is focused on the class in general, I suppose. I found a poem, and I wanted to share it with everyone.

I'm taking the Appalachian Culture class this semester, and one of the books we're reading is called Selu. It is a collection of Native American stories, poems, and folklore, and a lot of it can be applied to modern day events. When I came across this poem, I knew I had to share it. It's called Conservation.

An irreverent man

looks at earth

as he looks at woman.

"Feed me," he says.

"Receive my seed

and recreate me.

Soothe me

with cool waters.

Shelter me

then let me soar

as I will."

Earth says,

"Look again."

Woman says,

"I too have wings."

I feel like this relates to many of the novels we have read this semester. Men demand so much, and some women give in while others do not. Hooray for defying the patriarchy! :)

Event on Monday! Please read

Hey everyone! I forgot to say this in class, but I wanted to invite you all to an event this coming Monday. A student from Penn State will be here to talk to Shepherd students about women's issues and feminism in West Virginia. It's for a project she is doing. We will be meeting on Monday at 5pm in the Blue Gray Room (2nd floor of Student Center). If you're interested, please join us! And if you know anyone else who might be interested, please let them know. Thanks! Have a lovely day, and Happy Easter!

-Amy

It Takes Two

Oh, Aunt Martha. I am so upset for Linda when her grandmother tells her to, “Go away!” (48). Aunt Martha, don’t you think the poor girl has gone through enough! Aunt Martha seems a little judgmental and concerned with reputation (here is the same theme, again). Linda is so scared to tell her grandmother about the pregnancy. She is sees it as a “confession” (48). Perhaps, Linda doesn’t want disgrace to come to her family. In another example, when Linda wants to run away, Aunt Martha’s response is, “Nobody respects a mother who forsakes her children” (75). Among other reasons, Aunt Martha doesn’t want people talking poorly about her granddaughter. I am glad when Aunt Martha becomes the “good grandmother” again (49).

It interesting to note that, even today and especially with the “older generation,” pregnancy out of wedlock comes with a lot of judgment. To some people, it doesn’t matter what the girl’s circumstances are. If she is pregnant, she is a sinner. What irks me even more is that many people who judge unwed mothers only place fault on the woman! We constantly hear things like, “There SHE goes, getting HERself knocked up again.” Rarely, does anyone say negative things about a man having a baby before marriage. The same rings true in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. Aunt Martha’s first reaction is not anger toward the father. Instead, she directs all her judgment onto Linda, with phrases like, “You are a disgrace…” (48).

The woman with no name

One of the things I noticed that Harriet Jacobs does in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl is that she consistently chooses to elaborate on the personalities of harsh, cruel white characters in the book. Mr. and Mrs. Flint, for example, are discussed in such great detail that the reader becomes as paranoid as Jacobs, which simultaneously causes the reader to feel a sense of outrage and anger towards the town. I can see where Jacobs is going with this--she wants to ensure that the reader has little chance of defending slavery after reading the book. Unfortunately, however, I feel that this method of listing grievances is often too potent for the average reader and may cause some people to put down the book before considering Jacob's argument.

What I would really like to know, however, is why Jacobs diminishes the importance of the woman who decides to hide her in her house? The woman is taking a huge risk hiding Jacobs from Mr. Flint yet Jacobs not to provide the woman a name in the book. Instead, Jacob refers to her as one of "the ladies who were acquainted with my grandmother . . . and [had] always been very friendly to her" (80) and "the mistress" (81). Yes, the woman's family participates in slavery and is therefore wrong; however, at the same time, if it were not for this un-named woman's generosity, Jacobs would not have made it out of the situation alive. The mistress is the only character in the book thus far who does not have a name. The only reason I can think of for Jacobs to diminish the mistress' importance in planning her escape is to ensure that the reader focuses solely on the perils assocaited with her struggle for freedom.

Any thoughts about why this happens? I'm curious.

Horrors of Slavery

Quite a few of the passages in Incidents in the Life are similar to passages in Uncle Tom's Cabin. These books were written just about 10 years apart, with Incidents being the later book. Uncle Tom's Cabin is studied in school, but some in literary authority think that it is not well written enough or too sensationalistic to be included in the category of classic literature. Since Incidents is coming from the perspective of a slave, that might be the reason that it is viewed as being more realistic. As far as I am concerned the negative criticism that is given to Uncle Tom's Cabin is baseless considering that Stowe depicts the life of a slave as factually and with as much detail as Jacobs. Another criticism about Uncle Tom's Cabin is that it is Sentimental. Jacob's book is truthful, but I think it also verges on being Sentimental. Both books depict the lives of slaves and both were written to tell people about the truth of slavery. Any book that shares the horrors of slavery so that the average reader can see the truth should be praised.

How to be Alone

Ann's question about loneliness and being alone made me remember this lovely youtube video that makes me feel better about the things I allow myself to think when I am alone and no one is distracting me. I don't think it's very much related to Cranford, but it is related to everyone who has ever lived and has felt lonely and not okay with that. It's important to not only be okay with being alone sometimes, but to be ecstatic for it. I'm going to go take a walk by myself and think about my dad and how much I miss him and how lucky I am to have ever known him and be ecstatic about it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7X7sZzSXYs

Through the looking glass...

After reading Cranford, I start to think of evolution of culture, customs and societies. The evolution of Cranford is obvious, the female taking on independent and dominant roles. The ability to be both insider and outsider is gray and fuzzy. Mary Smith, however; is not truly a Cranford woman anymore. Mary has passed through the looking glass and is independent in a way the Cranford woman will never know. Mary is the narrator, yes, but she holds a insider decoder key no one else does. Mary also posses the ability to tease the Cranford horde, because she is no longer one of them. Mary's actions and opinions remind me of Skeeter from The Help.
Skeeter is both a insider and outsider. She is privileged to luncheons, gossip and fancy dress parties but is viewed under suspicion constantly. The fact that both Skeeter and Mary Smith have left their hometown and have returned to the horde yet both mock the horde and their customs shows the changing of the tide or times.

Not all good literature must be depressing

     I really enjoyed Cranford's lightheartedness and humor. There were sad parts, such as the death of Captain Brown and the heartbreak that Peter caused both his parents, yet Gaskell didn't overwhelm her readers with depression and angst with these passages. And then this got me thinking: Why are books that  are primarily full of gloom, despair, and suffering (think Dostoyevsky) more highly regarded and popular than lighthearted and easygoing novels such as Cranford?
    A former boyfriend of mine would have hated this book, claiming it to be dull and not very thought provoking. (The only female writer he's every really liked was Virginia Woolf, so go figure)
     Maybe it is because some readers believe that "simple" books illustrating the lives of simple people cannot possibly deal with dark themes such as death, love lost, and regret. I, however, think all three of these themes have been addressed and beautifully illustrated throughout this book.

Killing Us Softly response

I recently attended the Program Board event "Maybe She's Born With it... But More Likely It's Photoshop." All of four people showed up, myself included. That was a disappointment, of course; why weren't more people concerned about the misconstrued societal image of women? The silver lining, though, was that we were able to have a more intimate discussion revolving around our own personal feelings toward the media's unnatural portrayal of women. And did we ever.

We watched the first 30 minutes of Jean Kilbourne's documentary, "Killing Us Softly," which mainly dealt with photoshopping techniques, sexist advertisements (old and new!), disgusting/depressing statistics about plastic surgery, and was just about to unfold into body image issues within both sexes, male and female. I loved the documentary most for Killbourne's unabashed, steel ovaries, for declaring the dehumanization of women through the media. That is what it all boils down to.

Once a human being is dehumanized, she/he becomes an inanimate object created for use... not for thinking thoughts, feeling feelings, playing sports, reading books, going to work, etc. No, the person is no longer seen as a person... therefore, she/he is subject to violence. What type of culture are we setting up for ourselves, for little girls... for the little boys who are subconsciously being told that it's okay to hurt girls, to not think of them as equals?

Here's the documentary on youtube, in two parts. I strongly recommend watching it!

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ujySz-_NFQ
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4-1xCf3I7U&feature=relmfu

Final thought on Cranford

The ladies of Cranford resist love. They live in a world in which they try to isolate themselves from the problems that may happen in relationships. This is almost the opposite thing that the ladies of Middlemarch do. Quite a few of the relationship in Middlemarch end in some kind of a problem.  Maybe the ladies of Cranford have a point. Maybe life is better if they do not get hurt by love. What is better, a life of no pain or the pain that is sometimes caused by love? It seems like both of these choices are flawed, maybe love has to do with a compromise of both.

Silly Old Biddy

Ms. Pole is, as Jeannie puts it, "cray-cray!" While Cranford contains many elements of comedy, I find Ms. Pole to be the most ridiculous and amusing character in the book. Is it possible to have a comic relief character in a comedy? I love her descriptions of the robbers. As Mary Smith says, " I noticed that every time she went over the story some fresh trait of villainy was added to their appearance" (ch. X). The tall robber keeps getting taller; the other sprouted a hump on his shoulder; etc. Of course, many of us are inclined to embellish the details to a story to make it all the more impressive, but something about this older woman going on and on about these crazy details makes me laugh. The section with the ghosts is equally as amusing, especially since afterwards she acts like she wasn't scared to go through Darkness Lane.

Continued from class...

To return to the topic I brought up in, I'm curious as to how "Cranford" would have been received by the public if Cranford were occupied my mostly men, with a distaste for women. I instantly assume the book would be pegged as misogynistic, as it should be. Women have clearly always been treated terribly, especially in literature, and in my opinion deserve a book like "Cranford". I think the reason the book is seen as humorous in first place is because it's so out of the ordinary from the rest of the books written at that time. After so many years of being treated as inferior, I believe women deserve to be able to have a story where they are unquestionably superior.

But on that same note, does that not make "Cranford" quite sexist? Although I personally view the book as appropriate, does it not break the same rules as misogynistic book? From a equality stand point, one could make the argument that "Cranford" is just as responsible to stalling equal rights as some other book with a reverse plot line?

Furthermore..

Elaborating more on my discussion questions from Wednesday, I've come to a revelation. yes it took me the entire book to figure it out, but better late than never! This entire book is a satire, turning all the other books we've read this semester upside down.  Instead of women living in the shadow of a man's society, Cranford is a woman's town.  Any less men, and they could have painted everything pink.  Because men play such a small role in this setting, we as readers are able to see a more humorous side to how ladies conduct themselves. (seriously, eating an orange in private?) I think Ms. Gaskell was trying to poke fun at how serious people took such ridiculous social expectations seriously, like frivolous hats, for instance.  Again, I might be way off, or way late, but that's my theory.

Killing Us Softly

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending Program Board's screening and discussion of Jean Kilbourn's fourth film in the documentary series "Killing Us Softly: Advertizers' Images of Women." The original Killing Us Softly aired in 1979 and in Killing Us Softly 4, Jean Kilborne describes how even after 30 years of social activism-- which entails the birth of media studies and the women's movement--even after the discovery of sociological evidence linking violence against women, epidemic eating disorders, and the ever increasing number of plastic surgeries performed in the United States in the last ten years (it's an over 100% increase) the media's relationship with women, while in some ways improved, is still in dire need of help.
Like Katy's post detailed, the argument of Kilbourne's documentary is laid out in her pictures. Ads frequently turn women's bodies into passive objects, trivializing their personalities and desires, as well as those of men. However, unlike men, women are almost universally put into positions of vulnerability-- childlike poses, sexualized poses-- while men most often remain dominant, stable, and aloof. Their bodies are more often cut up. Like a pair of legs in a print ad to sell Budweiser. Or breasts for a videogame. I've noticed this "cutting up" thing at lot-- even in the editing of equally progressive documentaries, like MissRepresentation. The segment of the film talking about domestic violence I remember had image after image of half of a face, or a body with no head, bruised and disfigured. Now, maybe in doing that, the editors of MR are trying to make a progressive point in an edgy way, that the abuse itself objectified and dehumanized those women, but I remember feeling uneasy about that segment without being able to put my finger on why. Does more dismemberment make that condition better?
Finally, Killing Us Softly 4 isn't making an argument that advertising itself is bad or that capitalism and commercialism are bad, or inherently sexist. Kilbourne is making a much simpler argument: that these images don't exist in a vacuum. They effect everyone.It also isn't about saying "this is what men do to women" because obviously, women are doing this to women too. And women are doing it to themselves.

I love old ladies, but...

Maybe someone can help me, because I am having a little trouble understanding the women in this book. In general, I love old ladies-they are hilarious and don’t have a care in the world about what other people think about them. My grandma, for example, just says whatever is on her mind (no matter how rude or out of place the comment may be). The ladies in Cranford, however, seem obsessed with their appearances and reputations.  For example, when the ladies hear of Lady Glenmire’s visit, “each one rapidly review[s] her wardrobe” (68). In another example, Mrs. Matty has to practice how she will address Lady Glenmire. I love when she says, “I shall feel so foolish and hot, saying it the first time to lady Glenmire” (70). Mrs. Matty cares so much about how she will look in front of Lady Glenmire. I would rather have a woman character that doesn’t care how she looks!

Now that I think more about it, I suppose it comes down to the fact that these women are so preoccupied with being proper! Properness is why they care so much about what cap they are wearing and why they care if tea is served in a timely manner. I am still not sure if I am satisfied with this answer though. Again, I would rather have a character who didn’t care about being proper.

In addition to appearance, the role of gossip troubles me in this novel. Gossip seems to be a key theme to the Cranford women, as they “collect all the stray pieces of intelligence in the town” (82). What else are the women going to do, but sit and talk about Cranford? Their excessive discussions make me wonder about the role of stereotypes in Cranford.  In today’s society at least, women are very much stereotyped to be gossipy. Was the same true in Gaskell’s time? If so, is Gaskell reinforcing this womanly stereotype through her women characters?  Or is Gaskell pointing out the absurdity of gossiping women? I suppose I am just not sure what Gaskell’s point is with these old women. I love them, but I do wish they would do something more than just have parties.

03/28 Discussion Questions

1. Was Peter flogged publicly by his father for dressing as a woman, for disrespecting Deborah's virginal sanctity, or a bit of both? If it's the first, what's so bad about dressing as a woman? What does this say about the male role in Cranford? Is it better, held to more prestige? We've seen that women are allowed to wear hats, as are men. It seems fishy.

Also, this is the image I mentioned today in class:
https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/I-m-not-ashamed-to-dress-like-a-woman.jpeg

(So, it was Iggy Pop, not the lead singer of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Oops!)

 2. Is the male role within Cranford defined by everything that women are not, mainly being vulgar?

Questions for whatever day today is.

1. Is there more to cross dressing in this section than boyish tomfoolery? Are Peter and the robbers of Ms. Pole's imagination more of a threat to Cranford society than we realize?

2. What's up wit dah CAPZ? Post to follow.

Questions 3/28

1. How are the stereotypical gender roles shown in this novel? Which characters exemplify these roles and which ones deviate from them?

2. There is a ridiculous amount of gossip in this book. Why do you think that gossip is such a big part of the story?

Questions for 3/28

1) The Ladies in this book are determined to hide any action that might seem "inappropriate" to the public and gossip ALOT.  At what point is it considered "inappropriate" to infringe your opinions on other people?  Why is peeling an orange considered taboo, but talking about other people's lives not?

2)This book seems to take a lighthearted stance on gossip and how small towns seems to involve themselves in everyone's lives. Would this be the Author's way of poking fun at how meddlesome women/everyone get when they are without jobs?  Is this her way of showing how detrimental women can be to each other when they have too much free time?

Questions for 3/28

1. How far have women come in their freedom to express things to each other? I feel like the characters in Cranford refuse to convey their true feelings; why is that?

2. How much has the female view of men changed? Or vice versa? The women (and few men) of Cranford seem to have settled into their opinions.

Questions for 3/28

1. Wow! These women love to gossip. Do you think Gaskell is drawing attention to the cattiness of idle women or the cattiness inherent to small towns? Or both? Neither?

2. Do you think if the ladies of Cranford had something more productive to do, that they would gossip less?