I have to say that before this semester my definition of a feminist was your typical man hating, short haired, masculine, angry woman. And I would have never considered myself a feminist. I grew up in a family with extremely independent, intelligent, determined women who I would never have really seen as feminists, because they didnt fit the stereotypical physical criteria. I've learned that I was completely blindsided, by media and stereotyping, at what a feminism really is.
Through personal experiences which have made me stronger, enrolling in this class, and also by the influences of professors I do understand feminism and feminist theory. The basis of feminism and feminist theory is viewing sex/gender and race as equals and as Barry states raising the "question of whether men and women are 'essentially' different". Personally men and women no matter what race they may be, we are all equal and should be viewed as such.
Krouse brought up the television show 'Sex in the City' in her post and how these women are to be viewed as independent sassy women but however they are obsessed with shoe's. I find that to be the downfall of the shoe and how these women are potreyed (I'm not very familiar with the show but I know the jist of the plot). But is the writer a man or woman? Does he/she mean to make these women strong but still remain to find them typically fashion, designer label, shoe obsessed women? I find myself reading and viewing movies/televsion from a feminist perspective asking "now why does she have to somehow fit into that typical feminine/girly mold". And thats what the struggle we, women, are faced with which is to show this 'male dominated' society that we are cabable of doing exactly what they do through both media and text.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting post...I never watched a sex and the city show, but I'm sure it would prove to be really cool if it was anaylized from a 3rd wave feminist perspective.
To respond to your question about S&TC, well, it's complicated. The writer on whose book the show was based is a woman, Candace Bushnell. The creator of the show, however, is a gay man (the same guy who created Melrose Place). The lead writer of the show is a gay man. The staff of writers, however, includes women.
In other words, I'm not entirely certain that figuring out the intention of an author (if you can even figure out who one author is, even before you add in the complication of what the actors on the show bring to their roles) makes a difference as to determining how the show operates as a cultural artifact. I just finished teaching an episode of the show in my Literature and Sexuality Class called "The Rabbit and the Hare" in which Charlotte becomes obsessed with her new vibrator and her friends stage an intervention. Ultimately, this policing of female sexuality - and specifically female sexuality that isn't bestowed upon a woman by a man - is just an updated version of D.H. Lawrence's tirades against clitoral orgasms in Lady Chatterley's Lover. I suppose all of this is to say I'm not certain that an author "meaning well" somehow accounts for representations that turn independence into an accessory and which reinforce phallic power. (Ok, I'm probably being a bit more hyperbolic than I should be here, but you see what I'm saying.)
At any rate, thank you for your thoughtful response to the post! I enjoyed reading it!
Post a Comment