Coming Out as a FEMINIST

March is Women's History month and March 8th was Women's Day, or Feminist Coming Out Day. You can read about that here.

Feminists are men, women, girls, boys, young, and old. Feminists can have fiancées, and yes! a sense of humor. Feminists defy expectations and stereotype.

I stand up as a feminist because I believe that there are still gender inequalities in our world. You don't think so? Check out this study. But it goes deeper than this study. Women are targets for violence and rape. Women are underrepresented in Congress. Take a look at the literary canon...where are all the women?

My Complicated Relationship with Barbie

When I was taking swimming lessons the summer after third grade, my mom bribed me. If I jumped into the pool three times, she would buy me a Barbie. I was terrified, but I did it. Which Barbie did I choose? Maui Barbie of course. She had a swim suit with one shoulder. I would never be allowed to wear that swim suit, but I could buy the Barbie who did!

The Barbie I had before that, Barbie and the Rockers, had her feet almost chewed off, by, well, me. Chewing Barbie's feet was more fun than playing with Barbie. I had been a nail biter, but my mom bribed me off of that too. I had to turn to Barbie. When my brother and his friend stole my Barbie and performed surgery on her feet by ripping them off, I wailed.

By 8th grade I wasn't playing with Barbies anymore. NO WAY! But I did do an oral report on Barbie. Which I believe was part of my burgeoning feminism. Weird, right? How could a girl doing a report on Barbie be an emerging feminist? True my report was nowhere as critical, absurd, or deep as A. M. Homes story, A Real Doll, but geez, I was only in 8th grade!

Here's the thing, I don't exactly remember the criteria for our assignment, but I'm pretty sure it was generally keep it to something in the 20th century. Oh, and make sure the subject was iconic. That was probably a new vocabulary word for me back then: ICONIC. Who is more iconic in a girl's life than Barbie?

Other kids reported on the Beatles and WWII. Both very important, and ICONIC. But, even as an 8th grader, I was interested in deepening my knowledge about things that affected me. I hadn't developed a critical mind yet (that would come later when in my sophomore year I wrote a diatribe against Santa Claus), but I took a chance with that report. My teacher told me no one had ever reported on Barbie. That made me feel cool. I don't think I had learned about IRONY yet, but I think I was trying to be ironic. I was talking about Barbie as if she was a real person, but I was trying to be, you know, funny. I don't think my classmates got it.

My Women and Lit class taught me to look at this experience in a new way. The invention of Barbie was a huge event in the world of girls and women. Maybe in 8th grade I already knew that and was making a statement about how history is male dominated. By reporting on Barbie in my 20th century history class, I was reclaiming history from a woman's point of view. Had I been a city kid, or gotten ANY women's history up to that point, maybe I would've picked someone hipper, like Gloria Steinem or Coretta Scott King, or Dolores Huerta. But hey, Barbie was a start.

What do I think about Barbie now? I think she's one cool gal. Yeah, she's got a blank stare, big boobs, bleached blonde hair, and God, her feet must be killing her! But you know, she's done a lot in the world.

Who else do you know who has been an astronaut, a doctor, and a rocker?

Have You Ever Heard of Gloria Anzaldua?

One of the best things about taking a class devoted to women and literature is discovering new authors.

My favorite discovery this quarter is Gloria Anzaldua.

I like how she thinks about stories:

"My 'stories' are acts encapsulated in time, 'enacted' every time they are spoken aloud or read silently. I like to think of them as performances and not as inert and 'dead' objects (as the aesthetics of Western culture think of art works). Instead, the work has an identity; it is a 'who'or a "what" and contains the presences of persons, that is, incarnations of gods or ancestors or natural and cosmic powers. The work manifests the same needs as a person, it needs to be 'fed,' 'la tengo que banar y vestir'."

I am intrigued by her thoughts on gender and culture:

"I think Chicano families can be really hard on women and maybe they are hard on men, too. Very early on you start being taught how to be a man and being taught how be a little woman and the divisions are pretty rigid."

I think her ideas about being a writer could apply to being an artist or a teacher, or being a woman:

"To write, to be a writer, I have to trust and believe in myself as a speaker, as a voice for the images. I have to believe that I can communicate with images and words and that I can do it well."

* Quotes taken from The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women: The Traditions in English (pp 1254-1265)

One Man's Absurdism is Another Woman's Life

Okay Women & Lit.
It's official.

I cannot see anything without thinking about gender, relationships, and constructivism.

Last night I went to A.C.T. in San Francisco. I knew it wasn't going to be an easy night of theatre, as we were going to see Harold Pinter's play The Homecoming, but I had no idea what I was getting myself into.

The play is about a family of men: a father, an uncle, and three brothers, and how they relate to each other. The oldest brother moved to the United States several years before, and is returning, unannounced to the home where the rest of the family still resides.

Why unannounced?

Well he never says why, but if I were part of his family, I don't think I would ever return. The father dishes out brutal language, constantly putting down everyone around him. The father is a genius at hate: he finds a weakness: exaggerates it, pours salt on it, and then spits in it.

The sole woman in the show is the wife of the oldest brother. They have been living in the United States for six year together. The wife has never met any members of the family. When the oldest brother returns, he brings his wife. She meets the family for the first time, and she has a power over the men,. Whatever sense of reality the play had, is left behind.

The words the characters speak and the stories they tell in the play are relentlessly offensive. The scenes are shocking in their outright chauvinism, but are so over the top, I can't help but believe there must be a deeper point.

Through a series of absurd, shocking, ironic scenes the power dynamics shift between the males and finally to the female. The father who once reigned the house with abusive language and violence is now usurped by his son's wife. As her husband goes to leave, the wife agrees to stay, take care of the house, the men in it, and work as a prostitute.

If the audience just took what was happening on the surface, it would be seen as a disgusting diatribe against women.

It is shocking when a middle class woman is whored out by her brother's family.

But why isn't it shocking when a poor woman is a prostitute?

It is appalling to imagine that a woman would choose the life of a prostitute when given the opportunity to return to her husband and be a mother.

But isn't it appalling that a woman would have more freedom as a prostitute?

Why does our society accept and allow gender and class to predetermine one's future?

What is Pinter saying with these apparently chauvinistic scenes? Just because a writer portrays violence, patriarchy, and oppression, doesn't mean he is endorsing it. Pinter is exposing the everyday oppression women face by calling it out. There are (and were especially then) few choices for women. During that time period, especially, a woman was defined by her relationships to men, generally a wife or a whore.

In The Homecoming Pinter demands his audience look at the way women are treated. By taking oppression of women to the extreme, Pinter forces the audience to be appalled and recognize the lack of choices for women at that time period.

Mildred Pierce

I watched this movie last night, not knowing much about it, and with little expectations.

Of course my mind didn't allow me to sit back and be entertained, I kept thinking about the women, how they were portrayed, what their relationships said about them, and all the things I have been studying in class.

Thanks Women and Lit!

A little context:

First of all, this movie came out in 1945. The portrayal of a strong working woman reflected what was going on during WWII, even though the chronology of the movie is 1931-1940. At the time the movie was made, America was emerging from a new era. Men were off on the Pacific or European fronts, fighting, while women were at home working. So is this movie promoting "Rosie the Riveter" or questioning this liberation?

A movie about a working woman, may seem progressive or positive, but ultimately the message of the movie was a conservative warning against women as workers. I don't want to give too much away, but let's just say Mildred Pierce's working life backfires on her. Though she shows much initiative and self empowerment, Mildred is still playing in a man's world. She is also still subject to very feminine weaknesses and failings. For example, she is solely motivated by pleasing her daughter, even though it is very clear that her daughter is pure evil. Perhaps if there was more subtlety here, this could have been explored in a deeper, more honest way. Unfortunately the premise becomes laughable. The daughter is over the top obsessed with money, status, and things.

Maybe it's because we are currently living through the worst recession since the Depression, but the evil daughter's evilness seemed particularly clumsy, unsympathetic, and disgustingly transparent. I feel in tune with the struggles of Mildred Pierce, but am disgusted by the greed of her daughter. When the evil daughter is that obvious, it just makes her grown mother look dumb for wanting to please her. Mildred Pierce was way too smart to be duped by her daughter like that.

So we have a movie that walks right up to the edge of empowering women, but jumps over it, condemning women back to the home.

Too bad.

What Does Gender have to do with Creating?

Do men and women create in the same way? I find this question strange. To begin with, there is a strange assumption the question makes: men create in one way and women create in a different way. But I don't see patterns in the way men create. I don't see patterns in the way women create. And what does "create" mean anyway? I suppose since this class is on literature, that is where I should start. Do men and women create stories in the same way? They both write novels, plays, essays, and poems, right? I can continue the vague stereotypes: Generally men write about men and women write about women. Although, of course this is not always the case, and there are as many excepetions as there are rules. I did hear an interview on the radio the other day that addressed this subject in a very personal way. Allison Pearson was interviewed On Fresh Air by Terry Gross. They talked about Pearson's new novel I Think I Love You. The book talk was fairly interesting, but it was Gross' interest in Pearson's relationship with her partner that really got me intrigued. Pearson lives with another respected writer Anthony Lane, who is a film critic for the New Yorker. Gross wanted to know if they helped each other write, and did they have different processes. Pearson's response was in a way an answer to the original question: Do men and women create differently? Here answer was a resounding, yes. Pearson shared that she was much less confidant in her process than her partner, Lane, was. She asked for advice more often, and second guessed herself. While Lane was often sure of himself. In the interview she proclaimed this confidence was a result of him being a man. Her lack of confidence was because she was a woman. HUH. Maybe? Are woman taught to ask for more help? Are men expected to know the right answers all the time? Do these expectations inform creativity? I don't have any firm answers to these questions. I think I will be asking them for the rest of my life, but it was interesting to listen to a writer be so confidant in her process that seemingly lacked confidence.

From "Who's Irish?" by Gish Jen

I can't get this smart, complicated story out of my brain.

Here are some of my favorite quotes:

"You think the Opium War was bad, how would you like to live right next door to the British"

"I am so fierce, the gang members who used to come to the restaurant all afraid of me, but Sophie is not afraid."

"A daughter I have, a beautiful daughter. I took care of her when she could not hold her head up. I took care of her before she could argue with me, when she was a little girl with two pigtails, one of them always crooked. I took care of her when we have to escape from China. I took care of her when suddenly we live in a country with cars everywhere, if you are not careful your little girl get run over. When my husband die, I promise him I will keep the family together , even though it was just two of us, hardly a family at all."

I respected this story and the mother narrator for always telling her truth. Jen captures the characters voice so convincingly, I never questioned it. The emotions are raw and exposed, not always pretty or agreeable, but deep and real.