Hey guys. I’m sure some of you may have seen articles and posts floating around the internet about this issue, and I just wanted to bring it up for discussion. Here is a link about the situation if you don’t know about it. (it goes a little off tangent I from Crenshaw’s article but still remains relevant to the class)

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/a-tale-of-two-breastfeeding-pictures-20141107-11i9y2.html

Like in Crenshaw’s article that we discussed in class, many times colour of skin is the source behind reactions to the same situations in society. In this case, both a black female student and a white female student breastfeed their child during their graduation.  Both receive positive and negative comments, yet the numbers of positive and negative vary greatly for each student. Apparently, the number of negative comments forced Karlesha to eventually delete the photo. On the other hand, other articles say Jacci has received lots of likes and support from other members of the internet, encouraging her to continue being a great mother.

I found it very interesting just in the way the issues are talked about. If you want to find articles about Karlesha, you should type the following into Google:

“Breast-feeding mom’s college graduation photo stirs controversy”

however, if you want articles about Jacci, you should type something along the lines of:

“This Adorable Photo of a Graduating University Student Breastfeeding Wins/Goes Viral”

or

“Internet Cheers for Photo of Mom Breastfeeding at Graduation”

The way the media portrays similar stories to women of different racial or ethnic background is very distinct. Many people argue that Jacci seems to be breastfeeding in a private studio, whereas Karlesha looks like she is sitting among the students during the actual ceremony, and so that justifies why Karlesha is receiving such negative feedback for her photo. Others complain about breastfeeding being a private thing, and that it should not be posted on the internet. But there is so much worse out there, I wonder if there is nothing else behind this opinion, after all, it’s possible for breastfeeding to look “adorable”.

I decided to borrow the DVD for the film “The World Before Her” and watch it in the library. I found the film to be extremely interesting and much more complex than expected. Sabira Merchant (Diction Expert for the Miss India World pageant contestants) mentions that there are “two Indias”. One India has the people who think that India needs to keep up with the rest of the world. The world is constantly changing, and with globalization, pieces are other cultures are adopted and new culture is formed within India. The other India believes that western culture is ruining the young generation of the country. Women are degrading themselves and forsaking their values and beliefs for the new, shiny customs of the western world. Both sides are presented within this documentary, as we follow contestants in the Miss India World pageant, and young girls training in Hindu nationalist camps (Durga Vahini).

I found the film very interesting to watch because both sides of the story had their own distinct points of view. The women in the pageant all believed that they were working hard to follow their dreams. Winning the pageant would open up many kinds of opportunities for them including contracts for movies and commercials not just locally but globally with other Asian or European countries. On the other hand, the leaders of the Durga Vahini camps say that models only wear skimpy clothes as they strut down the catwalk, bat their eyelashes and receives prizes. They teach the girls in the camps self defense should they ever need to protect themselves. They also teach the girls noble prayers and songs, as well as practices of the Hindu religion. They are nurturing the girls to retain the Indian tradition and culture that has existed for many years.

On one hand, the pageant is not great because it is essentially exploiting the women’s bodies. A great deal of it is all about external beauty. The pageant director, Marc Robinson says many lines that reflect this such as when he gives out instructions for the girls to walk and then pose in front of them (the judges) for 4 seconds so they can get a good look at their bodies, and even when he makes them wear sheets over their entire top half so that their legs can speak for themselves. The models undergo botox sessions and burn away their melanin with  skin whitening products. This is because no matter how eloquent and intelligent an answer a model gives, she will not win the competition if she is not beautiful. On the other hand, a woman gorgeous woman could get by on a not so perfect answer. Yet still, one of the scenes in the film greatly distressed me. A  woman in the film speaks out to the girls in the camp and says that girls should be married at 18 because by the time they get to 25 they are too strong-willed and cannot be tamed. Another conversation was during one of the scenes in the camps when the woman was on the podium shouting into a mic as she addressed the young girls. Her booming voice discouraged the girls from pursuing independence and choice or free will. She said things such as if leaving your house and parents to pursue a career was really necessary. I believe that, as the contestants said, women should have the choice to decide what they would like to do with their lives. Pachi’s father added to those ideas when he said that his daughter will get married because it is her duty. He is saying that she has no choice because she is a woman. Pachi gets upset during that interview with her father.

I think that Pachi really is a very interesting character. She describes herself as neither man nor woman, but both. She is an only child, raised in a traditional family, where it was normal to kill your daughter for nothing more than the fact that she was female. Pachi feels an eternal gratitude for the fact that her parents chose to raise her and not try for a son after, but settle with her as their only child. She is very close to her father and it is clear that they share many of the same ideals in terms of how women should behave, as well as cultural norms and customs. The interviewer brings up the question towards the end of the film and she addresses it. She is raising young girls to grow up with what her father is enforcing: they must grow to be women who will be married and have children. They will grow to choose child bearing and taking care of the house affairs instead of choosing a career and working hard to achieve thier own personal goals. That is what Pachi is teaching these girls at the camps. Yet despite this, she is upset with her father being adamant about her marrying. She wants to devote her life to the Hindutva (The Hindu movement). She does not want to be married. She does consider herself solely female. She believes that God does not have marriage and children in mind for her life. Yet despite having these separate desires for herself, she trains girls to grow up not having them.

Overall the film really made me think about how globalization has affected third world countries and all countries in general really. Cultures are threatened as others are strengthened and reinforced. Is it possible to find a balance between cultural appropriation and cultural retention? Shweta says that wearing a shirt and pants does not make her any more American than yoga makes an American any more Indian.

I thought this film was very interesting because it showed a lot of themes that I am not used to seeing displayed through film. This was the first movie I watched that had other relationships outside of a straight/heterosexual one. I thought that the film was very realistic for the time and setting the narrative was placed in as well.

It highlighted the the fact that small towns and areas in the countryside have much more conservative attitudes, as well as very traditional moral and belief system. The struggles Brandon and Lana face in the movie are also a reflection of many couples in the world to this day. I often took note of Brandon mentioning his/herself as a guy throughout the movie. Due to the way he/she wanted to be seen as, I will refer to Brandon as a male for the rest of this post. That fact that he felt he needed to prove his identity as a man was very interesting to me. He made sure that he always looked the part, and he tried to follow John and Tom around so that he could “chill with the guys”/”do guy stuff” (?). This constant need to prove his masculinity is part of what complicates Brandon’s character. On one end, Brandon struggles to reach a point where his masculinity is no longer questioned. But on the other hand, John and Tom’s masculinity are so exaggerated, that it’s over the top. They scream and destroy properties on a whim, without a second thought. They are reckless men, who both have troubling pasts. This heightened masculinity, in a way, reinforces the fact that Brandon will never be seen as a male in this movie. No matter how hard he tries, the gap between him and John is too big; they are completely different types of males, and only one is acceptable in this town.

Despite all of this however, Lana becomes very infatuated with Brandon. Their love blossoms very quickly once they realize the other’s feelings, and things get physical. What was interesting was Lana’s character, who chooses to love Brandon as the truths are revealed one by one. With each lie unraveled, the the risk Brandon takes in staying in this town increases. His relationship with Lana also becomes very dangerous. Lana is however able to see the sincerity of Brandon’s love through all of the lies he has covered himself in, and returns this love 100%. I see Lana’s character as a symbol of hope for people going through this situation, and also as an example for people who encounter people in Brandon’s situation (to an extent). She is one of the few human beings on the planet who are willing to stay in love with someone after discovering that they have genital parts of the opposite gender by which they identify. Lana proves that her love exceeds physical limitations. She loves Brandon for his personality, for what’s inside. Not if he has a penis or not. She sets an example for the audience as well. She teaches to be open minded, and to be forgiving. To try and understand a struggling person’s situation first instead of jumping to assumptions, or forcing judgement on them.

John and Tom saw the situation in an opposite way from Lana however. To them, Brandon NEEDED to have an identity. And the only identification that mattered to them was what he had in his pants. The only sexual identity that existed in that town was male and female. And the only gender that existed was girl or guy. If you are a guy, you are male, and you must have a penis. If not, you’re a woman. It was a black and white to them, and when they found out Brandon was more of a grey area, they decided to clear it up themselves. We spent an entire class talking about the rape scene that occurred at the end of the movie so I won’t repeat all of it. But just to add to my post, discovering that Brandon was a woman (biologically) and that Lana still loved him, was an insult to John. It completely emasculated him and he took out his anger on Brandon by raping him. This scene was symbolic of the removal of power from Brandon. Now that John knew he was a woman, he had to put Brandon back in his place. By raping him, John proved his own masculinity that Brandon would always lack. The scene is very long and both men take turns abusing Brandon. They rape Brandon from the front and the back, as if to say you are a woman first, then you are not a man second. It was a horrid scene, and Brandon’s death later on ends the movie on a somber tone. as if to say that this is how it is in the countryside. And if you want this life you better stay in the city or get lost. It does however highlight this kind of mentality, and shows how catastrophic ignorance can be. Brandon was raped and murdered. To John, the “abomination” has been removed. But at what cost? The family is now completely broken. Candace lost her life as well in the ordeal and her child must now grow up without a mother. Lana has also lost her lover and will never forgive John for this, much less return his misguided, chaotic love for her. Lana’s mother is a mess as well. And John and Tom have added to their criminal record. It makes you wonder if it was really worth it in the end.

It was such a great opportunity to meet Fida Qishta and to watch her film. When watching the film I really felt like I was watching these scenes unfold from the eyes of a war correspondent/journalist. The events that she captured on her camera were so eye opening. This made me think about news stations and how stories are covered.

Fida addressed this when she answered questions after the screening: social media can either promote or hide the severity of an event or activity. I think news stations like to stay away from showing overly graphic images to the masses. They think that the general public cannot handle it. But if you do not show these images, who are you really protecting? This film touched me very personally because I am international student and there have been many gruesome deaths in my country. Although we have not been involved in any recent wars, Jamaica suffers from community and gang-related violence frequently. It is a serious issue and I imagined the people in the movie as my own. The closest Jamaica has come to a war recently was the Dudus case. This case was described as a massacre and everyone was to stay inside for their safety. Soldiers were constantly driving along the roads looking for this man. And America was also a part of the search for this Don.

It’s interesting to note that not many people in America were alive when there was a full out invasion of the country. There have been attacks but the biggest direct attack was probably 9/11?  Has anyone in this class lived to see soldiers of another country destroying your house? Killing your relatives right in front of your eyes? It’s not the same as seeing it on TV. I am not trying to say that anyone is at fault, but ignorance is bliss; and you can be really insensitive to situations that you have never experienced. Again I don’t wish this experience on anyone, but it is very important to tell these stories and to share these voices. The more we know about what is going on, the more we can make well informed decisions.

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.

The readings we got for the weekend were very interesting to me because they talked in depth about female actresses in the media. In “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” by Laura Mulvey, one of the main points she made was that women are to be “looked at” while men doing the “looking”. Although she makes the assumption that the audience of these movies consist of predominantly heterosexual males, I thought back to one of my previous film classes where we listened to the song “Bitch Bad” by Lupe Fiasco. Mulvey states that many males viewers of the movie identify with the main hero of the film and so view the co-starring actress through the hero’s eyes. In many cases this behavior translates into reality, yet does a similar behavior exist in women? Like the song states, there are many females who may watch the same films and identify with the female characters. Most times both genders have been socialized to associate certain parts of the female body with sexual activity and nothing more. They are also being told what images are “beautiful” and what are distasteful.

Johnston goes into the topic of objectification of women and socializations as well. Johnston credits the term “iconography” as being partly responsible for the stereotypes placed on women in the media. In the past and in present day as well, women are filmed in different ways than male actors in a movie. I find myself getting bored with females in action movies because I know that they simply exist in the movie to as a causality, and  for the inevitable sex scene. For almost all other scenes in the movie, she is not important. And in both of these scenes as well, the main hero is involved and is also the one in charge.

Johnston believes that all decisions in film have been made intentionally. A blonde actor is chosen, and the light hits her hair every time she is present in the movie. She is naive and innocent, or a damsel that must be protected. There are many examples of decisions filmmakers have made in order to portray women in a certain light. As both authors have pointed out, women in a movie are almost always connected to a male figure. In class Professor Sikand posed the question “Is it possible to make a feminist film?” I think it will be very difficult to do so because you would have to be very aware of the decisions you are making in terms of visual and narrative. And after all of that work, would anyone watch it? A phrase I’ve heard a lot is “Sex sells.” and this is very true in the media world today. But is it really that impossible to make a very interesting action movie without a sex scene?

Question

One of the points that I was a little confused by was Mulvey’s use of terms such as “castration” and “phallus”. I know the definitions of these terms however, she refers to the woman with some of these terms. In class Professor spoke about the lack of a penis being connected to the reason why men are more dominant than women. I found the following line thought provoking:

“…it is her lack that produces the phallus as a symbolic presence, it is her desire to make good the lack that the phallus signifies.” (1st pg)

Do you agree with this quote? Is it possible to make a feminist film without addressing this?