On a more relevant note, for tomorrow’s brief discussion, I thought it might be beneficial to post the questions I’m thinking of asking to get our minds going.

1.) What’s left after the uncoding of the woman’s body?

2.) The article makes it clear that women don’t have the means to represent lack, although both men and women represent lack in some way. So my question is, how do you think the woman’s body can provide access to the process of representation? Even though this has been deemed “impossible.”

Hi everyone,

This post is in reference to a book I’m reading outside of class. It’s titled For Colored Boys Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow is Still Not Enough: Coming of Age, Coming Out, and Coming Home.  Although the title is concerning, it provides the experiences of many young men who have dealt with the issues listed above. Of course, the topic of masculinity has been discussed. One of the young men in the book describes masculinity as “the ability to simultaneously arouse and terrify, to meld brutality and fear with beauty and sensuality, inhabiting the roles of father, hero, lover, and disciplinarian.” I particularly like this description and was wondering if anyone else felt some type of way about it. I don’t think it’s limiting in its description, and I also believe it may be accurate. Does anyone see any problems with it? Or agrees?

Not sure if anyone else has been following this, but there has been a recent trend in social media that is absolutely appalling called #GamerGate. I’ve been trying to figure out what its all about, and this video has been the first to give me a clear idea of what the trend really is.  #GamerGate ambiguously touches on so many topics that it is hard to define a central focus for the movement. Part of it deals with the ethics of video game journalism, part of it deals with representation of women characters in video games, and part of it deals with the harassment of women gamers in the online community.

Recently Anita Sarkeesian, an active voice in the gamergate movement, was brought onto the Colbert Report to talk about some of the issues brought up by the #gamergate trend. Sarkeesian has been victim to an onslaught of online harassment, including most notably the threat of a shooting at Utah State University if she was allowed to speak, because of her stance on feminism in the gaming community. In her segment with Colbert, they discuss various examples of the how video game community can no longer be viewed as a “little boys club”  and of how women are “challenging the status quo of gaming as a male dominated space.”

During the interview Colbert makes a great comparison between the ethics of gaming journalism and Hollywood journalism. His comparison insinuated the lack of ethics in Hollywood journalism and raised the question of whether or not gaming journalism should be held to the same standard. Sarkeesian responded to Colbert’s comparison by explaining that in journalism ethics are not necessarily the issue, the issue is that men are explicitly going after women in hostile and aggressive ways for nothing other their involvement in the video game industry as a profession or as a hobby.

The interview concludes with Colbert asking Sarkeesian a question that has come up in class on several occasions:
Colbert: “As a man, am I allowed to be a feminist?”
Sarkeesian: “Do you believe that women should have equal rights to men, and that we should fight for those rights?”
Colbert: “Sure, sure.”
Sarkeesian: “Great. Then you’re a feminist.”

Felicia Day, an actress known for her roles in various TV shows (“Supernatural” and “Eureka”), her web series “The Guild,” and her starring role in the popular “Dr. Horrible Singalong Blog,”  also wrote a response to the #gamergate trend on her blog. Her post was extremely enlightening to the effects #gamergate has on her daily life, and thus on women in a more general context: http://feliciaday.com/blog/crossing-the-street/

Michelle Citron’s Daughter Rite (1980) was an incredibly cryptic view into the internal and sometimes unspoken relationship between mother and daughter. It’s hard to begin talking about the narrative of the film just because in my opinion it accomplished entering  an internal, thoughtful space. The staged discussions between the “sisters” was probably the most convincing to create this space. They would interject into the sequence and essentially provided an indirect example of the daughters reaction and absorption of their mothers lessons and actions. The scene where they are discussing how to make the fruit salad is probably my favorite depiction of the lessons unconsciously passed down, mother to daughter. Prior to the interjection the blonde sister (if I remember correctly) was talking about the harsh relationship with her mother and how her mother basically did not support her and arguably judged her because of this. So when the two sisters begin discussing whip  cream or yogurt, the facial expressions as well as how they went about discussing only leaves one to assume the similarities to their mother as well as their  own developed reactions counter to their mothers actions.

“Well yogurt is healthy is better for you.” “Well whip cream just tastes better, id rather use that.” “* a grimace, or rather unimpressed facial expression serves as a response*” ” We are gonna use yogurt.”

^ this was a rough paraphrasing of a highlight of the scene, this links directly back to the statement one of the women makes. It was something to the effect of I love my mother but I will never be like her ?? ( I honestly have to re-watch it to get my quotes direct)

These interjecting scenes act as models for the discussions started in the narration essentially.

From what I gathered from the article, Fleeing from Documentary Michelle Cintron, uses the genre of autobiographical film to tell a fictional story that might as well be a true one. She talks about how not only was the film inspired by some true events of her life, but also portrays some events that are perpetuated by the culture that they lived in.

Something that really resonated in me was the choice to use actors in what would be considered to be an autobiographical documentary film. I was especially interested in this because I was curious as to who was holding the camera the entire time throughout the film. Since I am not familiar with this form of filmmaking,  I assumed normal conventions of a documentary film would be implemented. That being  that a documentary is told through the eyes (or the camera) of the person that wants to tell a story. And seeing the subjects of the film on the camera but also expecting them to behind the camera troubled me. But also, I can’t say that I am familiar with the conventions of an autobiographical film, and so I was confused by the use of actors in this film.

Although the Cintron expressed that using actors in this film were to protect the dignity of people who’s stories were being told, I believe there could also be other readings of this choice. My own interpretation of this decision of the filmmaker is to portray the ideas being spoken of these women not only of the filmmaker but also to a larger audience that can identify with some of the culturally relevant idea of the time period. Allowing actors to take on the role, could be problematic in the sense that it takes the autobiography out of the film, and makes the story seem more contrived. But at the same time, allowing actors to take on the voice of the filmmakers story gives the audience a blank palette to identify with, or allows the audience decide if the story speaks for more than these actors, since they know that the actual women speaking these stories aren’t the ones that experience it.

Now we’ve all heard that walking alone through a city can be daunting for a young woman alone, this is a regrettable fact of society. Now as a man I’ve never experienced this, not during the day, not at night. But this video is eye opening, and it really grants an inside look at how women are viewed as pieces to be put on display. The men in the video are absolutely disgusting in their treatment of this woman.

Watching Daughter Rite, I definitely recognized the theme of violation. At first the two daughters emphasized the mother’s violation of privacy and how she would read their diaries, etc. It was clear that the mother had serious issues. This became all the more clear during the one daughter’s description of her rape. She was obviously violated by a man in one of the worst and traumatic ways a girl can be violated. Her violation was clear when she described how she felt the need to cover herself up and swaddle herself in her bedspread. What was debatably equally worse was how her mother reacted to the rape.  She tried to ignore the fact that the incident happened all together.

While watching, I was thinking how much this, too, was a violation. In ignoring her daughter’s pain and trauma, the mother is consequently complicit in the situation. In standing by and not doing anything about the rape, I felt that the mother as well was a participant in this violation. If a mother does not stand up for her daughter, especially in the face of serious danger, she is in a sense condoning the violating behavior against her daughter.

After watching “Shooting Women” and reading “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All” I now realize that although women are often told they can do whatever a man can do by parents, teachers, and mentors when it gets to doing the job there are obstacles that the trusted adults in our lives had never warned about.  In “Shooting Women” several of the women said that they had been sexually harassed while on set.  They felt like men were bothering them because they felt that the film industry was still a man’s domain and they didn’t want women around to screw it up.

In “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All”, Slaughter says that no matter how high up a woman gets in her career she will still be expected to be the primary care giver to her children and if she failed to do so that might her career even more.  Slaughter has now begun to telling ambitious, young women that they can have it all, but not all at the same time.  It is possible to have a successful career and a happy family life, but they can’t exist at the same time as they do in a man’s life.  She says that telling women that you can have it all only sets them up for disappointment in the future.

My question is: What should we be telling the girls of today and the women of tomorrow? Should we tell them that they can have any job they want and risk that they may be harassed or abused at that job? Or do we warn them that harassment may happen and allow them to choose a career with that in mind? Both options have both negative and positive outcomes, but being honest about the potential problems down the road, as Slaughter does, may discourage women from following their dream job.  However, hiding the fact that harassment is a possibility may lead women in to danger.  Neither option is good, but one must be chosen until women are seen as equally capable of every job that a man has held in the past.

A few nights ago, my roommates and I watched the thriller Hard Candy (David Slade, 2005) and I could not believe how much the film tied into our class discussions.  The film stars Ellen Page, the girl from Juno, as a young girl who goes on a date with a older man.  I do not want to give too much away, but the girl suspects the man is a pedophile.  The film puts an interesting twist on female stereotypes, feminism and sexual objectification in film.  I would definitely recommend everyone in the class to watch it.  It is not like anything I have ever seen before…

http://www.refinery29.com/2014/10/76620/renee-zellweger-responds-new-look

This past week, Renée Zellweger stepped out at the Elle magazine Women in Hollywood Awards on Monday evening and, I’ll admit, looked surprisingly different. But, thankfully, there wasn’t much coverage on the event and everyone moved on with their lives in a quiet manner. HA, just kidding.  Every news source and possible form of social media has been blowing up ever since regarding this supposed plastic surgery transformation. Of course, without fail the brilliant media channels of the world (E News, People, Celebuzz, Hollywoodlife, TMZ, etc) are leading the field day over this “controversy” and have been flooding the Internet with headlines like “Renee Zellweger is Unrecognizable, ” “Oh my God, What happened to Renee Zellweger?”  “Doctors Decode Renee Zellweger’s New Face” and my personal favorite, “Why Renee Zellweger’s Face Matters.”  I have news for you: it doesn’t.

This entire dramatic media-led episode encapsulates entirely what’s wrong with Hollywood and society’s fixation on the female image in general. Why should it matter whether this woman underwent a physical procedure to alter her looks? Isn’t that sort of the point…that it is her looks? How this affects anyone besides Zellweger is above me, but that’s not even what is most frustrating. For me,  what I found most disappointing from all of these responses is that they went as far as criticizing the actress for making any decision regarding her body. Who are we to determine how anyone is supposed to look or present themselves, especially in a way that best suits our tastes?

One especially stupid article wrote this:

“Zellweger exploded onto the scene the same year that Love redid herself for Hollywood after getting raves for The People Versus Larry Flynt. Zellweger was a cuddlier version of the oddball ingenue. When she smiled, her entire face curled up like a kitten. As an actress, her whole mythology was that the awkward girl could get the guy: Tom Cruise, Hugh Grant. That wasn’t the subtext of Jerry Maguire and Bridget Jones’ Diary—it was the plot. She was excellent in those roles, but people rarely talked about her talent. Especially during the two Bridget Jones films, Zellweger could suffer through an entire interview where she was only asked about her weight.

Fans didn’t love Zellweger for her beauty, though she was in her own way very, very beautiful. (Just picture her perfect, shocked pout when Cruise kisses her breasts on the porch.) Fans loved her because her appeal transcended beauty—she was aspirational in a way that didn’t require a knife.

Except, it turns out that she did. Or rather, that she somehow became convinced of it. ”

What’s wrong with this article (besides everything) is that it is trying to formulate its argument in a feminist way, but it so tragically contradicts itself as it goes on. I get the purpose of the bit that Zellweger was only interviewed about her weight with Jerry Maguire, because that’s so blatantly absurd and insulting we don’t even need to get into it. But when it transitions to saying “fans loved her because her appeal transcended beauty,” it’s basically just saying Zellweger didn’t need to fit our definitions of what beauty is because she had other qualities that redeemed herself. But, don’t worry–“She was, in her own way, very, very beautiful.” I love that it had to clarify she could potentially be considered beautiful, just in her own way. (Technically, aren’t we all beautiful in our own way? Marilyn Monroe was beautiful in her own way. Marion Cotillard is beautiful in her own way. Melissa McCarthy is beautiful in her own way. Because they are all different people– hence the different faces.) The article is essentially saying, Renée– you we liked you on the inside and sometimes even on the outside too, so what happened?  Uh…. what? Even further, it harps on the disappointment that she finally succumbed to going under the knife because “she somehow became convinced of it.” How does the writer of this article have any idea what she was or was not convinced of? It’s disappointing that people are calling their interpretations of this event (which shouldn’t even be deemed an event in the first place) at all feminist because the very act of dissecting a woman’s choice regarding her own body is the antithesis of feminism. The link I posted above is Zellweger’s response to all of this criticism, and it’s just sad to me that something like this elicits a response at all. Okay– that’s enough of my rant. Going now!