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...
Friday, October 29, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Hours
The Hours I believe is a celebration of life, suicide is mentioned a few times throughout the novel which is a very touchy subject, especially in our society. I think of it as a celebration of life because Laura Brown does not kill herself even though it is very clear that she is not happy with her life. Laura felt like she wasn’t an individual anymore, she was now known as her husband’s wife, something that she did not want to be known as. She feels irritated by her husband and her son, she feels irritated that she must have sex with him and make him breakfast in the morning. One of the reasons that she stays with him, is mostly due to the war. Her husband was in the war and when he came out of it, he chose Laura as the woman that he wanted to be with. I'm sure many people are struggling from thoughts of suicide, and to over-come it is a very good and relieving thing. In the end, Laura did not commit suicide; she had her books as an escape, and she ends up leaving her husband and her son, to escape away from the life that she so hated. Unfortunately, Virginia Woolf did commit suicide but clearly, dying was the only thing that could make her truly happy. Throughout her story, it was clear that Virginia was a little bit strange, she avoids things such as looking in the mirror to avoid her shadow, or to avoid speaking to people who will put her in a bad mood, as well as eating, all she wanted to do was write.
Though Virginia committed suicide, she stopped Laura Brown from committing suicide. With the end of one life, saves another. Her writing was so wonderful and beautiful that Laura used her writings to get away from the world that she hated and into another that she loved. Without Virginia’s book, I’m sure that Laura Brown would of committed suicide as well. Yet Laura had a small breaking point in which she realized that she did not want to be crazy like Virginia Woolf. Clarissa Vaughan didn’t have thoughts of suicide, but she witnessed suicide from her best friend, Richard. Throughout the novel Clarissa would see things that would remind her of her and Richard when they were young and lovers. Sadly, Richard is dying from AIDS and she is now living a life with another woman. She contemplates whether or not she chose the right life and wonders what her life would have been like if she was to be with Richard instead of Sally. Overall the book is fantastic and a great way to show how that sometimes life can be difficult and will get you down, but there’s always a way to bring your life back up, whether it be from a book written by a person who feels the same way or not, there is always a way to save a life.
Though Virginia committed suicide, she stopped Laura Brown from committing suicide. With the end of one life, saves another. Her writing was so wonderful and beautiful that Laura used her writings to get away from the world that she hated and into another that she loved. Without Virginia’s book, I’m sure that Laura Brown would of committed suicide as well. Yet Laura had a small breaking point in which she realized that she did not want to be crazy like Virginia Woolf. Clarissa Vaughan didn’t have thoughts of suicide, but she witnessed suicide from her best friend, Richard. Throughout the novel Clarissa would see things that would remind her of her and Richard when they were young and lovers. Sadly, Richard is dying from AIDS and she is now living a life with another woman. She contemplates whether or not she chose the right life and wonders what her life would have been like if she was to be with Richard instead of Sally. Overall the book is fantastic and a great way to show how that sometimes life can be difficult and will get you down, but there’s always a way to bring your life back up, whether it be from a book written by a person who feels the same way or not, there is always a way to save a life.
Biblical References to Homosexuality
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as he would a woman, both of them have created an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
In the bible, it states that man and woman are to be together and it forbids homosexuality for the reason that God put man and woman on the earth together for a purpose, the purpose being to create life. Many people now a day’s still believe in this theory that man and woman are to be together. Churches still preach it and kids are still brought up to learn it. The majority of our society is Christians, if Christians are still preaching that homosexuality is wrong, and then the idea of homosexuality is still going to be thought of as wrong to the majority of the people in the world. In the bible it also states that god created sex for reproduction as well as pleasure, the pleasure was mostly for the man, it couldn't of really of done anything for a woman.
In my opinion, I think it's kind of ridiculous that the majority of our country is living by what a book says. I don't believe that there is someone out there that can tell a person what is right or what is wrong, or a book nevertheless. I think it's wrong that the bible states in writing that if you are a homosexual then you have created an abomination and will be punished of it. In Romans 24:27 it states that if you are a homosexual then you will never be let into heaven unless you beg God to forgive you of your sins, not doing so means you have to much pride, which is the deadliest of the seven deadly sins.
I don't think that Christianity itself is wrong, I think some of the thing that they preach may be wrong, but I have nothing against the religion. Though Christianity is the largest religion practiced in the United States, statistics show that soon Muslim will be the largest religion practiced, besides that, many new religions are developing as we speak. Including Atheism, Agnostic, as well as Scientology which big movies stars as starting to practice including Tom Cruise and Kirstie Alley. New religions bring new practices and new things to preach, so the same stories or ideas won’t be taught across the country, now parents have a choice on how they would want to bring their children up. They can either have them not believe in God, which would be Atheism, or be neutral on the religion debate, which would consider them Agnostic. Either way, my stand on Christianity stays, I believe it’s wrong to teach people not to be homosexual and threaten that if you are a homosexual that there is a chance that you will go to hell. I am very glad that new religions are starting to form, giving people a chance to actually practice a religion in which they think is right, instead of a religion that tells them what is right.
In the bible, it states that man and woman are to be together and it forbids homosexuality for the reason that God put man and woman on the earth together for a purpose, the purpose being to create life. Many people now a day’s still believe in this theory that man and woman are to be together. Churches still preach it and kids are still brought up to learn it. The majority of our society is Christians, if Christians are still preaching that homosexuality is wrong, and then the idea of homosexuality is still going to be thought of as wrong to the majority of the people in the world. In the bible it also states that god created sex for reproduction as well as pleasure, the pleasure was mostly for the man, it couldn't of really of done anything for a woman.
In my opinion, I think it's kind of ridiculous that the majority of our country is living by what a book says. I don't believe that there is someone out there that can tell a person what is right or what is wrong, or a book nevertheless. I think it's wrong that the bible states in writing that if you are a homosexual then you have created an abomination and will be punished of it. In Romans 24:27 it states that if you are a homosexual then you will never be let into heaven unless you beg God to forgive you of your sins, not doing so means you have to much pride, which is the deadliest of the seven deadly sins.
I don't think that Christianity itself is wrong, I think some of the thing that they preach may be wrong, but I have nothing against the religion. Though Christianity is the largest religion practiced in the United States, statistics show that soon Muslim will be the largest religion practiced, besides that, many new religions are developing as we speak. Including Atheism, Agnostic, as well as Scientology which big movies stars as starting to practice including Tom Cruise and Kirstie Alley. New religions bring new practices and new things to preach, so the same stories or ideas won’t be taught across the country, now parents have a choice on how they would want to bring their children up. They can either have them not believe in God, which would be Atheism, or be neutral on the religion debate, which would consider them Agnostic. Either way, my stand on Christianity stays, I believe it’s wrong to teach people not to be homosexual and threaten that if you are a homosexual that there is a chance that you will go to hell. I am very glad that new religions are starting to form, giving people a chance to actually practice a religion in which they think is right, instead of a religion that tells them what is right.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Gender Roles are Still Stricted..
I feel like the role of women can go different ways. Some people think the role to be the role of the housewife. To cook, clean, do laundry, and take care of the kids. These women are usually not outspoken, more timid and shy. These women listen and tend to their husband. Yet other roles of women (lately) are that women are loud and obnoxious. They like to argue and complain. They stand up for themselves and don't take disrespect. So in a way, gender roles for women have changed, but not in a good way.
I can see some restrictions for women, but not really too much. Women are now allowed to work, to buy homes, cars, or go to school. Women these days, (i've heard) are actually now making more than men do. Women can do anything a man can do, non-physically. Since the drawing, everything has changed for women. Like in my first paragraph, women are not in the little bubble like they used to be. The drawing was trying to say what would happen to women if they behaved outside of that bubble. That they would become poor and have to sell their bodies to make money. Now I feel like women don't really have a "role." Sure the media plays on the housewife making food for her kids and greeting her husband as he comes home from work but that's just TV, that's just the media trying to sell products..that's not real life. Excluding older people who have lived in the era in which women WERE to be the housewife, it really doesn't seem like anyone expects women to play that role. The role is now shared...with men.
The idea of women doing everything for men, and taking care of the house, and kids is an idea that is from an older era. The older people who now live in this generation still believe in this because they've grown up to live like that. Now in this generation, men are now sharing the responsibilities with their wife and teaching their children how to do laundry or do the dishes, regardless whether the child be male or female. Especially due to the fact that children learn from what they observe, seeing their father do the dishes would depict to the child that it is okay for males to do dishes, therefore that child grows up not thinking that women have "roles".
The only thing that can even possibly have males still think of these "roles" is of course, other males. Not all kids are brought up in the way that I just described and still thinks of boys that can play women's roles as "gay" or any word of that sort, and it is still extremely hurtful to see words like that thrown around or for kids to be taunted, but the upside is that we are progressing slowly but surely and hopefully one day all kids will grow up to be open-minded and these "gender roles" will no longer be a topic up for discussion.
I can see some restrictions for women, but not really too much. Women are now allowed to work, to buy homes, cars, or go to school. Women these days, (i've heard) are actually now making more than men do. Women can do anything a man can do, non-physically. Since the drawing, everything has changed for women. Like in my first paragraph, women are not in the little bubble like they used to be. The drawing was trying to say what would happen to women if they behaved outside of that bubble. That they would become poor and have to sell their bodies to make money. Now I feel like women don't really have a "role." Sure the media plays on the housewife making food for her kids and greeting her husband as he comes home from work but that's just TV, that's just the media trying to sell products..that's not real life. Excluding older people who have lived in the era in which women WERE to be the housewife, it really doesn't seem like anyone expects women to play that role. The role is now shared...with men.
The idea of women doing everything for men, and taking care of the house, and kids is an idea that is from an older era. The older people who now live in this generation still believe in this because they've grown up to live like that. Now in this generation, men are now sharing the responsibilities with their wife and teaching their children how to do laundry or do the dishes, regardless whether the child be male or female. Especially due to the fact that children learn from what they observe, seeing their father do the dishes would depict to the child that it is okay for males to do dishes, therefore that child grows up not thinking that women have "roles".
The only thing that can even possibly have males still think of these "roles" is of course, other males. Not all kids are brought up in the way that I just described and still thinks of boys that can play women's roles as "gay" or any word of that sort, and it is still extremely hurtful to see words like that thrown around or for kids to be taunted, but the upside is that we are progressing slowly but surely and hopefully one day all kids will grow up to be open-minded and these "gender roles" will no longer be a topic up for discussion.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Jane Eyre
In the book Jane Eyre there are lots of situations in which gender roles are challenged. Back when the book was written, Men were the superiority and women did as they were told. One of the most significant scenes that challenged gender roles in Jane Eyre is in the beginning when Jane stood up for herself against her cousin John. John was always abusing Jane, and it was a normal thing back then, and Jane, being a woman, was to not of done anything about it. One day though when John was taunting her again, Jane fought back for once, and of course John ran to his aunt to tell on her. Jane was then sentenced to the "red room" and while she was getting carried into the room, she resisted the whole way. Once Jane was in the red room she realized she was in the room in which her uncle died. She then imagined she saw the ghost of her uncle, causing her to make a temper tantrum. Jane having the temper tantrum i believe would of challenged gender roles back then, but not today. In our current generation, most people believe that women have "temper tantrums" all the time, yet back then, I believe that women were just to do as they were told with no resistance.
Before Jane left to go to Lowood school, she told her aunt what she really thought of her, she told her how wicked and evil it was of her to lock her in the red room and of how she knew that John was abusing her yet she never did anything about it. Already in the first few chapters, Jane was challenging her gender role. It gave the reader a sense of what kind of person Jane was, which I believe carries on throughout the novel. It was known back then that it was okay for men to hit women, women usually knew their place and knew that they could not do anything about it. Jane pushing John Reed was a very brave and courageous thing to do, especially for a 10 year old girl. When Jane told her aunt what she truly thought about her, it was also very brave as well. Even now in the generation that we currently are living in, it is still very hard for some people to stand up for themselves and tell someone how they feel, or to tell them about how wrong they have treated them (more relevant to kids and parents).
So knowing how difficult it would be to be place into situations in which Jane experienced and actually doing something about it, Jane most definitely challenged her gender roles against males and authority. This book is a good insight into how women were treated back then and hopefully made an impact for women to know their rights and to stand up for themselves and what they believe in for situations that happened in the book, i'm sure is still happening today.
Before Jane left to go to Lowood school, she told her aunt what she really thought of her, she told her how wicked and evil it was of her to lock her in the red room and of how she knew that John was abusing her yet she never did anything about it. Already in the first few chapters, Jane was challenging her gender role. It gave the reader a sense of what kind of person Jane was, which I believe carries on throughout the novel. It was known back then that it was okay for men to hit women, women usually knew their place and knew that they could not do anything about it. Jane pushing John Reed was a very brave and courageous thing to do, especially for a 10 year old girl. When Jane told her aunt what she truly thought about her, it was also very brave as well. Even now in the generation that we currently are living in, it is still very hard for some people to stand up for themselves and tell someone how they feel, or to tell them about how wrong they have treated them (more relevant to kids and parents).
So knowing how difficult it would be to be place into situations in which Jane experienced and actually doing something about it, Jane most definitely challenged her gender roles against males and authority. This book is a good insight into how women were treated back then and hopefully made an impact for women to know their rights and to stand up for themselves and what they believe in for situations that happened in the book, i'm sure is still happening today.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Intersexuality
Does an intersexuality need treatment? Based off of the video, Multiple Genders: Mind and Body in Conflict, some people do think that it does. Personally, I don't think that it does, people should not be forced to be placed into a category. In the video, one male liked to dress up as a female, but he stated he was married and did not want to have the sex change surgery. When people have their mind set on something, especially something as huge as dressing up as a female or vice versa, or even going as far as actually changing sexes, there would be no treatment in the world that would change their mind. Why would we want to change their mind anyways? Like I stated in my last blog, why are we so concerned with everyone else's life, and care so much about what other people do, when really, why? I think we should just all mind our own business and worry about what we do.
But really, what kind of treatment would be given to someone who is struggling with intersexuality? Really the only treatment that I can think of is brainwashing. To tell someone that something is wrong with them because they feel misplaced in their own body, or how wrong it is to be with someone of the same sex, and that man and woman are meant to be together. It's all brainwashing and so untrue. No it's not wrong to feel misplaced in your own body, you really can't help what you feel inside and no matter how hard you try you can never change the way you feel. Also it is not wrong to be with someone of the same sex, it's really like, who are we to tell someone who they can and cannot love? It's not our place to tell people what is morally correct and incorrect. The whole "man and woman should be together" is usually stated after "the bible says" Personally, i wouldn't live my life based off what a book tells me to, but most people are different.
In the video the arguments were usually just about what is morally correct, and that it is better for your children for you to stay your actual sex. My perspective on children with gay parents, is that if children truly love their parents, then their love should be unconditional. It doesn't matter what society thinks of you, that shouldn't have an effect on how you love someone. Heterosexual parents are no different that inter-sex parents or homosexual parents or anything else. Love isn't intertwined with gender, love is something completely different, and if people are looked down upon for truly loving somebody (significant other, kids, etc)...it is just wrong on so many different levels.
The only thing that I see that could be a problem with inter-sex couples is reproducing, biologically, man and woman are supposed to be together (just based off of reproducing) but other than that I don't see a problem whatsoever. Inter-sex couples have found their way of truly finding love and making a family (adoption etc) and for that we should support and be happy about that.
But really, what kind of treatment would be given to someone who is struggling with intersexuality? Really the only treatment that I can think of is brainwashing. To tell someone that something is wrong with them because they feel misplaced in their own body, or how wrong it is to be with someone of the same sex, and that man and woman are meant to be together. It's all brainwashing and so untrue. No it's not wrong to feel misplaced in your own body, you really can't help what you feel inside and no matter how hard you try you can never change the way you feel. Also it is not wrong to be with someone of the same sex, it's really like, who are we to tell someone who they can and cannot love? It's not our place to tell people what is morally correct and incorrect. The whole "man and woman should be together" is usually stated after "the bible says" Personally, i wouldn't live my life based off what a book tells me to, but most people are different.
In the video the arguments were usually just about what is morally correct, and that it is better for your children for you to stay your actual sex. My perspective on children with gay parents, is that if children truly love their parents, then their love should be unconditional. It doesn't matter what society thinks of you, that shouldn't have an effect on how you love someone. Heterosexual parents are no different that inter-sex parents or homosexual parents or anything else. Love isn't intertwined with gender, love is something completely different, and if people are looked down upon for truly loving somebody (significant other, kids, etc)...it is just wrong on so many different levels.
The only thing that I see that could be a problem with inter-sex couples is reproducing, biologically, man and woman are supposed to be together (just based off of reproducing) but other than that I don't see a problem whatsoever. Inter-sex couples have found their way of truly finding love and making a family (adoption etc) and for that we should support and be happy about that.
Multiple Genders
I decided to do my blog on the debate at the end of the Multiple Genders video. David Holloway was a pastor, and a strong believer in God. His response for everything was "well the bible states this" or "the bible states that." I'm sorry but the bible does not need to control our lives. It's a great thing to be religious, I don't have anything against that, but when you live your whole life by the way that the bible tells you to, then I see a problem. I don't think there is anything wrong whatsoever with multiple genders. Though I have not experienced anything near that, I can understand that some people just don't feel like their placed in the right body. People can't help that they feel that way, just like I can't help, as a female, that I am physically attracted to males. I was just born that way. I think David Holloway was very very closed-minded and extremely ignorant. I was shocked on his comment on "making healthy bodies deformed," who would say something like that? Especially when that couple (who was thinking about making a baby), was sitting right in front of him! They were probably feeling extremely hurt and offended. I mean, why does it even matter what OTHER people do with their lives? If you don't agree with how someone is or what they do then you don't agree. I don't see why we are so concerned with what other people do. Shouldn't we focus more on more important issues like starving kids in Africa? Or the war going on in Iraq? That's what really matters, isn't it?
I liked the comment when (I believe it was Stephen Wittle) he talked about how plastic surgery is accepted but multiple genders is not. It's funny because it's so true! People can go out and have plastic surgery and change the way the look, because they DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE LOOK, and it is accepted by society. The reason why a multiple gendered person wants to change sexes is for the same reason, they don't like the way they look. So they get plastic surgery, just like heterosexuals, to change the way they look. But of course, even though it is the same procedure, the person who is changing sexes is looked down upon by society while the person who is getting nose jobs and breast implants is accepted.
It makes me sad that people can't be who they truly are and who they want to be. Like I stated before, I've never experienced anything near feeling misplaced in my body but I can sympathize for those who do. Hopefully one day though we will accept people for whom they are and focus on more important issues. With our progression, hopefully it won’t be much longer. The people who are multiple gendered or homosexual just need to keep staying strong, like they’ve been doing their whole life and just wait for our world to change.
I liked the comment when (I believe it was Stephen Wittle) he talked about how plastic surgery is accepted but multiple genders is not. It's funny because it's so true! People can go out and have plastic surgery and change the way the look, because they DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE LOOK, and it is accepted by society. The reason why a multiple gendered person wants to change sexes is for the same reason, they don't like the way they look. So they get plastic surgery, just like heterosexuals, to change the way they look. But of course, even though it is the same procedure, the person who is changing sexes is looked down upon by society while the person who is getting nose jobs and breast implants is accepted.
It makes me sad that people can't be who they truly are and who they want to be. Like I stated before, I've never experienced anything near feeling misplaced in my body but I can sympathize for those who do. Hopefully one day though we will accept people for whom they are and focus on more important issues. With our progression, hopefully it won’t be much longer. The people who are multiple gendered or homosexual just need to keep staying strong, like they’ve been doing their whole life and just wait for our world to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)