To continue the discussion that was held in class today, I would like to express that power given to women in film is positive. Of course some portrayals of feminine power reinforces certain gender roles and stereotypes, but whether a woman has power from her sexual liberation, her attitude, nurturing ability, ambitions, etc., there’s something of value in each of those roles. I believe that as long as her roles aren’t confined to one particular category, and the female has room to expand her character and her actions, each power is positive.

Hey everyone. I’m posting some notes that I took on my article here so you can all get a little summary before class. This article was originally to be discussed last week Friday but will be done on Monday instead.

The article was written by Rajeswari Sunder Rajan and she talks about the Hindu Goddess and whether or not the goddess can be classified as feminist. (if that was not clear from the title)

 

Overview

Throughout the article Rajan talks about the meaning of goddess in the context of Hinduism. When you speak of “the goddess”, you have to take into consideration the many diverse representations of Hindu goddesses. Each goddess has their own distinct attribute and functions, image, provenance etc. She mentions that it is problematic to classify the goddess as feminist because of the many representations she has.

Additionally, Rajan mentions accounts in India’s history such as the Indian freedom movement, and the rising of certain women in the political world. During some of these social and political events, the images of the goddesses were used promotionally to elevate Hindu women’s self-image and stutus, as well as to mobilize them for their participation in the struggle..

 

Important to Note

While reading this article it is important to remember these points that the author stated in the beginning. She is essentially writing based on the following assumptions being consensual:

1.     Feminist = pro woman/empowering women

2.     The Hindu goddess is unique because she is of the only contemporary religion that has a tradition and continuing practice of goddess worship (Hinduism).

3.     Hindu goddess worship is done mainly by lower castes, women, and non-Hindus.

4.     The representations of the Hindu goddess as:

• complementary ‘female principle’
• autonomous female agent or
• cosmic force

are under discussion in this article as aspects of her “feminist recuperation”.

 

Extra stuff:

She writes that gender stereotypes are broken down in this religion through the attribution of power to a female deity. This power can be either positive or negative. Negative powers are: unruly, destructive, sexually unbridled. Positive powers are: maternal, protective, asexual. I found this point very interesting because we have seen more than one movie where the protagonist is a female and has a lot of power, yet gender stereotypes are still in play. The Last Seduction is a good example of this. I have formed one of my questions for you guys from this point but it would be great to go further into this point.

Following off of that, another interesting piece of the article was that, contrary to feminist expectations, the promotion of powerful female models does not contribute to the well being of ordinary women. Before this statement, Rajan writes this concerning the goddess, “…the symbolic valuation of form is not a reflection of the actual material and historical conditions in which they take shape.” Societies with goddess and women leaders have appeared to score very poorly on historical and material conditions. Some of these conditions include literacy, life-expectancy, income and equality of opportunity.

 

Terms

stri shakti  – woman power

Hindutva – an ideology seeking to establish the hegemony of Hindus and the Hindu way of life.

 

Hi everyone!  I wanted to post an outline of the Projansky Article before we discuss it in class tomorrow.  It is a pretty dense article and I am sure a lot of people will have stuff to say about it.

 

Watching Rape: Film & Television in Post Feminist Culture

By: Sarah Projansky

 

Overview:

• Projansky uses a variety of texts to highlight the connections between rape narratives and post feminism. She describes how post feminist rape narratives limit feminism by use of the exclusion of colored people and the small frame of options presented for women who are raped. As a whole, the post feminist culture delimits feminism and rape.

 

Previous Discussion:

• Helen Benedict & Marian Meyers- Problems with news coverage in a feminist perspective
• Lisa M. Cuklanz- rape across multiple media

o   Analysis of news coverage of famous trials

o   Doesn’t consider the shift in representation of rape in post feminism

 

• Texts can either represent feminism as being positive or negative
• Most often texts blame “murkiness” of rape on feminism

 

Why?

• 2 Conflicting Versions of Feminism:

1. Women are encouraged to be free to express their sexuality
2. Warns women to protect themselves against sexual violence

 

Ellen Goodman- Pro feminist Post Feminist

• Cultural cues no longer universal
• Men are responsible for sexual assault
• Way feminism is incorporated into life leads to this blurry idea of post-feminism

 

Naomi Wolf- Pro Sex Post Feminist

• News/Court both define sexual practices of women as being bad
• Suggests that this confusion of sexuality and rape is a result of the opposition of feminism and the news (which makes it seem women are asexual)

 

Katie Roiphe- Anti-Feminist Post Feminist

• Confusion is caused by postfeminist defined feminism
• Aims to reclaim female sexuality
• Against idea of a female victim
• Feminism confuses people about what rape is

 

 

Projansky argues that parts of feminism are embedded in post-feminist culture that redefines rape using a narrow scope. Rape narratives are dependent on the fact that feminism has been successful but women are still responsible for using laws to end sexual assault. Rape narratives suggest that there is no need for continued feminist activism.

 

To make this argument, Projansky emphasizes using the accumulation of a variety of texts to make her points.

 

Links Between Aspects of Post Feminism and Rape Narratives

• Post Feminist Backlash- all representations of rape add to the assault on women

o   Definition of women as being sexually victimized

o   “The Accused” – violence against women- pleasure in viewing rape scenes

o   Double reading of rape representations (an assault on women, an expression of horror)

• Rape Narratives lead to the post feminist definition of women’s independence as limited to relationships between family and men

o   Rape narratives seek to absorb and transform feminism

o   Rape leading to a transformation – “Trial by Jury”- more feminist aspects are replaced by post feminist concern

o   Response to particular kind of feminism – “Beauty and the Beast”

o   Military Films- “Opposing Force”

• Men who face rape are seen as idealized post feminists

o   This feminism is not a straight forward emasculation

o   “The Rape of Richard Beck”

• Post 1980 rape narratives deal with white, middle class, heterosexuals

o   “Women of Brewster Place”

o   “Regular guys” more likely to rape – representing a culture – frat jackets

• Undermines feminist argument that anyone can rape

 

• Post 1980 rape films include at least brief descriptions of a women’s point of view

o   Shower scenes

o   Private > Political Outrage

• But also makes use of the law

o   Women are responsible for social change

o   Men teaching women how to use the law

 

• Role of the spectator

o   Those who watch rape in film = the spectator?

• Problematic view because if the spectator watches the male gazer it draws attention away from the rape itself & some texts assert an evil to the male gazer in the film

o   Texts undermine feminist potential by providing more comfortable positions for viewing rape

 

Discussion Questions:

• As a whole, it is clear that our post feminist culture delimits feminism and rape? Do you think modern rape narratives are post feminist? Is a way that rape could be presented in a feminist light?
• Does the spectator serve a similar role to the male gazer in the film? What do you think Mulvey would say about Projansky’s argument regarding watching rape scenes?

Much of our discussion around “The Help” has centered around idea that it is difficult, perhaps even impossible to have historical accuracy in a an hour and a half. In response, I would like to offer this link to Episode 5 of “Eyes on the Prize”, a 14 part series. Episode 5 is specific to events in Mississippi in the early 1960s. You can watch it here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgSitIXiP5Y.

The series itself is a remarkable document of the Civil Rights era, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/about/index.html and all of it is available on Youtube.

I would encourage all of you to watch the episode and the series.

https://blog.sweetyhigh.com/girl-power/emma-watsons-heforshe

Yesterday I was having a normal, relatively casual conversation with one of my friends and the topic of Emma Watson’s trending U.N feminist speech came up. I commented that I hadn’t seen it but very much intended on doing so because it was so relevant to my Women in Film class. My friend, who is female, immediately said “Oh, I’m not a feminist so I don’t really care about stuff like that.” I (easy-goingly) tried explaining to her that feminism is simply the idea of gender equality in every aspect of life, and that unless she believed women (or any gender) were actually lesser than men in value, she was a feminist. Though she nodded along and pretended like she understood, I could tell by the dulled look in her eyes and urgent change of topic afterwards that I hadn’t made much of an impact. (Sorry guys– I tried!!)

But then something interesting happened — later that day I was online and came across a picture of Harry Styles holding up a sign with the hashtag “#HEforSHE,” which has now become the trending response to Emma Watson’s feminist speech. This friend is an avid and somewhat obsessed Harry Styles lover (aren’t we all), so I snapped a picture of it and sent it to her with the message: “So Harry Styles is a feminist…does that change anything for you?” Within 5 seconds she responded back a very enthusiastic and all-caps “YES.” She then proceeded to research feminism out of curiosity and found that it was much simpler than she’d thought.

I posted said picture of Mr. Styles above so if you haven’t seen it yet and want to take a gander, I don’t blame you. (I’ve glanced at it once or twice and definitely did not hate it). But my point is this— since we were talking about if feminism can be impactful for men at the end of class on Wednesday, I think this is a powerful example of how men can actually influence women to embrace feminism. It is widely assumed that the women are the ones trying to convert others, particularly men, to “join the cause,” if you can even phrase it that way. I guess the thought process behind this is, if men can be unabashed feminists and educate others on what it actually means to be feminist (and/or postfeminist, but I won’t get into that whole thing now), they clearly have just as much to do with feminism as anybody. If all it takes a hot picture of Harry Styles to spread feminist awareness to young girls (and apparently even college girls) who don’t yet understand feminism, I’ll take it.

Yesterday’s discussion on The Help almost made me forget how much I liked the film.  I watch every movie with an unbiased opinion from start to finish. Yes there are scenes in The Help that are difficult to watch, but I don’t believe they are meant to be analyzed as severely as we did yesterday. I took an Africana Studies course last year and the majority of the semester we talked about the continuing oppression that African Americans faced after colonization ended so I do understand it is a touchy subject. However, this movie (in my opinion) wasn’t supposed to be demeaning and insulting, but it was simply depicting the time period in which African Americans were living among extreme forms of oppression and racism.

Skeeter was never the savior to me, she was a helping hand to Aibileen who had written stories about her experiences. Without Skeeter, the book probably never would have been published. But Aibileen’s bravery to share these stories is what gave the rest of her community the hope and pride that they were missing. We see in one of the final scenes Aibileen and Minnie enter church where they are greeted by a round of applause. This scene made me tear up a little because I was so happy for Aibileen, and the sounds of clapping and encouragement always get me, no matter what movie I am watching.

I believe that if I were to watch this movie again with the thoughts of trying to find the crude, primitive elements and themes in the film, then I definitely would be more upset at how the characters were portrayed.

I was listening to ‘Flawless’ by Beyonce and there is a part in the song where Beyonce samples Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s call to feminism.  I love the way that her speech is integrated into the middle of the song, splitting up “Bow down bitches” and “I woke up like this… flawless.”

“You can have ambition, but not too much, you should aim to be successful, but not too successful, otherwise you will threaten the man.” ties into Place’s article “Women in Film Noir” and how women play strong roles by standing behind their men.  In film noir it is clear that men need to control womens sexuality in order not to be destroyed by it.

Connecting to that statement, Adichie continues on by saying “Because I am a female, I am expected to aspire to marriage.  I am expected to make my choices always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important. Marriage can be… a source of joy and love and mutual support. But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage and we don’t teach boys the same?” this relates  into our discussions of the stereotypical goals that a woman “should” have, which is to focus on getting married and being a good mother, while men are taught to educate themselves and get a career to make lots of money.  In Williams article “Something else besides a mother” she mentions how there is a common anecdote in films that mothers have to sacrifice everything for her family, which supports Adichies argument.

Flawless argues that girls are raised “to see each other as competitors, not for jobs or accomplishments which I think can be a good thing, but for the attention of men.” which ties back to the idea of femme fetale, and how women compete for the attention of men by letting out their sexualized self for men.

The song is super popular so I am sure most people in the class have heard it, but if you haven’t I highly recommend it.  It is catchy and has a powerful message, who wouldn’t like a song like that?

Scrolling through Facebook I came across this video by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Recently Gordon-Levitt has started a new movement for filmmakers called hitRecord where everyone can contribute to a community oriented project whether film, screenplay, etc. In this video he talks about his ideas of feminism and hits a lot of the ideas that we talked about in class. I think this is a great video to watch because Joseph Gordon-Levitt in apart of the Hollywood community as an actor, but also as a filmmaker with his movie Don Jon.  He also goes on to talk about Feminism as his new project on hitRecord which is something we could all possibility contribute too as well. Check out the video its actually really cool and interesting.

 

Showdown between Wells and Willard
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2011/03/womens_suffrage_and_racism_ida_b_wells_vs_frances_e_willard.html

Black Feminists
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/02/19/how-many-of-these-early-black-feminists-do-you-know/

The Hidden Help: Black Domestic Workers in the Civil Rights Movement
http://digital.library.louisville.edu/utils/getfile/collection/etd/id/2543/filename/5340.pdf

Level with me for a second and strip away the elements of “historical accuracy” that come with The Help. Now imagine starting from scratch, having to tell the story with the same theme, and creating the same final product. I don’t know about you, but in that light, the film seems very condescending to me.

What we’re examining is a work of fiction. As much as we cry out, “This is reflective of the historical period of the time! Black women couldn’t tell these stories so they needed a white woman (who we see benefit mostly career-wise and not as a person of moral standing) to do it for them!,” the film we watched is a fictional story set in a historic setting. In theory, Kathryn Stockett, the author of the novel (or even the writer/director of the film, Tate Taylor, both of whom are white) could have made either Aibileen or Minny the ones who wrote down their stories. And what would have changed thematically? Nothing.

The primary response I expect to get from something like this is, “But they’re just portraying reality!” Well, no. They’re taking  (very loose) inspiration from real life events (here’s a noteworthy tidbit: the real-life inspiration for Aibileen in the novel criticized Stockett for comparing her skin color to that of a cockroach; yikes), but fabricating a narrative. Black writers could (and did) write during the height of the civil rights movement. What’s stopping the black characters in the film from doing the same? What’s to stop them from being more invested in the civil rights protests and injustices of the time, showing them be more upset with the systemic problems that cause the personal troubles they face? In reality, all that’s stopping them are those are writing the film.

I think it’s reasonable to be able to criticize the author/filmmaker for their conscious decisions. They made Skeeter the savior. They reduced the subjects of racism and hatred to supporting roles in a film about racism and hatred. They perpetuated the negative stereotypes about blacks that we used to oppress them (don’t even get me started on Minny’s insultingly stereotypical love for fried chicken).

We can’t just simply defend the conscious creators of this fiction using the shield of history. They purposely chose the perspective, the focus, and the characterizations. We know this and we simply shrug and say, “That’s the way it was.” And that’s what disappoints me, especially when we could have much better depictions of race in film.

But we can demand better. Better treatment of black characters. More active roles for black actors. The most autonomous decision made by a black character in a movie about racism is tricking a white woman into eating her own feces. How is that progressive?

Look, I know I’m being negative on this movie, but that’s just because I see the potential in it and it can be so much more. Just for the sake of fairness, here’s some constructive criticism. Make Aibileen the writer of the book. Why can’t she be? She’s most likely literate (she gives no indication otherwise). She has aspirations to write. And, to defuse one of the only arguments the film gives as to why Skeeter has to be the one to write the book, she can still make it anonymous. Think about it: No one knows the race of the writer. If anything, it would be assumed to be a white author. Aibileen is actually more unsuspecting than Skeeter.

So, with this in mind, I ask you: What’s preventing this film from giving its black characters more autonomy?