Mulan

When I think of Disney Princesses, what I usually imagine are ball room gowns and prince charming. And all of the princesses always have a happy ending, but the only (lately added) Disney princess that was far off from any other of the princesses was Mulan. Mulan breaks a lot of gender stereotypes, in the beginning of the movie, Mulan had to go and present herself as a "woman" in China. She wore a kimono and lots of make-up so she could get judged, she was supposed to be seen as perfect, with no flaws. When Mulan found out that her crippled father was getting drafted into the army, she decided that she was going to go in for him, and cut off her hair and wore his suit of armor. When Mulan starts training, she gets criticized on everything she does, until her army see The Huns coming down a mountain. When her army tried to attack, they launched missles, but they were not doing any damage to the other army. The Mulan had a bright idea to launch a missle upwards on fire and break the side of the mountain causing an avalanche.

I see a lot of stereotypes breaking just in the first half of the movie, Mulan was supposed to be percieved as the "girly girl" type and be perfect and beautiful. She broke this stereotype by cutting off all of her hair and going into the army just for the love of her dad. When she gets into training, Mulan is the reason why the majority of the Huns died, there is another stereotype that broke. Women are percieved to be more quiet, reserved, and are known to keep their opinions to themselves. Men are "supposed" to be the one's that are smart, creative, and quick on their feet. The fact that Mulan was the only one out of a group of men to come up with the idea on how to kill the Huns is definitely a breaking of her gender stereotype.

Later on the army finds out that Mulan is a female when she has to get seen by a doctor, abd she gets kicked out of the army. Later on, The Huns come back to kill the emperor, and Mulan herself goes after the the leader. Eventually the leader dies and the emperor gives Mulan his sword and a medallion so she could bring honor back to her family, and he ends up bowing to her.

Mulan breaks her gender "roles" throughout the whole movie, she was definitely not like every other Disney Princess, she never seeked a prince charming or went to balls or anything of that sort, she fought hard for her family with other men and broke every stereotype in the book while doing it. While Mulan does have a happy ending in the end, and ends up with the man she desired, she worked hard for his love and it was not the typical "love at first sight" things like all of the other princesses.

Compelling Works

After listening to my class mates present their novels, the majority of the books I did want to read. I don't think I had read any of the books that were presented, excluding a few that I know about, but there was one book that stood out to me in particular and that was Amber's presentation of Orlando by Virginia Woolfe. Even before we read The Hours in class I have always wanted to read any of Virginia Woolfe's writing. I've heard a lot about her and her writing and I did initially feel compelled to read at least one of her novels knowing that she was not only a fantastic writer, but a feminist writer as well. Feminism is something that interests me, excluding the fact that women's studies is one of my majors, but I have always loved feminists just because me as a person, I can appreciate women and love women for the hardship they over came and are still dealing with today. Women really have dealt with a lot of hard ship throughout the years and it's sad that some women are still living in the "traditional" way where they live to serve their husband. It may seem like a lot of things have changed, but in reality, a lot hasn't. Women's rights is still a big issue to me, women don't seem as important to our society, especially when it comes down to important issues and roles such as politics and jobs. There are still some companies today that will pay men more than they pay men, and it is just not right. Women's rights is still a huge on-going issue and it makes me appreciate women and also people who write about women, including feminist writers. I don't look at myself as a feminist, I love anything to do with women, the study of them, and how they made us who we are and where we are at today. But I wouldn't put myself in the "category" of feminists.

I haven't read any of Virginia Woolfe's work, not yet anyways, but I do soon hope too and Amber's presentation made me want to read her novels ten times more than I used to want to. Virginia's writing also came up when we were reading the novel The Hours in class and they talked about her novel Mrs. Dalloway. Reading a book that talks about a character reading a novel by Virginia Woolfe and being compelled by it also made me want to read one of her novels. I know that the way that she writes is something that would pertain to my taste. I know that her novels were not accepted by all when she was alive and writing, but now it seems that she is known as a great author and I cannot wait to read her work. After seeing Amber's presentation, it really showed me that I need to stop procrastinating and read one of her novel's, because she just seems to of an amazing of an author to pass up.

Gender Differences.

Females and males are brought up differently. Males are more prone to more "manly" toys such as G.I. Joes and Tonka trucks while females are more prone to barbie dolls and fake earrings. I didn't agree with Restak's essay. He talked about how statistics have shown that females appear to be more intelligent that males do as they are growing up. I really don't think it is a sex thing, it must be more of how girls are raised to be and what they are exposed too. He also said "Usually such differences are explained on a cultural basis. Boys are expected to be more aggressive and play rough games, while girls are presumably encouraged to be gentle, nonassertive and passive. After several years of exposure to such expectations, the theory goes, both men and women wind up with widely varying behavioral and intellectual repertoires."

I don't really agree with this stereotype, I don't think all girls are "expected" so seen to be gentle or nonassertive. While I was growing up, I was a tomboy, my whole family thought I was going to turn out as a tomboy when throughout adolescence as well because they could never see me being a "girl." I played with the boys and played like boys are expected to be, and my family and friends accepted me like that. While I got older, I did turn out to be more feminine but the pressure of being feminine was never put on me. Girls all over the world are or were tomboys growing up, and it is accepted by society, so I don't really believe that girls are expected to be nurturing and passive.

Another thing that I did not agree with was when he stated, "Girls can also sing in tune at an earlier age." I'm not sure if this is statistically proven, but in my opinion I don't think it's correct. I think that being to do things like sing, play the guitar, paint, or write are all hereditary. They may not be, but the chances are that if two parents have to talent to sing well, then the chance that their child will be able to sing good are very high. Same goes with painting, playing instruments, etc. Of course it's not always like that, some times children are born with talents that their parents never had, or vice versa, but I believe parents' being able to sing plays more into whether or not there child can sing than their gender.

Overall I did not agree with a lot of what Restak wrote about, whether it be scientifically proven or not. I don't think that females are born with a better voice or muscles in their throat than males and I don't think all girls are "expected" to be girly girls when their younger. It all could be just stereotypes that we have in America, and while some may be true, to me, a lot of it is false in my opinion, but that's just me.

Role Models

The media has recently started to get more graphic, sexually and/or non sexually, than it used to. With better technology, now things such as video games, music, and movies are progressing, but in a negative way to kids. Now there a lot of video games that we have that include shooting, killing, zombies, stabbing, blood, and all in all violence, and sometimes sexual material. But, is it really the game designer’s job to make their games appropriate for children? Every video game has an age range on it, having players know what they have in store for them. if it is graphic with violence and usually sexually explicit, it is usually 17 and up. With little violence and usually not sexually explicit, it is usually 14 and up. Anything else with no violence or graphics will be all ages. So the games are in categories for what age would be appropriate for children, the same goes for music as well, even though music may not be rated like video games are, some cd's that have extreme cursing will have a caution label on it. So really, I believe that it is the parent’s responsibility to control what their kids see and hear.

Why would it be the video game designer’s responsibility to make their games appropriate for children? They're just doing their job, and the product that their trying to sell isn't even for kids, it's for adults. Same goes to artists and music videos, not everything can be kid friendly, and then it would be a kid’s world and nothing for adult or teenagers. It is the parent's responsibility to watch what their kids see and play, if they think a video game is too violent then they do not have to buy it, as simple and as easy as that. But what is crossing the line? Even though some games are in the 17+ category, are those video games portraying positivity to young adults? For example, the game “Call of Duty” is a video game for the console “X-box” and is one of the best selling games in the world. The purpose of the game is to shoot people, and people think this game is fun. A game with no purpose other than to shoot people is not putting out a good influence on people.
The games that kids have which would be rated all ages aren’t all appropriate either, for example the racing games. The racing games are usually for kids and portray competiveness which children should not be learning at a small age. Yet, the majority of them require logic and creativity, which is a plus for kids to be learning at their age. All in all, it is the parents responsibility to watch what their kids watch and play. If they have their kids watch appropriate music videos and video games then there is not a problem, the other games that show violence can be played at a later age, when it is more appropriate.

You get what you want, you want what you get.

I really do not watch too much of the media, I am aware of what is going on in the world, but I don't watch the news or anything of that sort. Sometimes I feel like the news exposes events that are happening that are not really of that much interest to me. I watched the news one morning and for the first 15 minutes I was watching it, all I got out of it was how Kim Kardashian came out with a new work out video and Lindsay Lohan is going back to rehab for the 100th time. Yeah, not too interested in that. I feel as if the media has a huge negative impact on society, mostly due to the fact that the news only portrays negative information. I feel as if, the reason why the news puts out negative information is because it makes people feel better about themselves. When people are watching negative information, such as kidnapping, drugs, or rape, it makes them feel better because it’s not happening to them. I feel like that’s where the saying “I never thought this would happen to me” comes in. If the news only put out positive information, like winning the lottery, cancer survivors, or the people in Chili surviving being underground for 90 days (true story). Then it would make them feel worse about themselves, “why couldn’t that happen to me?” or “how did they get so lucky?” I think that’s the main reason why negative information is put out.
During the elections a few weeks ago, “negative campaigning” was happening. Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown were not focusing on themselves and the positivity they could bring to their country, but more of the bad things that they could show about each other. At a women’s convention, Matt Laure asked Whitman and Brown if they could stop bashing each other and focus more on themselves. Brown stated that he would be up to stop if Whitman did, but Meg Whitman stated that “she would not stop because she needs to expose what a bad man Jerry Brown was.” The media and news are all negativity, and if that is all that we’re exposed to, then that’s going to have a toll on how we live OUR lives and affect the decisions that we make.
There are three main news channels that go on at night. The three people that host the shows are Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Diane Sawyer. Statistics have shown that out of the three shows, the show that consistently gets t he most positive ratings is the one that Brian Williams hosts. Is there a coincidence that the show that gets the most ratings is hosted by a male? I don’t think it’s a coincidence, I feel that men get taken more seriously in the media than women do, and there are statistics to prove it. I think it has to do something with sexism, I’m not sure, one day I’ll do more research and find the facts, in the mean time, it will just be all my opinion.

Female or Male?

While reading Written on The Body, I was wondering what gender the narrator was throughout the whole novel. Initially, before reading the novel I already had my mind set on a female, the reason being because the class is about Gender, Image, and Rhetoric and we have been discussing a lot about homosexuality as well as intersexuality. So of course, going into the book I already have my mind set on that the narrator is a female just based off the class. Actually reading the novel, I wasn't exactly sure. The narrator has love affairs with plenty of females who are married, which I know happens a lot these days. Yet, like I discussed in my last blog, how many females would actually cheat on their husbands with other man...and then end up going back to their husband? I'm sure the main reason why females would even cheat on their spouse is due to their marriage is boring, they do the same rituals every day and they stop having sex. So most females cheat on their husbands with another male who can give them the satisfaction that they're husband can not. Now, I am not an expert in a situation like this because I have not been exposed to or had a first hand experience with something like this, but that is just based off my instincts. If a females will cheat on their husband with another man, they will most likely leave their husband for this man (if things get serious) based on the fact that they are no longer happy in their relationship, but like i said, I am not expert.

Now a married woman cheating on their husband with another females is a completely different story. I believe if a woman is going to cheat on their husband with another man (being previously bi sexual or not) they are more likely to do it just for the experience. Obviously the woman likes males, since they married one but the thrill of a different experience may cause them to cheat, especially if they meet another female that they are attracted to physically or non-physically. Yet in the end, of course, they go back to their married life for the experience they had was just an experience.

While reading the novel I was thinking about this just to try to figure out what gender the narrator actually was, I was leaning more towards the female throughout the first few pages but my thoughts were fully set on the narrator being a female when I reached about page 70. There is a part in the book when the narrator is talking about an ex-girlfriend and how insane she was. The narrator was stating that she was only able to see the girl during certain times of the day and that she bred rubber plants. She then stated the girl locked her out of the greenhouse and left the narrator in he/she's "mickey mouse one piece" at that point, i had my mind set. The narrator was a female...was she intended to be a female? I don't really know.

Gender&Identity.

In our culture there is a lot of confusion on gender and identity. In reference to the difference of a writer and writing, I belive that is something that can be mixed up often, even though I am now currently writing it does not make me a writer. Even though, I am a journalism major and would consider myself a writer, many people who are not pursuing writing careers would not be considered writers. Now the quote that Winterson said, "I am a writer who happens to love women. I am not a lesbian who happens to write." I loved this quote. I love anything to do with women, I love the study of women throughout history and the impacts they have made on society. I love the long way women have traveled from where we used to be, but i'm interested in women non-sexually, and people like me who love the study of women in general can be confused for lesbians or bi-sexual/curious, which is defiently not the case.

Women writers, like Winterson i'm sure would be confused as lesbians as well. It's human nature to read books like Written on the body and have you're own thoughts on what gender the narrator is. Me personally, I believe the narrator is a woman. I'm not trying to stereotype males at all, but from personal experience and being an outsider looking in on some situations, if a male has many sexual partners, he is not going to fall in love and have heartbreak like the narrator did. The narrator was not a believer in love, the first few pages could tell you that. He/she fell in
"love" with almost every female he/she had sex with (before Louise) and was heartbroken due to the fact that they always left the narrator for their husband. Females are more of seen as the "clingy" type, who fall for men who are just looking for a one night stand, just like the narrator. Yet I also thought, how many married women are really looking for affairs with other women? Does this go back to the whole lesbian or just loving women discussion? Say if the narrator really was female and the sexual partners she had were married to males, the women always returned to their husband. It could be that the wives were not lesbians, they just appreciated women and had an affair, but always returned back to their sex of choice, males.

If the narrator was a male, it would be different. I believe that if a married woman was to have an affair with another man, it would be because they see something in this man that they don't in their own husband, and they are more prone to leave their husband to their new lover. Yet for a married woman to have an affair with another woman, it would be more towards to experience something different, but in the end, they would go back to their regular lifestlye. It's something to think about when reading books like Winterson's. I do belive though that appreciating women and actually being a lesbian and/or gay are two completely different things, and maybe that's what Winterson what trying to prove in her novel without really knowing it...