REACTION PAPER:
Read through the following articles, and respond in a reaction paper. Your goal is to: demonstrate understanding of the concepts, analyze and evaluate the concepts, and apply the concepts to our current reading unit (looking at women in literature). The composition should not simply summarize the articles. Submit to the blog by 5PM on Sunday, April 6th! MLA format; 250-500 words.
"The Feminine Mystique" in Friedan's opinion, delineates "a cliche of our own time." I thought it was interesting how as a woman herself, she believes that women fight for their rights, but in the end, doesn't even know why they fought for it. What especially got my attention was the absence of popular culture while Friedan wrote this book. Nowadays, we are more or less reminded and persuaded by the popular culture through television, movie, books, and celebrities. Friedan's take on feminism was different from the conventional outlook of her time, because she went against the public ideals and conveyed to the society how advertisements made housework sound important. Overall, I believe her approach on feminism is important because it served as a wake up call to the women in that era to not be fooled by the public. In "No Place for a Woman," The good woman remains passive, nurturing, and nonthreatening, and her life seems almost "too good to last." As Place depicts the film as "an unlikely choice for the hero and sees the traditional family as an unsafe and undesirable refuge from the world outside." Ultimately, these are ideas, in my perspective are revolutionary in comparison to the social standards set for females during that era of time. The exposure of female fatale in the film also serves as a reminder of the shallow role of women in society. Finally, Paglia claims that "without strong men as models to either embrace or to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women." I find this perspective very single minded because it filters women through men, and it sort of accuses women for not having their individuality. In conclusion, I believe women do in fact struggle with the true concept of feminism, and will continue to be a psychological obstacle. But, the society must except that there are strengths and weaknesses for both men and women, and they shouldn't judge men or women based on one aspect of their characteristics.
ReplyDelete"The Feminine Mystique" includes many ideas about how women are wrongly portrayed by men. These ideas hold true, yet there are always critics who blame it on the women, stating that women have the right to fight back, but instead they succumb to the roles of women. Ultimately, I believe that in both cases, fighting back and succumbing to the norms, women are still wrongly interpreted by the world. If women are left to fit the role of a “happy housewife,” then there are comments regarding their inability to fight for their own happiness. However, once the woman takes the stand, she is criticized for her selfish and awful behavior. Therefore, I believe there is no automatic solution to this problem, yet certain steps being taken do help people come to the realization of the women’s unhappiness. Also, a key factor of how women are seen is marriage. Marriage may be the unifying tie between two individuals, yet it also causes destruction to the image it provides for a woman. I think that marriage exposes a woman’s frailty and unhappiness by forcing her into the typical role as wife, mother, and caregiver. If the woman is unhappy with her role, there is no alternative to her situation without other consequences. The woman can either take on the role of the “good woman” or the “femme fatale.” I think the role as the femme fatale resonates clearly with the literature we have read in class. The women in the literature all start out as the “good woman,” but eventually come to realize how lowly they were put in society and the unworthiness their peers felt towards them. Specifically with Medea, I think she is the perfect representation of the femme fatale because of the turning point in her behavior as a wife. Medea is trapped in a situation she doesn’t think she can escape without revenge or death to her peers. Although her actions may not be completely justified, I feel like her peers should also have a more understanding view of her situation. Overall, the femme fatale may be wrong in her actions and characteristics, but being a femme fatale strengthens an individual by allowing oneself to fully live according to their own standards.
ReplyDeleteOne of Ms. Paglia’s severe criticisms is that feminism has been taken, corrupted, and skewed into what she called a bourgeois convention. In reading the Wall street article, I recalled Miller’s concept. When she related the sports commentators and the lack of recess to war and her ideas about college, it was something I’ve never thought about before. And I think, likely, many young people haven’t either which could perhaps have led to the interpretations Ms. Paglia criticize. A lot of it is the fact that we now live in such different times and there is such a huge emphasis placed on education now. As she was quoted in the New York Times article, “ ‘Rights’ is a dull sound to people who hae grown up after they have been won” a lot just comes from changing times. Nowadays the concept of feminism is viewed through what seems to be important and relevant in society nowadays. She was extremely influential and significant in her times when everyone shared her past and point of view. But now many of those people have retired and she’s left trying to reconcile her background with modern ideals and of the new workforce who haven’t experienced life before the advent of women rights and the like. Everyone is simply reading her ideas through their own interpretations and backgrounds which has led to such different readings of the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI think the opposite interpretation suggested in “The Good Woman” article is very evident in the Ipsen plays we’ve read. Nora, in particular, finds herself trapped in the role she is expected to fulfill and her ultimate escape to independence is a result of Torvald’s dismissive coddling of her as his little wife. Everything seemed idle in the beginning with Torvald at the head and Nora twitting after him but this is quickly undermined as the play progresses. In Hedda Gabler, we see not only her in a dysfunctional relationships, but all those around her as well, another aspect film noir discussed in the article.
The femme fatale character, especially in film noir, seems to base her actions as a response to the restrictions that men place on women. By reacting to societal norms and the conventional/expected roles of women, the femme fatale tends to withhold the negative characteristics of greed, dishonesty, and disloyalty, as well as the penchant for committing murder. Film noir however, seems to handle the overall femme fatale character with the tendency to give her punishment (unhappy ending, death, etc.) as a result of her struggle for independence and power through manipulation and destruction. Though some films such as “Out of the Past” hints at the questionability of the traditional male-female relationship (Kathie and Whit) and the power dynamic between them, it still seems as if Kathie, the femme fatale, is ultimately regarded as villainous and unworthy of being redeemed, and is given the unfavorable ending (death).
ReplyDeleteI feel that the whole idea of the femme fatale entails a lot of haziness and uncertainty on how a woman should act and be. A femme fatale uses her seductiveness to lure her admirers and lovers into situations that she can control in her hands; in a way this is how the femme fatale becomes empowered and independent as a woman. Yet the very fact that she uses her sexual appeal to get what she wants goes against what was expected of women in the 19th and 20th century, which was to stay loyal to her man no matter what may come between their relationship. I would imagine that femme fatales of film noir are written in a way that doesn’t necessarily let viewers clearly know what to think of the femme fatale character except that her actions and behaviors were exciting and powerful (for a female), yet atrocious, therefore her needing to be punished in the end. I think this perception is somewhat still present in modern day, because as more roles and character types are being written and shown for female characters, we as the audience are sometimes still conflicted about how we want to see females portrayed. For some, certain female characters are seen to still be continuously based on the expectations of mainstream society, such as for sexual objectification, existing only as the romantic counterpart/desire for the male lead, or merely being the motherly caretaker of the household. I think it is more likely that female roles and characters will be further explored and expressed in literature, film, and other types of media because both males and females are becoming aware of the imbalance of women’s representation in society.
Though Femme fatale in Film noir is usually associated with 40s and 50s fiction films, there are also some obvious pieces of evidence that it existed both before and after its time. Throughout these articles, the idea of feminism or even the early forms of it as portrayed in Film noir carries the fact that both genders should not be to seek domination of each other, as it is what most modern feminists might believe, rather to pursue equality among themselves.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning of the ‘three waves of feminism’, certain qualities of feminism are found in Ibsen’s plays such as A Doll’s House and Hedda Gabbler. Though Ibsen’s intent of these books delimited only to the philosophies of realism, it was still a divergent from the mainstream European thought of a morally strict family life. Oddly enough, one could argue the two plays happen to have a woman as the main character who faced the question of independence and a form of aptitude.
Since creation of the Feminine Mystique, many marked it as the as the ‘second wave of feminism’ and the expansion of rights to social issues such as the role of women in the family. In Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique, she quoted “that women spent half a century fighting for ‘rights,’ and the next half wondering whether they wanted them at all.” As it holds true, many of the troubles women faced in were mostly what are they going to do with the newfound freedom as most women stayed in their position as a housewife. For what Betty Friedan and later on Camille Pagile was trying to get to, feminism wishes gain was “ambitious women [who] found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace,” while maintaining “sexual allure and glamour.” But in the discrepancy from the second wave to the third, more and more modern feminists deviate from the moral meaning, rather than an uncouth misogynist criticizing the works of ‘mankind’ and not ‘humankind’.
As what many moderate feminist believe, equality is what should exist between the two genders, it rightly should. Just as Camille Pagile quoted, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” This does not mean women are incapable or that men are superior, it exemplifies that we need each other in order to construct a greater society. Even before the feminist movement, as in Ibsen’s plays, the wife and the husband creates a problem that they both solve, even if it goes astray to the norms of the society. Not only that, in Film Noir, the femme fatale always rely on the husband in order to fulfill their plan. I believe this should be the approach to the equality between the two genders, and both Camille Pagile and Betty Friedan did their best to portray what women should behave, an equal opportunity and “street-wise” feminist.
Feminism has really caught my attention and the idea of the cutting of the recesses and anti male education were both equally intriguing. As a boy, my perspective on feminism had not much comments or insights and were limited because I found it really hard to step out of my shoes and enter the minds of the women in the past and present. But, through these blogs, there have been a couple of grabbers that I would like to focus on. Paglia mentioned somewhere that if society were left in the hands of women, we would be living in grass huts right now. I disagreed and laughed because women are shown in neural studies to be better at multi-tasking and cooperation than men. Men were shown to be better at specializing and really focusing on one task. It seems like in these neural studies that males and females are suited better for particular tasks, but not particular roles. I do believe that a lot of times us males do not understand our female counterparts a lot of times and exert too much dominance and control over woman making them feel restricted. This shouldn’t be the case because I believe that males and females really compliment each other and the things that could be accomplished together are beyond thought given our neural and physical advantages. The only problem lies not within our roles, or how society defines us, or how we were born, or in education, but how we manage what we are capable of. The femme fatale or the good woman are just manifestations of how we do not know how to manage what we are capable of and resort to the two extremes.
ReplyDeleteThe big question I see is what are women doing and why are they doing it. One view is that women who are the femme fatal in plays, are doing so for themselves. They want to prove by the end, that no one can touch them. This highly resonates with the character Hedda Gabler. One way to look at her is through this lense, as an independent woman who really only cares about herself and staying true to her own self. Yet I think this view can be sort of misleading, because the concept of female power is all in the context of a man. The reason everything starts is because of a marriage that is restricting the female. Again more men are involved to move the plot forward and through the characters relationships with men, do you see her strength. I think in the end of the play, through death and defiance, it is easy to say how independent the female character was, and how true she was to herself. But you cannot forget the catalyst for the “strength”.
ReplyDeleteA second view explained in the Time magazine article resonates with the idea above regarding a male as the catalyst for female strength. Except this view goes further to state that there is no such thing as a strong female in society without the presence of a strong male. This is because naturally there is a division between male and female roles. Men work, women provide for the men.
I find this concept to be degrading, especially to state that men built our society alone. I think there are plenty of examples of females who have contributed just as much or more than males. A literary example of this is “mom” who did all of the labor, gardening, and food work around the house to create a stable family. It is ridiculous to suggest that without men, we would not have a society. In Please Look After Mom it is quite the opposite. Without mom, there is no functioning family. With dad’s absence there is virtually no affect on anything. Yet mom is not as free as Hedda Gabler, she is confined in her role as a mother, she is not a free spirit. To answer the “big question” is hard, because different roles and different catalyst cause females to act in different ways. Mom does not base her life of worth of a male, yet she is still confined behind the walls of her house. Hedda Gabler becomes independent because of her relationships with men around her.
The articles "The Good Woman" and "Film Noir's Progressive Portrayal of Women" really brought into light something I've never really considered: the nature of the femme fatales. Were the femme fatales imposed for audience to see what's really socially accepted by society in terms of gender roles and marriage? Or were the femme fatales imposed to highlight and even advocate for a transformation in the roles prescribed to women? Right now in our unit of looking at women in literature such as Medea, A Doll's House, and Hedda Gabler we saw different characterization of women. I believe we all probably saw Medea and Hedda as mischievous and more closely associated to the characteristics of femme fatales (especially Hedda). At first we probably saw characters like Hedda going against the social prescription of gender roles and the ideal marriage and in turn she is, according to the articles, "punished" for it through her ultimate death. Perhaps the purpose of these film noirs is not to support the conventional views.
ReplyDeletePerhaps film noirs sought to break away from the traditions and pursue something subtly through a femme fatale character. As these articles pointed out, the 'Good Woman' serves as a foil for the femme fatale and not something the male hero can actually obtain. Femme fatales also suggest that "society's prescription for happiness and traditional family is uninteresting and unattainable." Since marriage and stable family are denied to the hero of the film noir it is suggestive that the perfect marriage and family is indeed unattainable and while the femme fatale might offer something more realistic. However most fail to see that the femme fatale herself is confined to social stigmas just as a good woman is. They're both treated like prizes, just depending on who is more desirable. Femme fatale is often trapped within the male-female relationship and thus death is her only noble escape. The theme of paralysis is hinted and it is used to portray the struggles and confinement of all women. The power of film noir could be used to push for the progressive portrayal of women rather than resorting back to the conventional views.
However as Friedan’s battle for feminism took years to reach even a little bit of accomplishment, social stigmas against women and stereotypes of gender still inevitably exist. Even after all the years of transformation, movements, and rallying for more women’s rights, men are still placed higher. It is inevitable that such social restriction still exists but it has improved tremendously for women are not confined to conventional roles such as a wife and a mother but more so a politician, a doctor, or a writer. The fight for gender equality surely does not end here.
Ms. Paglia’s view on feminism is particularly eye opening, especially her view on education and its effects on males, because it is as aspect that I have never considered. Since we can’t deny that there is a biological different between the two sexes, we have to accept that there exist certain abilities that men have and women lack, and vice versa. Sometimes we get stuck on the fallacy that it is possible to create a condition where both genders have completely equal responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteIn the books we’ve read so far, I don’t believe that the “femme fatale” and the good woman have to be separate characters. The female protagonists only appear as good women, and as we get a closer look, it is as though they all have an inner powerful and independent “femme fatal” of “film noir.”
On the surface, the role of the “femme fatale” reminded me a lot of the character Hedda, because she used her attractiveness and cunning to manipulate men to gain more power. Likewise, her attempt to break the existing social order eventually led to her own downfall and suicide. She chose to die instead of being constrained by her male counterparts. Hedda might have done so because she wanted to be an independent woman who didn’t let society bring her down. Something else, however, must have brought about this desire for independence.
Referring back to the article on Ms. Paglia, it says that mankind would still be living in grass huts if women ruled the world, which I find a little disheartening. Although it is typical to think that women live to provide for men and men do all the hard labor, we see the character “mom” in “Please Look after Mom” doing a lot of the hard labor in the fields. In the final chapter, it becomes evident that the father could not have survived without the mother, let alone raise children. I think that many people, including me, often fall into the trap of believing that feminism implies women have to leave the role of “a stay at home mom” and take on the role of a career woman. It shouldn’t be one or the other, but, instead, it should open women (and men) to the possibility of either one, or even both.
A lot of what we think about gender equality and roles of genders are based off of an idea that has been passed on from generations to generations, what is taught in schools and our own beliefs together. Yes, it is a true fact that most men compared to women have topnotch positions at work or the toughest and most dangerous jobs. People cannot deny the fact that men’s physical attributes contribute to that. Oftentimes, there are more suitable things for men to do or the other way around. It is hard for gender equality, because of our nature. Thus, both men and women need to help each other to strive for the better good, just as Camille Paglia said “’if civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.’” Most women do not have the physicality that is suitable enough for the tougher jobs. Generally speaking there are other jobs like nursing or housewives that need more gentleness from females. However, one should not limit any gender to any type of occupation if we are striving for gender equality. How one teaches later generations about gender and sex is also important, because if the later generations receive the wrong education then striving for gender equality would be more difficult and all that work that has been done would go to waste.
ReplyDeleteBetty Friedan mentioned in The Feminine Mystique, “women married young, abandoned their ambitions, had large families that fueled the baby boom, moved to the suburbs and valued femininity above all else”, but even though women valued femininity, most of them did not understand why they were fighting for equality. Often times they were fighting for something that they did not even know why they were fighting for it in the end. It took a lot of effort for people to realize gender inequality and to take action.
On the other hand, one can see from the two plays: Hedda Gabler and The Doll’s House, the wives in both plays portrayed certain feministic characteristics that differ from the perfect housewife. Hedda and Nora both knew what they wanted in their relationships. Nora is a victim of film noir. She started off as a pretty good housewife, following what the traditions of the society have put on her. But once she realized that Tesman has played her like a doll, she erupted like a volcano and could not go back to what it (her life) once was. Hedda is an excellent example of a femme fatale. She was not only seductive in making everyone around her adore her, but also destructive in devastating other people’s lives. They both took on a great role as a housewife, however in the end they brought destructions to their families and most importantly themselves.
I found Camille Paglia’s article particularly interesting with its emphasis on western education. I find it disturbing when she notes values such as sensitivity, socialization, and cooperation as “female values.” Having gone through elementary western education, I don’t find myself any less “manly” having been made aware of those “female values.” I understand the author’s point that we shouldn’t “neuter” boys, suppressing their masculinity; however, I do not agree that this is a problem in the first place. In fact, I think the author is taking quite a polar stance as if taking an archaic perception of the “ideal” man. I wonder what type of man would be the ideal “model of manhood” that we lack in western culture. Is it a G.I. Joe or a Superman? Furthermore, I don’t find it particularly disturbing that gender values and characteristics are so intertwined between the two biological genders. Perhaps one day we can disregard biological gender only to consider the character within the body, finding truer relationships. Yet, perhaps I’m just foolish, a product of western education that “suppresses masculinity.”
ReplyDeleteCamille Paglia seemed to suggest that men and women are losing their gender identities in modern western society which is quite interesting when film noir is analyzed. In the mid-1900s, women in film were shown as manipulative, cunning, and exploitative; such a presentation was far cried from the “traditional” chore-making wife of society in the 1900s. So why would movies be presented like this, why would men and women watch such films? From a male point of view, I think it’s definitely dissatisfaction with the mundane “motherly” character of women. Quite ironically as much as men had dictated women to assume that motherly role, it’s also men that came to view that presentation as boring. Yet it is still men who dictate what they would wish to be presented and thus, it is quite disturbing that men are still in place of greater power.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe five articles explain the troubling contradictions of what is the movement and definition of feminism. With Friedman’s The Feminine Mystique, we see the voice of a trapped woman confined to her house unable to capture the sensations of depression and boredom that comes from being a household wife. This is much like film noir’s depiction of the “good woman”, who finds herself unable to fit society’s ideal gender role for women. In the 1960’s The Feminine Mystique’s emphatic plea for the public to redefine woman as people instead of roles placed on them by society, was a sound movement, but difficult to enforce. After all, how can one attack the biological relationship of one’s gender to one’s role? I agree with Paglia that the problem with feminists is that they know that they need to fight, but have no idea what they are fighting for. Is the end goal for all women to become femme fatales? For this goal to be achieved, woman would need to promote femininity as not the “good woman” who puts her “womanly instinct” to bake cookies, but to get freedom, money and power. But that mentality has its own problems. Paglia warns us about the “war on men” and how masculinity is being undermined by society at the cost of promoting feminine values. But the feminine values that are being promoted today are rarely congruent to the values of femme fatales. Instead Paglia is concerned that cooperation, sensitivity and socialization is destroying America’s creative vigor and militaristic mentality.
ReplyDeleteBut what none of these articles really truly understand is the problem society has with defining human sexuality. It isn’t just “male” or “female” that determines what we are; we have biological sex (female, male, asexual), gender identity (man, woman, neither), sexual orientation (lesbian, gay, straight, pansexual etc.), sexual behavior (celibate, monogamous, polygamous) and finally gender role (femininity and masculinity). And all of these very different ideas work with the biological, the individual and the societal (aka. cosmological, psychological and sociological) factors of a person’s life, to create a person’s sexuality. What all of these articles seem to do is to make the feminists movement about how to consolidate gender roles with biological sex. And the problem here is that society expects that the feminine gender role to correlate with the biological sex of being female, when gender role actually encompasses a lot more than just biological sex (identifying as a woman, being straight, monogamous and feminine). It is easy to shout “tyranny of men” or that the “feminists movement is destroying the progress of society”, but then we completely lose sight of the “feminine mystique”. As human beings we are all failing to understand our sexuality and how that fits in with the roles of society. When we fail to understand ourselves, we create theories that simplifies complicated ideas, leading to little progress for society as a whole.