The Fawcett Society organized shirts that say “this is what a feminist looks like.” There have been accusations that these shirts were made in sweatshops by women who are extremely  underpaid and experience poor working conditions. If these accusations are true, this really highlights the disconnect between Western and Third World feminism. Mohanty argues that we need to look at the lives of marginalized women to understand how to find social justice for all because looking at the lives of the privileged leaves out those that are not privileged. I think this is a pretty good current example of what Mohanty argues.

http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/92115825.html

http://www.refinery29.com/2014/11/77203/this-is-what-a-feminist-looks-like-shirts-sweatshop

In her article Mohanty analyzes what is next for feminists at the beginning of the twenty-first century. She argues that the rise of religious fundamentalisms with their deeply masculinist and often racist rhetoric poses a huge challenge for feminist struggles around the world. This shed light on The World Before Her for me, because the Hindu fundamentalists are so eager to make sure their culture remains free from further westernization.

In the film, the fundamentalists’ main sources of anger are the beauty pageants in India. The contestants in the beauty pageant, such as Ruhi, have less traditional takes on the practices of Hinduism. On the other hand, Prachi, the leader of the camp that trains “proper Hindu women,” is a Hindu nationalist concerned with upholding the deeply rooted values of her culture. Initially, the film made it seem like these two, opposing sides were polar opposites striving for separate things.

However, in analyzing the film from a feminist standpoint, the two sides begin to blur together. Both groups of women face oppression from different sources. In the film, Prachi talks about her father’s mistreatment of her. At one point he chuckles at the memory of burning his daughter’s foot with a flaming iron…? He emphasizes her “duty” to marry and have children, while Prachi is more concerned with working full time for the Hindu movement. Prachi’s story is ironic because although she teaches young girls to be proper Hindu women, she herself is violating the norms of traditional, “Mother India” in refusing to marry and have children.

The contestants in the beauty pageant view the pageant as a means to escape this oppressive society highlighted by Prachi’s situation. However, the film did a great job of capturing how as these women leave one oppressive society, they quickly enter another. They find freedom from the strict boundaries of life as a traditional, Hindu women, and enter into an Americanized society that values consumerism and capitalism. This is ironic seeing as Mohanty believes that the theory, critique, and activism around anti-global capitalism has to be a key focus for feminists. At one point the members of the ‘Miss India’ pageant find themselves in a photo shoot where they place white sheets over their heads and upper bodies (so as to only emphasize and show off their legs). It is interesting to notice how the people who dictate these photoshoots (the photographers, etc) are all men. One woman questioned whether the loss of her dignity is worth it in achieving her dream.

Prachi and Ruhi represent two, paradoxical types of Indian women. For example, although Prachi claims to uphold the values of traditional Hindu life for women, she herself represents the hard-working, independent, non-traditional Hindu women. As Ruhi claims to strive for independence and freedom from the bounds of Hindu society, she finds herself under the objectification and degrading nature of American society in regards to women’s value. I think Mohanty is trying to suggest in her article that women should not bear the brunt of mistreatment in oppressive societies, but should also not buy into the brainwashing nature of capitalism either. The answer is a new, unrestrained feminism that can cross these boundaries.

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.

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.