Women's Social Revolution

A Blogs@Baruch site

Archives for December 2013

An End to a Blog but not an End to the Revolution

It’s a shame to say that the end of this blog has come.

I’m going to be be completely honest for this epitaph. I originally started this blog as a project for my English class in college. We had to pick a theme to write about and were given almost complete freedom in deciding the medium of our writing. One of the suggestions was a blog; seeing as how I’ve never made a blog a before and had been interested in doing so for a while, the choice was clear. It was also incredibly easy to choose the theme to discuss. As I’ve explained before, the feminist movement has always been a topic of special interest for me, and many of the works we read had really impressive and complex female characters.

At first the blog was just an assignment, but as I started writing more, it became something pretty interesting and fun for me as well. I also became much more devoted to the message of the Women’s Social Revolution. I truly believe that the Revolution has been going on since the start of modern civilization. No one enjoys or wants to be in a lower standing than another, especially if undeserved.

As we can see from the works we’ve addressed, the Revolution has existed as far back as the 1600’s. There is Tartuffe, a work in which the two strongest characters are female. Even in a completely patriarchal society, women and men were still trying to speak up against the unfair norms of society. Perhaps it was a result of the enlightenment that Moliere began thinking that women were intelligent and rational beings as well. Either way, we have evidence to support the existence of the Revolution as far back as the 17th century. Jump to the current age, and the Revolution exists the shadows into the light – literally a spotlight. It no longer has to be hidden between the lines of text, it is now openly discussed by the role models and leaders of society. The best example that’s been discussed on this blog is Jennifer Lawrence and Merida, from “Brave”. Both of them are strong bow-wielding lead characters of major movies targeting the youth of today. And even outside of film, Jennifer explicitly speaks about the unfair views of women and girls in this age, especially regarding appearance.

We – society – has made large and clear steps towards equality, but it isn’t enough. we are still far from our final destination. There are still many double standards and unrealistic and patronizing views of women. To finish our journey, we need to make these socially accepted prejudices salient. Unless we make them stand out, we can’t get people to notice what is right under their noses. Without acknowledgement of the wrong, progress can’t be made. So I ask you to start noticing these prejudices surrounding you and rejecting them aloud. Draw attention to them and remove them from your circle of friends. Rather than targeting one single socio-political prejudice at a time, we can get rid of the source by doing this.

With the semester ending, so too will this blog. I just ask that you remember what you’ve read.

Keep fighting. The Revolution continues.

Does Growing Up in the System Equate to Emotional Trauma?

This post is going to be a bit different from usual. I want to talk more about a specific type of character, so the social revolution won’t be the main topic of this post. I am honestly wondering why characters, both male and female, end up having serious love and trust issues after being put into the system. I wonder this, because there is almost no variation between characters with a back-story of being raised in an orphanage.

The two main characters from Toni Morrison’s Recitatif, Roberta and Twyla, are just two examples. In this story we get to see them while they are living in the orphanage and after they’ve grown up. These girls, after growing up, meet frequently, but rather than acting like normal friends and talking about happy things, they get stuck on this traumatic event that occurred in their past. They keep going back to their memories of when an old lady working at the house, Maggie, was pushed down and attacked by other girls. Every time one of these conversations start up, the women become, suddenly, very sullen, afraid, and quite seemingly depressed. They seem to forget all the amazing things in their life and become trapped in that single memory.

This trauma seems to really stick out in Roberta’s case as well. She marries into money and lives an easy life, but it’s obvious she is not happy. It’s really easy to psycho-analyze her, because she is the “classic” case of a child from the system. She is avoidant of love as a result of abandonment, and is very materialistic because of all the hopes that were crushed during her childhood. She can’t trust anyone properly, except Twyla, because she was betrayed too often, and because she doesn’t think anyone can properly understand the pain she went through. It’s the paradigm case we see so often in system children – fictional characters at least.

To bring it back to the topic of the blog, I wanted to discuss this character archetype because of the difference between male and female characters in this kind of setting. As we have already seen, female characters have this kind of weakness brought out of them as result of their time in the system. Men, on the other hand, are portrayed as these violent and powerful characters – the bad boy. It’s strange that growing up in the same conditions would result in completely opposite responses, with the only difference being sex. It’s also strange to me that we don’t see many male orphan characters (I am excluding the Orphaned Heroes that are found so often in ancient myths). Perhaps it is my own fault that I haven’t seen many, but besides 1 or 2 movies with the lead being a male, every other orphaned character I have seen or read has been female.

It makes me wonder if this is the case because society is just so much more accustomed to seeing women in weaker states. Is it because it’s normal to see them on a lower rung of the social ladder, where they have to constantly and consciously wonder what type of person they are and whether they can trust others. I have only seen one exception to this rule of thumb so far. Her name is Emily, from “Once Upon a Time”. She is the main character of the television series, and from the very first episode we see a character that seems to fit the male mold of orphans more. To put it simply, she seemed badass. She was this very strong and independent character, who very much seemed like the lone wolf type. However as the series progressed we see this regression back into the wavering and weak-willed female character. After finding her son, who was also put into the system, she starts having these doubts about love. Soon she loses her initiative and seems to be more pulled along with the story than creating it. There are even multiple episodes devoted to figuring out the trauma she experienced as a child, and these episodes parallel very closely with the conversations between Twyla and Roberta.
It just pains me a little to see such a huge gap in personality in male and female characters, who share back-stories. It really does make it seem that Society is underestimating a women’s ability to handle her emotions and move on.

Why Can’t We All Be Happy?

I was on the train today, and something really interesting happened. There was this one person acting in a very strange manner, which is pretty normal for a NYC subway ride, but the interesting event is what came as a result of the peculiar behavior. After observing the strange man or woman (I could not tell if she was a she or a he dressed as a she), I turned around and looked around. I made eye contact with everyone in my immediate vicinity and noticed that they were doing the same thing with their neighbors. Suddenly everyone started smiling with a few giggles slipping through their mouths as well. Somehow, everyone in that half of the subway car had formed a bond in that moment; we all became this one group laughing at our own inside joke.

It was during this moment of gaiety that I noticed everyone treating each other exactly the same. The people who were eyeing others with suspicion, those trying to avoid contact with others, and the people who had their noses stuck in the air judging their neighbors all became equals. In that moment everyone shared a mutual trust in each other and were blind to race, gender, style, and class. All we could see was each others’ smiling faces and the peculiar behavior of the one person having a slumber party with him/herself.

After the moment had passed, everyone had returned to their original behavior. Just as fast as we became friends, we were strangers again; we were afraid of each other, judging each other, and not wanting to do with one another. It made me wonder why this happened. The only explanation I could think of is: happiness. Perhaps, because in that moment we were all elevated to a higher level of joy, we could relax and ignore our unconscious stereotypes, and truly see each other for who we are. Once that joy faded, our stereotypes came back. Perhaps happiness is the answer; if everyone could simply be happy with their lives they wouldn’t need to instinctively judge each other based off sex, gender, race, or anything else. Not only would the women’s revolution end, but every other civil rights movement would too.

So why can’t we be a little bit happier. I mean, we all live in a first world country, with a pretty great standard of living. So why not stop for a moment and think of all the good things in your life, instead of letting the tiny percentage of bad moments define and control your life. You’ll feel better and you’d be taking a step into a more equal society.

In Camera and Under the Spotlight

In Nawal El Saadawi’s “In Camera” the main character, Leila, is imprisoned for sullying the King’s name, and during her imprisonment is horribly wounded and raped. During the entire story she is put under this spotlight and becomes the center of attention because of the trial she must face for insulting the King. Leila is obviously a very strong and woman, especially considering she was raised in a society, in which women were not to take part in politics, and were simply meant to be the housekeepers. However, I want to move the focus and put the spotlight on her parents instead, specifically her mother.

There is one instance that really piqued my interest. Leila’s mother says. “What’s politics got to do with you? You’re not a man. Girls your age think only about marriage … Politics is a dirty game which only ineffectual men play.” From this quote, it’s quite obvious that women are not allowed in the public sphere of society; only men are accepted into the world of politics. Women, apparently, should only be thinking about marriage and creating the family. It is also very obvious that the mother believes in the social norms, considering she is bringing it up like any nagging mother would. However, she also calls the men in politics ineffectual, paralleling Leila’s labeling the King as stupid. This made me wonder, “Why is it that this woman can so easily see that a purely male government is not working, yet cannot seem to accept or want the movement of women out of the private into the public sector?”

I tried answering my own question, but all I could think of is: Perhaps the social beliefs and norms are just too deeply ingrained. It might seem obvious that the government is filled with idiots, but because it has always been that way, she cannot even see the possibility of women taking part in it. But then again she did warn Leila that women are not to take part in politics, and just by mentioning Leila’s role in political activism suggests that she can see women becoming a new voice and playing their own roles. Then the question is, why doesn’t she want it to happen. Is it because of the natural tendency to keep with the norm and stave off change to reduce uncertainty? Or is she, perhaps, suggesting something stronger, that nothing will change even with the introduction of women into the political system?

Besides this ambiguous voice she has in regards to political activism, she is an interesting character because of her bond with Leila. She feels the pains Leila experiences as her own. It’s obvious that she means it as well, and isn’t just saying it to help comfort Leila; we are given a very haggard description of the mother during a visit with Leila. This reaction is incredibly different from Leila’s father. The father only sees Leila as a stepping stone to fame. He suddenly notices that Leila is being regarded as a hero for raising her voice against the incompetent King, and the father only hopes to use her as a way to enter the spotlight as well. It’s similar to how some parents force their children into pageants or becoming actors – Billy Ray Cyrus and Miley Cyrus.

The father treats Leila as a means to an end, while the mother treats her as an end – as humans should treat other humans. This contrasting perception of their daughter suggests that men are simply greedy and women can only really trust women. It goes back to the idea of sisterhood, although in this case it is mother and daughter. Only women seem capable of treating everyone as equals, and it is simply impossible for men to do so at the time. Perhaps Saadawi is trying to say that men have spent too long on their social high horse  and are now incapable of humbling themselves enough to even empathize with others – not even their own children.

Looking Back on A Bewitching Tale

I wanted to talk about a horror story written By Akinari in the 17th century. I know its quite a jump back, but it’s one of my favorite stories that I read for class this year. The question of who is the bewitched and who is the bewitch-er makes it really interesting to me.

In “Bewitched” the two main characters are a woman named Manago and a man named Toyo-o. Manago is actually a youkai (a type of spirit or monster), a white snake youkai to be precise. It might be because I don’t believe in the Shinto beliefs as deeply as Japanese people did at the time, that I don’t find the story scary. This lack of fear allows me to analyze the characters in a way different than those before me.

At the start of the story It is Toyo-o who initiates the interaction with Manago. All she did was be seen; there is no evidence to suggest that she is bewitching him in that way. However, Toyo-o does do his utmost to keep her near and creates an excuse to see her again. He is the one consciously putting in effort to bewitch Manago, and it works. Then when Manago reveals her true self she is rejected, and she has to chase him across the land and ingratiate herself to his family to be accepted. They even spend a year together, during which Manago is the perfect and beautiful wife.

Without a single shred of evidence to suggest Manago’s intentions are ill, he rejects her again. He does this because some stranger tells him that she is a dangerous being. As a result he flees again and ends up marrying another girl. Skip ahead and we find out Manago is a white snake capable of killing humans with her breath. Keep in mind that she has always been able to do this, but she chose not to until her love begins rejecting her. In the end Toyo-o receives the help of another to seal her away.

This makes me think that the one who is truly bewitched by love is Manago. She is driven mad by her love for Toyo-o and his rejection of her. He, on the other hand, seems perfectly rational and safe. In fact he gets away scott-free for breaking off a relationship with a perfect woman and causing a mess for his family and his second wife’s family. It even says at the end that he lives a perfectly healthy life after the ordeal. I associated this with the fact that the white snake symbolizes longevity and health in Japanese culture.

Basically the story made me think that Manago was bewitched by Toyo-o and fell deeply in love with him. However, his irrational hate for her drove her to haunting him and killing a man. In the end she never did stop loving him; I interpreted his healthy life as her (being a white snake youkai) giving him his protection. I also want to note that the word youkai is a slightly neutral term; it is a term used to describe all manner of spirits (there are good and bad spirits). It just made me think of how unfair society was and is towards women compared to men. After all, a woman devoted to her husband was punished with death, while the unfaithful man gets away better off than he started.

In this photo you can see a small shrine for a white snake god or spirit. These can be found in many homes or in larger shrines (run by Shinto priests) ; they are use to pray to and lay offerings in hopes of receiving a blessing of good health.