codine anyone?

so Julia Kristeva thinks that men commit suicide to prove that they are God, or equal to him. On the other she says, women commit suicide to dissolve God. God represents the male repression of their lives and power as women.

thoughts?

pro-choice?

so today was pro-life/pro-choice day today, and I must say, I enjoyed myself immensely. You might have seen me dear reader, with my lovely wwmsd? (what would Margaret Sanger do?) t-shirt running around school today. I was most pleased though, with the amount of boys who saw our shirts and lauded us. It was proof to me that there are intelligent, well-informed males out there. If there is any one thing in the world that I hate it is pro-life boys. I mean, they can't get pregnant! They will never have to make that decision, it isn't their futures and college educations and social alienation at stake! I think that any man who has at least a teaspoon of respect for women should recognize that it is HER decision. It was pointed out to me today that pro-choice does not mean anti-life and I think that that is really important to keep in mind. Even if an individual may disagree with abortion, for religious reasons or otherwise, they HAVE to recognize a woman's right to choose in our democratic secular society. Here are some lovely points from the day:

"keep your rosaries away from my ovaries!" - crude but catchy and too the point

"77% of pro-life leaders are men, 100% will never get pregnant" - very true

"pro-choice does not mean anti-life" - food for pro-lifer thought

The oddest thing was that both my parents are pro-life and I just couldn't bring myself to argue with them. I think that it is more filial piety than fear or wishy-washy feelings on my part. I just hope that one day the idea of pro-choice isn't just some radical thought us crazy kids are bitching about.

-thine in the bonds of womanhood :-)

"Jason, you need a filter!"

So I feel that I didn't truly do Virginia Woolf justice earlier, as I won't know. But what I really want to make a point of his how To The Lighthouse provides a very specific filter of feminism within the many intricate subsets of feminisms, with which to look at any later or earlier literary works by women.

So I Told Jon I Would Write a New Entry...

Sorry it's been so long guys! I just really haven't felt inspired lately. I did however, just finish A Room of One's Own, by Virginia Woolf and can write about that. It will be short though, as I want to reread the book and think about it more.

Virginia Woolf says that in order to be a truly genius writer you must be sexless, that is your prose must not be too masculine, or too feminine. Of her male predecessors and contemporaries she feels that perhaps Shakespeare was androgynous, and Keats and Stern and Lamb and Cooper. Milton had too much male, as did Wordsworth and Tolstoi.

Woolf however, praises Emily Bronte and Jane Austen earlier in her essay, for their ability to "write as women write" not as men write. She states: "what genius, what integrity it must have required to face all that criticism, in the midst of that purely patriarchal society, to hold fast to the thing as they saw it without shrinking"(74). Jane Austen was an amazing writer because she developed a writing style all her own, instead of imitating men writers.

One of the things Woolf finds particularly interesting is how men depict women in their works. Women in Shakespeare, in classical works, in contemporary literature are often pictured as being very strong, but very static. They are never as developed as the males; never in a male work do you hear the lines "Chloe liked Olivia" like in Mary Carmichael's novel. Woolf points out that Octavia never complimented Cleopatra on her hair (i found this funny).

All of this made me wonder, how exactly ARE woman portrayed in all my favorite books by men? This was actually quite a sad fault. Fitzgerald fails immediately, all of his women are the femme fatals of the males, they are over-emotional, they are needy or cold or even insane. It is always the male that saves the female. Dr. Diver dating his weak, crazed patient? Think of every female in This side of Paradise, all overemotional. The worst would be that girl in The Last Tycoon who does everything just for the purpose of have sex with some guy, when she slept she was resting for sex, when she ate it was fuel for sex. Thank You Virginia Woolf, you ruined my favorite author for me. haha, oh well.

tired now, more later

work (this isn't about feminism)

Just a thought:

Why do people feel the need to hum in public? I don't really feel the need to hear your mumbled versions of Wonderwall and Orange Crush while I am ringing out your groceries.

please stop!

dog

Dog was confused. He was lost and scared. He knew that man loved him, man needed him. So why did man bring him into the middle of the woods. Why did man put on his funny hat and start the oily smelling car and put dog in the back seat and drive to a strange smelling place and take dog into the woods. Why did man undo dog’s leash? Why was man telling dog to run, to go? Why did man look so scared, so uncomfortable? Dog could smell man’s fear. Man looked at dog. He felt bad for what he was doing, but he knew he had to do it. Man knew that dog wouldn’t understand, that dog would fight man’s decision. Man knew that dog would be okay on his own. Man knew that he had trained dog well, but dog was self reliant, dog was stronger. Maybe dog was even stronger than man. Man was still uneasy. Man was filled with an emotion not unlike guilt. But it wasn’t guilt, man was incapable of guilt, guilt was for the weak, for dog. Man thought of all the good times he had with dog, how dog had been loyal and good. But man was logical, man looked toward the future. Man knew that dog would only be good for so long, so man decided to let dog go before it came to that. Dog looked at man with his big eyes, dog looked sad. Man was worried by this, but not for long. Man knew dog wasn’t capable of sadness. Dog wasn’t as advanced as man, wasn’t as complex. Man put on his gloves. Man lit a cigarette. Man walked away, to his oil smelling car.

why do i drink so much pomegranate juice?

So I was in the 'Library' today trying to find some sort of scholarly article to follow up my close reading/strange rant about Fanny Fern the other day, when I stumbled across a dissertation abstract (thank you UConn libraries for never giving you what you need). Well, the search wasn't helped by the fact that I was shoved into a dingy corner up to my elbows in books and freshman, trying to think over Paul's assignment editor shouting at him about the mouths of babes. ANYWAYS Mariasa Mettifogo of the University of California, why does your dissertation cost $41.00 (well, it is the norm, but it still bothers me).

In her dissertation Mettifogo is describing the: "discontinuities between feminist theory and practice in Mary Wollstonecraft, George Sand and Neera". Now there is one particular point that Mettifogo makes that I would like to expand upon. She discusses Sand's desire for a "new, woman-centered order of representation capable of legitimizing female creativity and subjectivity". This point reminded me of an Elizabeth Grosz article "Contemporary Theories of Power and Subjectivity". In the article Grosz discusses several early male theorists and their impact on feminist thought. She discuses Althusser in particular and how he, "shift[ed] the status of experience so that is is no longer guaranteed a face value but acts as a symptom of a deeper underlying or latent structure. His claim is not that of Descartes, that our experiences deceive us, but rather, that we must learn how to "read" them". Because of this, Althusser legitimatized women's experiences and enabled them to be taken seriously. It is this that Sand was trying to work against, she wanted to separate the female experience from any male "support".

In modern times, feminism has so many fine schisms, much like the early communism/humanism splits, just now the differences are much more acute. Why don't we as women unite under that universal banner of equality? Like Katie mentioned, I've met so many people who say, "I believe in human rights but I'm not a feminist." I think that a lot of women I know don't even acknowledge that there still is a gap between women and men in society. I mean, most people will acknowledge that in a lot of societies women are inferior whether it's wearing a burqa in Saudi Arabia or being abandoned by her husband in sub Saharan Africa after contracting AIDs (most likely from him) but certainly not in OUR society.

hmmm loosing focus/falling asleep. More later?

this is just to say

the school blocked the United Nations but not my blog!
yessss!

new post tomorrow maybe? no inspiration today. Just everyone should read Pride and Prejudice!

look at that fanny!

gahhhh I love Fanny Fern! I was reading some excerpts of her work in the Heath Antholoogy of American Literature and was so impressed I bought Ruth Hall for $3.95 at a used bookstore in North Hampton (visiting Smith whoo-hoo). So I haven't started Ruth Hall yet because h'm too into Pride and Prejudice, but I will share with you, dear reader some of the best bits of what I have read so far.

My favorite by far was "A Law More Nice Than Just", which was published in 1858; which describes Fern's dislike for the conventions of womens dress. She is outraged to hear that: "Emma Wilson was arrested yesterday for wearing man's apparel" (2105). Fern questions why this should be an offense, and what the problem is all about. She then goes on to describe the perils of women's clothing, especially when it has been raining which she describes as: "the thraldom of taking her daily walk through three weeks' rain, with skirts to hold up, and an umbrella to hold down...and all the time in fright lest...her calves should become visible to one of those rainy-day philanthropists who are interested in the public study of female anatomy" (2106, and yes I realize that quote was way to long). Fern not only recognizes the difficulty of managing oneself with petticoats and an umbrella to look after, while also avoiding puddles but she points out the "rainy-day philanthropist," perhaps an early ancestor of the whistling construction worker. These observations bring out some obvious troubles of women's attire, and also some that a modern reader would not immediately think of. Fern's husband however, is testament to the small minority of men in the time who also recognized the absurd limitations of women's attire. When Fern tells him she wishes to: "put on a suit of clothes and tramp with you" he playfully responds: "you are...only saucy on paper" (2106). While he seems to find the situation more humorous than grave (being the one who doesn't have to drag 8 pounds of cloth around his waist all day) he supports her efforts. After a 'guffaw'- filled walk Fern relishes in the freedom of men's clothing and issues a warning to any "Miss Nancy" who might not approve, she declares: "they who choose may crook there backs at for fashion, and then send for the doctor to straighten them; I prefer to patronize the shoe make and tailor. I've as good a right to preserve the healthy body God gave me, as if I were not a woman" (2107). So not only does Fern see walking in men's clothing as her womanly duty to stay healthy, but as an economic duty to support the tailor and shoemaker!

I think that this short little excerpt is still applicable today. I mean, we certainly don't have to wear petticoats anymore and women have been showing their ankles for years, but are we still barred by gender standards in fashion. The fashion industry has set a precedent for women's appearances that no normal human being can possibly live up to! Shows like America's Next Top Model and The Agency only help enforce the belief that to be beautiful you have to be tall and skinny. I know plenty of beautiful woman, none of which are a size 2. But this standard, oddly enough doesn't apply to boys. I think I will hurl if I get dressed up for one more event, in makeup and heels and a dress I need to constantly readjust, and see some boy stroll in wearing loafers, khakis and his dad's tie. How is this fair? Unless we primp ourselves for hours and labor over our outfits people assume we are sloppy, boys avoid you like the plague, and even girls criticize you! Remember the "power suits" of the 80s with the giant shoulder pads (more masculine!). Remember Kate Moss looking like she hadn't eaten in a year? We still aren't free to "stroll about" in "mens trousers" the styles have changed but the standards really haven't.

isn't she brilliant? more later!

What is Feminism?

What is feminism? This question has haunted me for the past few weeks. I have thought about it driving through my rural new england town, sitting on the floor of the UConn library surrounded by bell hook's books (haha), getting funny looks from college students. I've even thought about it when looking at my friends, and how we as modern (young) women act around men. Now, I've always felt that any woman who breathes should be a feminist; but I've never really studied feminism. So my inspiration to do this little "project" came last year when my English teacher informed me that I could sign up for Great Women Writers, but the class was always dropped because no one signs up. I later hit an even lower point sitting on my bed and looking at my overflowing bookshelf; over a hundred books and all by men.

Because of all this I present to you my reading journal for my independent study: Feminist Literature (a study of feminist literature and theory from Charlotte Bronte to the Present Day)

enjoy!