As some people commented, my goals list was rather daunting in December. I'm not giving up on any of my goals just yet. However, I've had to re-evaluate the feasibility of a few.
So far, I've done well with making art, reading feminist literature, losing weight, keeping myself from volunteering (and not feeling too guilty about it) and having my home as clean and organized as I like. I've had some family time in the midst of the busy schedule, too.
I had to put off taking an instructional design course due to financial constraints. I might be able to take one this summer or two this fall, so my goal of two this year is not yet lost.
As I review my list, there are few things that still require attention: Spanish and web design.
For March, let's see what I can do about these two!
How are your goals going this year? Have you accomplished some things you had not set out to do that make you happy? Have you kept up with goals you set? Have they changed at all?
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Either Be a Parent or Don't Have Kids
This morning, I stopped into Walgreen's in order to pick up a couple of things I needed for the day. As I was searching for cranberry juice, which was not available in a single serving size, I had to go down the grocery aisle. When I went to pick up a bottle of juice, I was hit on the head by a ball, and I heard laughter on the aisle behind me. A child soon appeared, smiling, around the corner of the end of the aisle. He was still laughing and since there was no mother's or father's voice upon the ball going over the shelving, I assumed the child was without his parent on the opposite aisle. He did nothing but look smug and continued to laugh while moving by me without saying excuse me. I said, "That hit me in the head." Only then did he say a sheepish and none-too-convincing "sorry" followed by more snickering with his sister, who had then appeared at the top of the aisle.
I walked to the front of the store and as I turned to head toward the cash register, I came upon the children's mother, who was calling for them from the front of the store at the next aisle over. I said, "Your children just threw a ball over the aisle and it hit me on the head."
Her reply was, "I am sure it was an accident."
This really pissed me off. She has no regard for whether I was o.k. or not, and did not reprimand her child in any way for throwing balls around the store. I replied, "If they were with you, maybe it wouldn't have happened."
I walked toward the register, and once she got her children to listen to her and meet her at the front of the store, she walked by and said, "I hope you're happy, now. You've made a seven year old cry. Do you see him crying?"
I replied, "Again, maybe it wouldn't have happened if you had been parenting them. I'm lucky that the ball didn't hit something heavy or hard on the top shelf and hit me on the head." (Directly behind me on the aisle were two-litre bottles of soda. If one of those had fallen, not only would it have hurt more than the ball, but it might have covered me in splattered sticky liquid, too.)
This woman, dressed in boots that cost more than my husband will take home in his paycheck this week, left the store and got into her Infinity SUV, the biggest they make. When I walked by her vehicle, she rolled down her window and repeated, "I hope you're happy with yourself."
I looked her in the eye, and said, "I hope you are, too."
She continued to rant out the window as I got into my car and drove away. She behaved as if the ball flying over the aisle was my fault somehow, because I was standing there. It is no accident when a ball flies over the aisle in a store. Children need to be parented and to be told that it is not appropriate to play with toys in a store. Gyms are the appropriate indoor ball spaces, not pharmacies.
I guess I performed a public service this morning: maybe the kid will refrain from ball throwing in stores in the future, and that will save someone else from getting hurt. Not only that, but had the soda knocked over, I would have had to travel back home to change, missing work hours, while this woman drove off in her expensive vehicle, obviously not going to any job at all. What really kills me is that the woman thought I was in the wrong for saying something! My children have never, ever done anything like that in a store. Of course, they were always by my side or within my sight, so even if they took something off a shelf or out of a basket, I was aware of it. I could intercede when they were young so that they knew what was appropriate behavior and what was not. Even if we bought a ball, we did not bounce it in the store. That was for outside, later. Some people say, "You're very lucky if your child never did x,y or z." I don't think parenting is luck. It wasn't good fortune, but rather consisten, effortful, mindful parenting that avoided such "accidents."
I walked to the front of the store and as I turned to head toward the cash register, I came upon the children's mother, who was calling for them from the front of the store at the next aisle over. I said, "Your children just threw a ball over the aisle and it hit me on the head."
Her reply was, "I am sure it was an accident."
This really pissed me off. She has no regard for whether I was o.k. or not, and did not reprimand her child in any way for throwing balls around the store. I replied, "If they were with you, maybe it wouldn't have happened."
I walked toward the register, and once she got her children to listen to her and meet her at the front of the store, she walked by and said, "I hope you're happy, now. You've made a seven year old cry. Do you see him crying?"
I replied, "Again, maybe it wouldn't have happened if you had been parenting them. I'm lucky that the ball didn't hit something heavy or hard on the top shelf and hit me on the head." (Directly behind me on the aisle were two-litre bottles of soda. If one of those had fallen, not only would it have hurt more than the ball, but it might have covered me in splattered sticky liquid, too.)
This woman, dressed in boots that cost more than my husband will take home in his paycheck this week, left the store and got into her Infinity SUV, the biggest they make. When I walked by her vehicle, she rolled down her window and repeated, "I hope you're happy with yourself."
I looked her in the eye, and said, "I hope you are, too."
She continued to rant out the window as I got into my car and drove away. She behaved as if the ball flying over the aisle was my fault somehow, because I was standing there. It is no accident when a ball flies over the aisle in a store. Children need to be parented and to be told that it is not appropriate to play with toys in a store. Gyms are the appropriate indoor ball spaces, not pharmacies.
I guess I performed a public service this morning: maybe the kid will refrain from ball throwing in stores in the future, and that will save someone else from getting hurt. Not only that, but had the soda knocked over, I would have had to travel back home to change, missing work hours, while this woman drove off in her expensive vehicle, obviously not going to any job at all. What really kills me is that the woman thought I was in the wrong for saying something! My children have never, ever done anything like that in a store. Of course, they were always by my side or within my sight, so even if they took something off a shelf or out of a basket, I was aware of it. I could intercede when they were young so that they knew what was appropriate behavior and what was not. Even if we bought a ball, we did not bounce it in the store. That was for outside, later. Some people say, "You're very lucky if your child never did x,y or z." I don't think parenting is luck. It wasn't good fortune, but rather consisten, effortful, mindful parenting that avoided such "accidents."
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Handmaid's Tale Redux
As promised, I read Margaret Atwood's, The Handmaid's Tale and so I now report back about its consideration as a dystopian novel. I conjectured that it was possible that inconsistent Library of Congress information might contribute to this novel's lack of presence in "lists" of dystopian literature. A cursory review of online information at the Library of Congress website doesn't show matching information for 1984 or Brave New World, so that can't be the reason for Atwood's novel not finding a place in the canon, as it is generally called.
I wonder whether Atwood's character viewpoint, that of a woman, is, in fact, what keeps The Handmaid's Tale from inclusion. Another cursory Internet search yielded interesting results. On Wikipedia, there are five women authors of dystopian literature listed in a timeline of publications. Various blogs include Atwood among the male authors, in addition to Lowry and others. However, a glance at Yale's consideration of the American Utopian dream, wherein there is a listing of utopian literature as well as dystopian and a list of utopian communities, of the seven authors listed for dystopian literature, none are female.
I'd love to have access to a college library website like I had as an undergraduate and graduate student so that I might search dissertations to explore scholarly consideration of dystopian literature to see the incidence of inclusion or exploration of female authored dystopian novels. The issue might come to the fact that more men have written, (and/or have had published), dystopian novels than women. That already slants the odds toward men being featured predominantly on lists of dystopian literature. Not only that, but it seems that more men write dystopian literature than women (or, again, are published possibly).
Nonetheless, I read The Handmaid's Tale to determine for myself whether the novel would make my own "dystopian literature list." Right from the start, I felt a resounding "YES!" come forth. As I read, I considered the story of its own merit, of course, but could not help compare various aspects to the dystopian literature I've read already. There were so many similarities that it was obvious to me that Atwood's book is a natural for any list of dystopian literature. As Laura Cude pondered this question, so do I: is Atwood's book "too feminine" for inclusion by some academics? Is the viewpoint less "universal" because it describes the behavior and inner life of a female main character and her direct bodily experiences?
If I consider Zamyatin's We, Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984, I find the viewpoint more universal as the main male characters do not necessarily speak of being in a male body. Their physical experiences are not so different from what any woman would experience in similar circumstances. Thus, are they more universally appreciated for their seemingly gender-free viewpoint? And yet, when we consider acts of war such as rape, and the use of rape as a tactic in defeating an enemy, the very femaleness of victims is what demoralizes a group, thereby allowing it to be conquered. There is no way to escape the unique female experience of this, no way to deny the difference of women and their reproductive organs as internal, hidden, and very personal to themselves as individuals. Yes, there is male rape, but it is also no different from the female experience of that mode of rape. There is no male equivalent of vaginal rape. I realize this may be seen as "splitting hairs" over a rape experience, or may be seen as me belittling anal rape and making more of vaginal rape. However, the main difference I see is that in the most general of terms, outside of sexuality as a consideration, is that the norm for female sex is vaginal in nature.
I digress.
If we add Louis Lowry's, The Giver, to the list, we still find a male main character whose experience is that of a human being outside of his being male, essentially. The difference with Atwood is that she speaks from the female body, not merely a female character in a dystopian society. Like Laura Cude, I do wonder if this is what accounts for lists not including Atwood's novel. Further, I wonder why this is so.
If you are male and have read Orwell, Huxley or Zamyatin as well as Atwood, would you kindly weigh in? What was your experience reading The Handmaid's Tale versus your experience reading any of the other authors listed? Were you are able to relate to the main character's experiences? Please share this blog with men you know who have read books like this so they may weigh in, as well. A private email is just as appreciated as a public comment, as I realize people may not want to put themselves in a public forum as they consider, comment and think-while-writing about this topic. I'd like to hear from women, as well! I only ask about men as I wonder if their perspective would be different.
I wonder whether Atwood's character viewpoint, that of a woman, is, in fact, what keeps The Handmaid's Tale from inclusion. Another cursory Internet search yielded interesting results. On Wikipedia, there are five women authors of dystopian literature listed in a timeline of publications. Various blogs include Atwood among the male authors, in addition to Lowry and others. However, a glance at Yale's consideration of the American Utopian dream, wherein there is a listing of utopian literature as well as dystopian and a list of utopian communities, of the seven authors listed for dystopian literature, none are female.
I'd love to have access to a college library website like I had as an undergraduate and graduate student so that I might search dissertations to explore scholarly consideration of dystopian literature to see the incidence of inclusion or exploration of female authored dystopian novels. The issue might come to the fact that more men have written, (and/or have had published), dystopian novels than women. That already slants the odds toward men being featured predominantly on lists of dystopian literature. Not only that, but it seems that more men write dystopian literature than women (or, again, are published possibly).
Nonetheless, I read The Handmaid's Tale to determine for myself whether the novel would make my own "dystopian literature list." Right from the start, I felt a resounding "YES!" come forth. As I read, I considered the story of its own merit, of course, but could not help compare various aspects to the dystopian literature I've read already. There were so many similarities that it was obvious to me that Atwood's book is a natural for any list of dystopian literature. As Laura Cude pondered this question, so do I: is Atwood's book "too feminine" for inclusion by some academics? Is the viewpoint less "universal" because it describes the behavior and inner life of a female main character and her direct bodily experiences?
If I consider Zamyatin's We, Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984, I find the viewpoint more universal as the main male characters do not necessarily speak of being in a male body. Their physical experiences are not so different from what any woman would experience in similar circumstances. Thus, are they more universally appreciated for their seemingly gender-free viewpoint? And yet, when we consider acts of war such as rape, and the use of rape as a tactic in defeating an enemy, the very femaleness of victims is what demoralizes a group, thereby allowing it to be conquered. There is no way to escape the unique female experience of this, no way to deny the difference of women and their reproductive organs as internal, hidden, and very personal to themselves as individuals. Yes, there is male rape, but it is also no different from the female experience of that mode of rape. There is no male equivalent of vaginal rape. I realize this may be seen as "splitting hairs" over a rape experience, or may be seen as me belittling anal rape and making more of vaginal rape. However, the main difference I see is that in the most general of terms, outside of sexuality as a consideration, is that the norm for female sex is vaginal in nature.
I digress.
If we add Louis Lowry's, The Giver, to the list, we still find a male main character whose experience is that of a human being outside of his being male, essentially. The difference with Atwood is that she speaks from the female body, not merely a female character in a dystopian society. Like Laura Cude, I do wonder if this is what accounts for lists not including Atwood's novel. Further, I wonder why this is so.
If you are male and have read Orwell, Huxley or Zamyatin as well as Atwood, would you kindly weigh in? What was your experience reading The Handmaid's Tale versus your experience reading any of the other authors listed? Were you are able to relate to the main character's experiences? Please share this blog with men you know who have read books like this so they may weigh in, as well. A private email is just as appreciated as a public comment, as I realize people may not want to put themselves in a public forum as they consider, comment and think-while-writing about this topic. I'd like to hear from women, as well! I only ask about men as I wonder if their perspective would be different.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
"Newspeak" and Video Games
This morning, my husband read a Fox "news" (sarcasm intended) report about an upcoming video game, Bullet Storm. The game features truly over-the-top (think Tarantino-esque) battle sequences, language and interactions between characters. The game is rated "M" for mature, by the independent game ratings organization, much the same as with ratings in the film industry. The "M" is equal to the "R" rating, or sometimes NC-17 rating for films.
The "news" report cited the problems with a game like this, and how the exposure to violence, swearing and the depiction of violent sexual acts leads to violent crime and rape in society, especially when games like this are played by gamers as young as nine. Pro-free-speech and pro-gamer groups cite the rating as an indication that children will not be playing this game very much. However, those typically promoting "small government" are on the bandwagon hoping to ban these kinds of games entirely. They feel that the rating is not enough, and that retailers will sell these games to children, regardless of ratings or laws that do not allow such sales, yet do not carry stiff fines or other punishments on retailers who do not enforce the ratings or sales policies.
What I want to know is this: how does a nine year old get to a video game store to buy such a thing without a parent? I also want to know where a nine year old gets the $60 this game costs. I would expect the ride would be from a parent and that the cash (or credit card provided) also belongs to the said driving parent. Thus, we must assume that the parent is the one who allows a child, as young as nine, to purchase a game rated for adults only.
I also believe, firmly, that the reason for violence in society is far less related to violent movies or video games and far more related to the lack of parenting and conversation between parents and children.
The other question I will ask is this: is Bullet Storm (its mere title alone should give a clue as to its content) what contributes to violence and rape in our society any more than programs such as Jersey Shore? I mean, when I see a preview for such a program, it incites a violent tendency in me. It doesn't lead me to respect women or their bodies either, since the program seems as if it depicts women devaluing their own selves. This program is on regular television and is probably seen by more nine year olds than most "M" rated video games. I have seen Nick and Nora's Infinite Play List as well as Midnight Cowboy. I have to say that I would rather my thirteen-year-old see the latter than the former, which is rated PG-13 to Midnight Cowboy's infamous "X" rating, the equivalent to today's NC-17. I see the preview for Jersey Shore and it makes me think of that old Paris-Hilton-on-a-farm show as PBS programming.
While I would certainly have a conversation (the "c" word in most family homes since it is avoided at all costs) with my teen before and after watching Midnight Cowboy, the extent of the conversation and its content would be far less than what was required after we viewed, as a family, Nick and Nora. Personally, having viewed the Bullet Storm preview, I think the game can be described as what you'd imagine a game would look like if Quentin Tarantino left the film industry to make a video game. Then again, what is the difference between watching or interacting with Kill Bill?
Oh, and just like televisions and computers can be set to disallow access to various websites or programs, so, too, can an xbox be set to not play "M" rated games. Of course, most parents who complain about this kind of thing do not even know that much about the xbox, do not research, watch or discuss the games their children request, and thereby do not parent in the active verb sense of that word. THIS is what leads to violence in society and to sexual violence against women.
The "news" report cited the problems with a game like this, and how the exposure to violence, swearing and the depiction of violent sexual acts leads to violent crime and rape in society, especially when games like this are played by gamers as young as nine. Pro-free-speech and pro-gamer groups cite the rating as an indication that children will not be playing this game very much. However, those typically promoting "small government" are on the bandwagon hoping to ban these kinds of games entirely. They feel that the rating is not enough, and that retailers will sell these games to children, regardless of ratings or laws that do not allow such sales, yet do not carry stiff fines or other punishments on retailers who do not enforce the ratings or sales policies.
What I want to know is this: how does a nine year old get to a video game store to buy such a thing without a parent? I also want to know where a nine year old gets the $60 this game costs. I would expect the ride would be from a parent and that the cash (or credit card provided) also belongs to the said driving parent. Thus, we must assume that the parent is the one who allows a child, as young as nine, to purchase a game rated for adults only.
I also believe, firmly, that the reason for violence in society is far less related to violent movies or video games and far more related to the lack of parenting and conversation between parents and children.
The other question I will ask is this: is Bullet Storm (its mere title alone should give a clue as to its content) what contributes to violence and rape in our society any more than programs such as Jersey Shore? I mean, when I see a preview for such a program, it incites a violent tendency in me. It doesn't lead me to respect women or their bodies either, since the program seems as if it depicts women devaluing their own selves. This program is on regular television and is probably seen by more nine year olds than most "M" rated video games. I have seen Nick and Nora's Infinite Play List as well as Midnight Cowboy. I have to say that I would rather my thirteen-year-old see the latter than the former, which is rated PG-13 to Midnight Cowboy's infamous "X" rating, the equivalent to today's NC-17. I see the preview for Jersey Shore and it makes me think of that old Paris-Hilton-on-a-farm show as PBS programming.
While I would certainly have a conversation (the "c" word in most family homes since it is avoided at all costs) with my teen before and after watching Midnight Cowboy, the extent of the conversation and its content would be far less than what was required after we viewed, as a family, Nick and Nora. Personally, having viewed the Bullet Storm preview, I think the game can be described as what you'd imagine a game would look like if Quentin Tarantino left the film industry to make a video game. Then again, what is the difference between watching or interacting with Kill Bill?
Oh, and just like televisions and computers can be set to disallow access to various websites or programs, so, too, can an xbox be set to not play "M" rated games. Of course, most parents who complain about this kind of thing do not even know that much about the xbox, do not research, watch or discuss the games their children request, and thereby do not parent in the active verb sense of that word. THIS is what leads to violence in society and to sexual violence against women.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
PB and What Kind of J?
The posts have been pretty serious of late, so I thought I'd lighten things up.A friend shared a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with me last week, and it was made with strawberry jam. It got me thinking about jelly/jam and people's preferences. For the most part, I think our preferences are somewhat like hair color, only slightly less genetic of course, and more from the "nurture" than "nature" camp. Most of us likely prefer the flavors with which we grew up. If your mother or father (or whomever made the PBJs in your house) bought and prepared a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with strawberry jam, then you grow up and use strawberry. My mom used grape usually. I like grape, but as an adult prefer raspberry. My mom bought raspberry sometimes since that is what my father preferred. However, I think grape was cheaper, so it won out as the "preferred" by default.
As an adult, raspberry is probably my favorite. I still like grape. I love more exotic flavors like Stonewall Kitchen's gourmet raspberry, peach champagne, or even just plain peach. Blueberry is pretty tasty, too. While I was more than thankful and grateful for the PBJ on wheat I got from my friend at work, I have to say I'm not a strawberry jam person. It was fine in a pinch. I'd just never buy strawberry jam.
Feel free to weigh in on this all-important topic. What's your favorite jelly/jam flavor? Smooth or chunky peanut butter? What kind of bread do you prefer for this delicacy of convenience and nostalgia?
P.S. Thanks to Stonewall Kitchens for "lending" me their image. I assume they won't mind since I'm complimenting and promoting their products in this post.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Feminist Dystopia?
Laura Cude is a British writer I read regularly at HerCircle Ezine, to which I subscribe. Her latest piece is a reflection on whether Atwood's, The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopian novel, albeit a feminist one in the almost all-male genre, and if so, why is it not included in lists of "must-reads" or when dystopian novels are brought up in articles or discussions? I have never read the novel myself to date, even while I've re-read Orwell and Huxley. That can be quickly rectified by grabbing my nook and having the book instantly in my hands. (Ah, the convenience of modern technology, dystopian novel be damned!)
As an instant reaction to Cude's article, I considered Fight Club and its male author yet its feminist (in my opinion) theme with the male character finding wholeness and growth through his relationship with the female character, which is representative of feminist relational development theory. Below I quote my comment at the HerCircle website:
I, too, have somehow never read this book. However, I will now read it. With my handy nook, I can go online (hopefully) and find it in e-book format for immediate reading. That aside, I wonder whether you've read Fight Club? (or whether you've seen the movie) I realize it was written by a man, however, I also think this man is particularly interesting in the dystopian novel genre for his perspectives.
On the surface, Fight Club seems all-male, and testosterone-fueled. I, myself, resisted seeing it as it was advertised. When it went to video (yes, that dinosaur VHS), I resisted it each time my husband and I went to the store to rent a film. I kept telling him I didn't want to watch men beat each other up for two hours. When I finally saw the film, after it was continually recommended by people I respected, I was blown away, and not just by the story itself with the plot twist ending.
I went and read the book, which has a different ending. Both endings are terrific. However, the book is far more chilling in the end. It's Shelley's warning in Frankenstein about being careful what you create man (and by that I mean specifically the male as creator in the world).
I had already read Susan Faludi's, Stiffed, and could not help but compare what I saw in Fight Club to Faludi's thesis. You see, in the end, it is the character's love for the woman that saves him from himself. He is able to overcome a very serious psychosis due to the power of love and the relationship in which he finds himself. (Yes, yes, can of worms that all is aside.)
Rather than Winston ultimately betraying Julia in 1984, the Fight Club character redeems himself in light of his care, love and personal growth that comes from his relationship with Marla. This is an exact example of feminist theories of growth such as relational development. Thus, the fact that Fight Club was written by a male author is even more interesting as we examine literary history and the dystopian novel's development. The female character, as flawed as she seems in Fight Club as an "ideal" feminist woman, is, at her heart, at least still sane despite the society in which she lives. She has issues, for sure, yet not nearly the extent of issues of the male character. In the end, she advocates for herself, and even when she is detained by the main male character's minions, he is thereby "cured" and brought to a kind of wholeness as the result of his care for her. What could be more feminist than someone finding growth, redemption and a sense of caring for the entire world, community and society through relationship?
If you have a chance to dialog about this, I'd be very interested in your thoughts. I will also go and read Atwood's book to see what that has to say. As your comments hint toward, I wonder if the fact that Atwood's text is not science fiction is what makes it hard for people to read. I am not sure, however, since when I re-read 1984 or Brave New World, as I do now and again, I find them less science fiction than prophecy or self-fulfilling prophecy. We can't go anywhere in the United States without television. While it might not be "two-way" t.v. (yet), it is ubiquitous and inescapable. The nature of what is presented is merely self-policed, with no need for "Big Brother" as people pressure one another into viewing or view those as suspect who do not watch. It is far worse than Orwell could even imagine it. A glance at birthing practices, again, especially in the U.S., will also show what has come true from Brave New World.
As an instant reaction to Cude's article, I considered Fight Club and its male author yet its feminist (in my opinion) theme with the male character finding wholeness and growth through his relationship with the female character, which is representative of feminist relational development theory. Below I quote my comment at the HerCircle website:
I, too, have somehow never read this book. However, I will now read it. With my handy nook, I can go online (hopefully) and find it in e-book format for immediate reading. That aside, I wonder whether you've read Fight Club? (or whether you've seen the movie) I realize it was written by a man, however, I also think this man is particularly interesting in the dystopian novel genre for his perspectives.
On the surface, Fight Club seems all-male, and testosterone-fueled. I, myself, resisted seeing it as it was advertised. When it went to video (yes, that dinosaur VHS), I resisted it each time my husband and I went to the store to rent a film. I kept telling him I didn't want to watch men beat each other up for two hours. When I finally saw the film, after it was continually recommended by people I respected, I was blown away, and not just by the story itself with the plot twist ending.
I went and read the book, which has a different ending. Both endings are terrific. However, the book is far more chilling in the end. It's Shelley's warning in Frankenstein about being careful what you create man (and by that I mean specifically the male as creator in the world).
I had already read Susan Faludi's, Stiffed, and could not help but compare what I saw in Fight Club to Faludi's thesis. You see, in the end, it is the character's love for the woman that saves him from himself. He is able to overcome a very serious psychosis due to the power of love and the relationship in which he finds himself. (Yes, yes, can of worms that all is aside.)
Rather than Winston ultimately betraying Julia in 1984, the Fight Club character redeems himself in light of his care, love and personal growth that comes from his relationship with Marla. This is an exact example of feminist theories of growth such as relational development. Thus, the fact that Fight Club was written by a male author is even more interesting as we examine literary history and the dystopian novel's development. The female character, as flawed as she seems in Fight Club as an "ideal" feminist woman, is, at her heart, at least still sane despite the society in which she lives. She has issues, for sure, yet not nearly the extent of issues of the male character. In the end, she advocates for herself, and even when she is detained by the main male character's minions, he is thereby "cured" and brought to a kind of wholeness as the result of his care for her. What could be more feminist than someone finding growth, redemption and a sense of caring for the entire world, community and society through relationship?
If you have a chance to dialog about this, I'd be very interested in your thoughts. I will also go and read Atwood's book to see what that has to say. As your comments hint toward, I wonder if the fact that Atwood's text is not science fiction is what makes it hard for people to read. I am not sure, however, since when I re-read 1984 or Brave New World, as I do now and again, I find them less science fiction than prophecy or self-fulfilling prophecy. We can't go anywhere in the United States without television. While it might not be "two-way" t.v. (yet), it is ubiquitous and inescapable. The nature of what is presented is merely self-policed, with no need for "Big Brother" as people pressure one another into viewing or view those as suspect who do not watch. It is far worse than Orwell could even imagine it. A glance at birthing practices, again, especially in the U.S., will also show what has come true from Brave New World.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
War: what is it good for?
As a family, we're watching The Pacific as the episodes arrive via our Netflix subscription. I have said this many times before, but it is worth repeating: I am convinced that if women ruled the world, specifically mothers, I suppose, there would be no war. I do not believe that mothers would ever send their children off to kill the children of other mothers. It is futile and ridiculous. It solves nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)