18th century gender issues

I'm going to have to have you go back a little ways, back when we got to watch a few clips from Orlando (based on the novel by Virginia Woolf). Since Dr. Hague offered to let anyone borrow it if they wanted to watch it, I just had to. For all of you who have yet to see it, you are missing out. The story alone is a good reason to watch it, but the added cinematics, the things they do with costumes, scenery, everything is well worth the 94 minutes of your life. Also, random fact that floored me (and could attest to the differences between men and women if you so please) is the fact that even though Billy Zane's Character, Shelmerdine, only has 12 seconds of screen time, not only is he one of the two highest paid actors, but he also has the spot right underneath our leading lady for Orlando.

Now, onto what I really wanted to talk about. This conversation may seem odd, but if you just watch the movie, I promise a conversation like this may not seem as strange any more. My boyfriend was not here to watch the movie with me, but I gave him a run-down of the movie and we got into the hypothetical conversation of what it would be like if we magically switched genders. I felt that if I were to magically wake up one morning and be a guy, my personality and interests wouldn't change. However, when I see my boyfriend magically waking up as a girl, his personality and his interests change. My boyfriend didn't see either of us having a change in interests or personality. He looks at his sister and sees a girl who hates shopping, loathes dresses, plays video games, and can't cook to save her life. He sees me, and though I have a handle on all the domestic things (like cooking, sewing, and taking care of kids), I love to skateboard, go adventuring, play video games, and taking me out to see a horror movie on Valentine's day is a completely appropriate (and fantastic) idea. I asked a guy at work if he thought his personality would change. His answer was yes, because he would have, and I quote, 'girly hormones and PMS'.

My focus on this in this class is the idea that these stereotypes have been around for a very very long time. We start to find people fighting against these stereotypes, especially starting in the 18^th century. W have popular female writers, some who love locking horns with prominent male writers. We have stronger female characters, and we have people getting more concerned with women's rights and starting to get more concerned with seeing them as more than property. True, they were no where near where we are today, but they were starting to see a different picture than we have.

With this in mind, do you think our seeing guys doing 'girly' things or girls doing 'guy' things in this day and age as being acceptable has evolved from social things or literature? Or do you think that we still have a stigma about what is appropriate for boys and girls to do? Do you think it is a generational thing? How do you think that an 18^th century audience would take a gender-neutral utopia? What about x children (Children who are raised with neutral names, clothes, toys, and ideals)?

Rise in Young Adult Dystopian Fiction

I chose to do my presentation on Utopian and Dystopian Literature largely because of the dystopian literature. I've always found it interesting, and I account my skills in doing close readings to the fist dystopian novel I was ever required to read. I was only in Elementary school at the time and we started to read The Giver. I remember several kids in my class were excused from reading it after a day or two because of some nightmares, tears, and angry parents. The effect it had on them made me want to read it even more. I started to realize that, even though this world didn't really exist, I could find similarities with things that were going on in my world. It was a simple first reading (and I can't really tell you any more about it because I haven't even read that book in so long), but it got me started on being able to read and understand books in a different way.

Another reason I chose to do this as my presentation was because, as I said in our discussion on Friday, there has been a massive rise in Young Adult Dystopian novels (and YA fiction happens to be my favorite). I knew this, just by the time I spend in the library and looking at the books. The Hunger Games became extremely popular, but on top of that, it seems that every book with a cool looking cover ends up being another dystopian novel! This one's about teenage girls being egg farms for families, this one's about an minority group being seperated and needing to go to others for help because something that happens, this one extracts emotions, and this one... ugh. I don't even know.

Since it did come up this last Friday though, I looked into it, and I'm not just being paranoid. I've looked up the rise of dystopian literature in young adult fiction, and others see it too. Even better, they even have some theories as to why. My favorite article happened to be from another English major. You can find it the article here (http://suite101.com/article/young-adult-dystopian-fiction-and-its-impact-a84705) if you want to check it out yourself. Young adult fiction has that unique window of when a lot of teens are trying to figure out who the heck they really are. As corny as it may sound, dystopian literature, especially the young adult type, shows a lot of strong protagonists who are not afraid to fight for what they believe in, even when it seems the entire world is against them. Dystopian novels enjoy pushing the limits and making people think about the world they live in.

I also believe that the Hunger Games has caused an increase in interest in the genre. They were very popular books, still are, and became a popular movie. Websites like Goodreads.com have become very popular and with ereaders, we constantly get a stream of “you liked this book! You'll love these too!” There's also the more pessimistic view that our world is becoming more apathetic and more technological. Some think that because of this, teens can connect better with them now. Now I want to know, what do you guys think?

Right Brain, Left Brain

This last week of discussion of Arabella's 'foible' got me thinking about her in a different context. In my Language Systems and Linguistic Diversity class we have been discussing the case of Genie (humor me, this does have a point. I promise). For those of you who don't know about Genie or need a refresher, here's the gist:

Genie was abused, neglected, and isolated by her family until she was nearly 14 in the 1970's. She was tied to a potty chair in her room with no social interaction whatsoever. She was discouraged to even make sounds. Once she was taken into custody they did everything they could to try to teach her to walk, talk, and, for lack of a better term, become normal. They were able to teach her to walk, though she tended to walk in a 'bunny' fashion with her knees bent and hands held out, and they were able to teach her to speak a little. She had trouble with the actual semantics and rules of English, but her vocabulary was much more advanced than someone else at that learning stage. She lost valuable time in her critical periods for language acquisition.

One thing they learned about Genie is that her right brain was well developed, however, her left brain was so underdeveloped it was nearly not developed at all. The left brain in language development is where we store all the rules and semantics. It is more reality-based and prefers symbols (such as writing and upper math) and is much more rational and logical. Genie, being purely right brain dominant was more emotional and impulsive and needed concrete things. Though she didn't have much to look at in her tiny room, she did have things to see and stimulate her somehow. Now, to the point, the right sided person is more imaginative and fantasy oriented.

Arabella lives purely in her right brain. She lives in a fantasy she created, but learned it from something concrete to her (she takes her romances as concrete history). However, just because she is creative and imaginative does not mean that automatically rules out reasoning. Arabella's intuitive properties are wonderful. She puts them to use often, but still based on her concrete histories. This also helps since we know that the right side of the brain is the first to develop.

 We know that children need a model to learn from (learning how to speak, walk, write, etc. We know children learn... they are not taught), which is wherein lies the problem with Genie, obviously since she had no human interaction whatsoever. This could be one of the reasons that we have so much trouble with Arabella as well. She did not have enough human interaction in her life to better devolop the left side of her brain. She does have exposure to her father often, and she occasionally got to interact with tutors, and Lucy, but that is the only interaction she has had. Perhaps if she had more human interaction her left brain would have been stronger and she wouldn't rely purely on her right side fantasies. Plus, if she were to be around more people starting from an earlier age, she would have learned at an earlier age by all her 'models' that what she read in her books is not the norm anymore if it ever was.

Poster Child Battles

As we are still working on the Female Quixote, and we were recently talking about John Locke's and Samuel Johnson's theories involving books and reason, I thought I would head down the same path. I recall thinking on Friday what a perfect poster child our seemingly naïve Arabella would be for Johnson. The one argument that keeps sticking out to me from Johnson is that villains and heroes should be black and white. There should be no confusion whatsoever; no 'sympathy for the devil'. Nowadays, we do not really seem to go for the black and white villains. We like complex characters; the bad guy has a soft spot, or he has a tragic reason for being the way he is. The good guy has a dark side or a tragic flaw, or even has to fight inner demons. We like the duplicity; we expect it, otherwise it does not seem real enough for us. In Supernatural (I've been on a Supernatural kick lately, if you can't tell from my other blog) they even have an episode called 'sympathy for the devil'. I have been to panels with one of my favorite authors about writing likeable villains. These are not villains you love to hate, but rather, you could see how they became the way they are, or the reason they do the things they do. For example, one guy wants to take over the world, and that's pretty bad. But once you see that he is going towards chaos rather than order. For this character, chaos represents chance, opportunity, and creativity. Order represents prison, mental and physical.

Johnson argues that people can be naïve, or simply blindly follow and believe the things they read. However, he also argues that if we listen to people who can read critically, such as himself and start to learn, that we can become better as well. We will be able to see the flaws in books and their characters, and we will be able to think critically and know that a book doesn't necessarily equate to real life. For these reasons I thought Arabella was the perfect poster child. She is naïve in the fact that she takes what she has read at face value and transformed trashy French romance novels into her personal bible. The other fact is the fact that she is too damn stubborn, just like her father, to listen to reason. Johnson's probably right, that if she were to start to listen to how to read the books critically, she probably would not be behaving as she does.

The more we talked in class, the more I realized that she could also be the poster child for Locke's theory as well, but she would be better suited for Johnson's. Locke thinks that what happens in a book should be logical in the book. It might not make sense in real life, but that's the way 'the world' of the book functions. Arabella simply hasn't realized the separation between real life and her book. The next part of his theory that made an impression on me doesn't seem to fit with Arabella very well. He argues that a good foundation in reasoning is what is needed. You can largely get this from getting a good (higher class) education. She has had that education (befitting a girl) and a bit more. And as we see through the book, she can reason very well, and very logically. The only problem is that she can't seem to realize that though the way she acts is the way they act in her books, it is not real, and it is not the way she should be acting.

Simply following her Only Instructions

Just to clarify for further reading of this particular post, I bought my copy of The Female Quixote used. I love getting used books not only because it saves me money, but also because I love getting to read the notes that were put in there by the people who previously owned it. I think it is interesting to get to see what others have seen and things that caught their fancy, and also to see what they are thinking about the book itself and the characters within. This time however, I was a little shocked about the two notes that kept popping up in the first part of the book (and throughout the rest… I checked out of curiosity): ‘arrogant’ and ‘no common sense’.

This insight simply rubbed me the wrong way. Do we really think that Charlotte Lennox intended for us to see Arabella as arrogant and that she has no common sense? I suppose when you look at Arabella’s actions purely on the surface that may seem to be the case, especially in the first book when you see her ‘interactions’ with the handsome young man from church. The previous owner of my copy of The Female Quixote seemed utterly appalled and even ranted when Arabella informed the young man that she did not want him to die but to live, and therefore should feel much better. I cannot see Arabella’s actions as arrogant though. And though she does lack common sense when it comes to social interactions, it has nothing to do with arrogance or a disregard for the things she has learned and/or seen.

I think it is important for a reader to consider these things. Arabella has been raised by her reclusive father all her life. Her governesses, the only older women who could have had any real impact on her, were sent away when she was only 4 years old. Once in a blue moon she has the chance to go to the nearest village and go to church, accompanied by her ‘ladies in waiting’. And her social skills? They have all been gleaned from her mother’s French romances. Since she has never been instructed otherwise, who is to say that is not the appropriate way to behave? There are tons of these books written, all with the lovely heroine behaving in the same manner. Each has become her personal bible of how to present herself, speak, manners, courting, everything. She is doing a fantastic job following her personal bibles to the ‘T’.

Now taking those things into consideration, can you really see Arabella as arrogant? And can you really hold it against her that she has none of what we would consider common sense when it comes to social interactions? Imagine what she would be like if all she read was the bible. Or maybe all she read was science books. What if she never even became interested in devouring the books she would find in her father’s library? She has found her own instruction manual and done her best to uphold what she has learned from them.

The World, Surprisingly, Does Not Revolve Around You

            This week I really had to dig deep for something to focus my blog on. True, Mr. John Pope packed ‘Rape of the Lock’ full of plenty of goodies for us to unpack, but frankly my muse is elsewhere. However, I was rather interested in our conversation that got started during our last class meeting on how this poem could be seen as John Pope’s commentary on the frivolity (and excessive drama) of the upper class. I think one of the most obvious tools that Pope uses to drive this point home (and illuminate it so beautifully) is his consistent use of the epic conventions. In Pope’s poem he uses images of gods, epic battles, mystical creatures, and many, for lack of a better term, ‘epic’ happenings and people to portray such ordinary and mundane instances.

            In canto 3, stanza 2, we see  advent’rous knights, matadors, four kings (in majesty rever’d), and even fair queens. All the while Belinda is thirsting for fame. Peasants and royalty are engaging in battle, this is wonderfully epic… except for the minor detail that this epic battle is just a card game. In stanza 5, ideas of trade get the same epic treatment. “The berries crackle, and the mill turns round;/ on shining altars of Japan they raise… from silver spouts the grateful liquors glide,”. I know some people find coffee in the morning not only wonderful, but more importantly, a key ingredient to creating a well-shaped human being in our modern world, but this is pushing it a bit. Coffee is an epic thing in the upper class of Pope’s world; right up there with Achilles and Aphrodite.

           In this epic world, women even help arm their knights to better assist their knights on their gallant quest… of courting. And if, down the lane, that valiant knight becomes her husband, he will be just as important as her lap dog or even the blessed china! “When husbands, or when lapdogs breathe their last;/ or when rich china vessels fall’n from high,” (158-159). What an honor. At the very least, Pope is most definitely pointing out that, at the very least, the upper class has their priorities rather skewed. The average and ordinary have become epic, and people that you’re supposed to care about are equated to your precious dog or an inanimate object.

         

         I had the opportunity to get to see Rent here on campus this week. Trust me, this is leading somewhere. This was the first time I had seen it, and there was one song that caught my attention, and made me think of ‘Rape of the Lock’, especially in the mindset that people can (and often do) over-dramatize everything in their lives. “Without you/ the ground thaws/ the rain falls/ the grass grows/ without you/ the seeds root/ the flowers bloom/ the children play/ the stars gleam/ the poets dream/ the eagles fly/ without you the earth turns/ the sun burns/ but I die without you”. Life goes on. Hair grows back. People forget. I promise. Now get over yourself, gain some perspective, and suck it up.

Will you stop at Nothing!?

            Ever since we had the chance to read Jonathon Swift’s “The Lady’s Dressing Room” I haven’t been able to get it off my mind. Perhaps taking the chance to get to talk about it more will help me not be too tempted to be quoting this lovely poem when girls around me are taking too long to get ready or doing odd and painful things in the name of beauty.

            Of course, being in true Swift fashion, “The Lady’s Dressing Room” is completely composed of playful couplets. That happens to be one of my guilty pleasures of Swift; with his syntax, style, and couplet form, I find his works to be very sing-songy and easily memorized… and repeated at wonderful opportunities that present themselves.

            After getting your giggles and your gasps of disgust and disgrace (and then some more giggles) in about this poem one major question arises; who is this poem really satirizing? At first glance the answer is clearly women. The things they do are disgusting! All the different bottles and powders, dirty clothes and cloths behind closed doors, clumps of hair and dirt. However, when you really do your close reading you realize that that is not the satire. That is purely the candy coating on the peanut butter M&M.

            The chocolate layer right under that is the satire of the men. In the beginning of the poem Stephon had no qualms with “The Goddess from her Chamber issues,/ Array’d in Lace, Brocades and Tissues.” In Swift’s satire of the men, we see that men love a lady with hair done perfectly, rosy cheeks, red lips, and soft pale skin. However, most men are never really prepared for the reality of what their girls go through to look like that. Even nowadays, the ‘natural’ look so many guys say they love includes cover-up, blush, lip gloss, and either a curling iron or a blow dryer and maybe even a straightener. Not all girls are like that mind you (I don’t even own hairspray or a blow dryer, and I’m usually the one poking at makeup asking what they heck it is and what it does), but that is common. The guys are horrified to see the things girls go through to look like that! The beauty products and dirty clothes alone are horrifying enough for Stephon, but then to top it off, she spits and “Oh! Celia, Celia, Celia shits!”? That’s just too much. Girls are… girls! Beautiful things that never have to try for it, right?

            Last but not least is the peanut butter center which would be the satire of the women. Honestly girls, is there nothing you won’t do for beauty? Hours spent prepping for a date. Head to toe primping and fluffing. It can be time consuming, expensive, and even down right painful. But they don’t care. They have guys to impress and will go to extensive lengths to do it. This has created a ridiculous revolving door of expectations. Women expect this is what she should look like and what he’s expecting, while he is expecting her to be impressing him or at least expecting him to be expecting something.