Repeating the Beauty Myth

Repeating the Beauty Myth.

Recently, I've talked about whether it would be better for a women to be living now or say fifty years ago. I pretty much summed up my opinion (although not based on any actual experience) that life for a women would be better today. While I thought the choice was reasonably clear, it did get me thinking about a similar issue. Will life as a women be better now, or in around fifty years time? 

            The first thing that I am reminded about when I asked myself this question is the subject of teenage morals. Multiple times, I have heard that, kids who are much younger than me already have a fairly bad reputation regarding lack of morals. I know for a fact that, many people in my age group agree that, these kids are far worse than we ever were. Possibly also than we are now. Three or four years may not sound like a lot but, when it comes to teenage children, it can make quiet a massive difference. The fact that, these kids are doing the same kind of things that my age group is doing is very significant. We certainty weren't doing that sort of thing when we were entering our teenage years, or at least not to this degree. This means that over the last three or four years, the general idea of what is and what isn't socially acceptable for a single age range to be doing, has been powerfully changed. 

            Is this a one time occurrence, or is this a continuous change of social norms? Is this the work of one single generation, or is everyone to blame for this? In three or four years will they be saying the same thing about the kids four years younger than them? This could be one time thing or the first of many changes in social norms.

         Why is this related to my original question? Because if this isn't a one time thing, than the answer to my question will undoubtedly be that life for a women will get worse for women. If morals continue be reduced throughout the year groups, then all sexual objectifying that women experience today will only get worse. All the advertisements than show women as objects for a profit will continue. The vast majority of problems women face today stem from a lack of morals. If this trend of teenagers continue, and morals become harder and harder to find, then women (especially teenage girls) will never see an improvement. 

Problems with culture

Problems with Culture

      Many people define culture as an important part of peoples individuality. It is something that brings together thousands of people and gives them something in common that they can be proud of. Like our family, it is something we are born with and something to embrace. It can help us connect with people we would have previously new connection. We can experience culture that isn't our own which helps understand different people.

          Yet, despite all the positives culture has on the human race, it can just as easily be a problem. It has the power to bring people together, but it has just as much power to separate them. It commonly starts conflicts and is the starting point to many cases of violence. Whether it be the Holocaust or civil war in Rwanda, it can be argued that culture is more of a plague on humanity than it is a means for celebration. 

            Regardless to your view on culture, it is something that isn't going away any time soon. For good or for bad, it is a massive part of our history and part of our DNA. It is impossible to get rid of something that has been along around as long as the human race. In theory, culture will always be around to rear its head and start some form of conflict. In an increasingly diverse world, culture will have more of an opportunity to cause issues, whether they be small or large. In London, for example, you can experience massive changes during a few minutes walking. Different cultures in such proximity with each other, in a species as susceptible to violence as humans, are likely to cause many different issues. With our history, humans will continuously be a victim to our cultural differences.

           Culture effects us in more ways than we care to think. It causes issues even between males and females of traditionally the same culture. India can be a great example of this. In the novel 'Jasmine' by Bharati Mukherjee, the main character Jasmine lives in almost a completely different world from that of her male counter parts. Even with men of her same race, their cultural experiences are miles apart. She is expected almost to be sold to a respectable husband by her farther and then take the role of what is more or less a servant wife. While he is expected to be given a wife who will take care of his laundry, food, children and more, while he goes off to be successful in his career. Despite all their similarities, the culture they share will very much separate them and make one of them worse off. 

Final Blog (Oppression)

Virginia Wolf Blog assessment

Recently, the issue of oppression has been brought up to me. Normally, it isn’t something I pay a whole lot of attention to. Unless you have been ‘oppressed’ in a serious manner, or know someone that has, it something you will probably connect with far off lands and different cultures.

                For me, the word brings up images of Africa. What with various different dictators being attacked in the public eye, whether it be literally as is the case with Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, or verbally like Robert Mugabe. Not to mention the history of slavery on the continent.

                I have been to Tunisia once on holiday. Though I’m pretty the holiday resorts and tourist towns have little to do with the conflict in the country. None the less, I have an extremely small amount of experience of this area of the world. I believe I have never been farther east than Greece and that country has a whole different set of problems going on right now.

                So, when I do hear the word ‘oppression’, and these images of Africa do come up in my mind, there is very little that I can use to connect these images I see on the news with my Western life.  Last summer’s riots aren’t even that close to the types of violence and the causes of this violence, not that it matters because I wasn’t even in the country at the time.

                So it’s no surprise that simply hearing the word ‘oppression’ doesn’t bring out a powerful emotion from deep within me. However, if you go by simply the dictionary definition, it is a much more relatable word. Not just for me, but for everyone in a similar situation.

                “The state of being subject to prolonged, cruel or unjust treatment or control”, as you can see, the dictionary definition of the word has no mention of dictators or slavery. If most people think hard enough they could probably come up with some example of their own oppression. To some degree.

                Obviously the common feeling most people get during their teenage existence is un comparable with the holocaust during World War II. Technically, however, they are by definition the same thing. As someone with red(ish) hair, I feel on a much more insignificant level, what some people are still feeling due to the colour of their skin or their religion.

                 There are thousands of examples, on both extremes of the spectrum, of cases of oppression. Which means, that this is a word that has far more significance in our every-day lives than we would have thought. Which makes it far easier to talk about. 

                And just because the examples I used were, to put it nicely, petty, it doesn’t mean that our ways of experiencing oppression should be completely ignored. It doesn’t mean that cases of discrimination due to social standings are completely worthless compared with discrimination due to racism or sexism. It just makes it less complicated for us to understand and do something about.

                However, the type of oppressions we experience are far more likely to go un challenged than the ones we only hear about on the news. Because, when we hear these stories, most human beings have an inert desire to stop these types of suffering. They become political issues and take up so much of our interest that at times we start even more conflicts over them.

                I’m obviously not saying that we should ignore them, but I just find it interesting that the types of oppression we do ignore, we have far more ability to fix than others.   One of the main differences between the forms of oppression we experience and the forms we only see on television, is that we, as humans, generally find it easier to ignore the forms that surround us.

                Why is that? It most certainly isn’t a ‘one or the other’ situation. We have plenty of ability to attack both problems, we just seem to find it easier to muster the effort to try and fix foreign forms of oppression.  While I do believe that the more severe forms of oppression should be higher up our list of priorities, I also believe that we should far more effort in fixing the lesser, yet still very serious, forms of oppression that are closer to home.

                There should be a much closer number of charities dealing with the oppression of women or poor our own country as there are in a similarly populated African country. After all, the oppression of women, for example, happens in a very similar manner and to a similar degree of violence in England as it does in certain African countries. It’s just not as out in the open in England as it would be other places.

                Oppression to a serious degree can happen to almost anyone regardless of the country they live in. And no matter who it happens to, it can have an equally detrimental impact on their mental and physical well-being.  Just because it isn’t as out in the open in certain places of the world doesn’t mean that there should be an less effort to protect the victims of the same extremes of oppression. 

Lining up

Lining Up 

While recently studying issues between the two genders, I've started to notice these problems coming up in real life. However, I've also noticed that not all these issues are as simple as originally stated. An article in The New Yorker, 'Social Animal' by David Brooks, looks at a multiple of social issues and problems in modern day life. While gender related ones are included in these, they are not by any means the focal point of the article and so it helps put these issues I've studied into a greater perspective. 

                  What is so great about this article is that these situations need to be put in perspective before  it is possible to properly judge a person, let alone an entire gender. People don't, or at least I don't and have no knowledge of anyone who does, go around with thinking about all the gender problems in the world. Most people have a lot more that they are thinking about. It is perfectly possible for someone, to view someone else of the opposite sex as an equal and not purely as a girl/boy. Not every action that someone commits has to be against a girl/boy, they can simply be against another person. 

                  While the evidence to his arguments can at come over with a sense of arrogance, they are perfectly reasonable (at worse) arguments for actions of some people. Not every thing a man does has to be a 'sexist' action, it can be completely physiological. It can be just as natural as a mother's reactions to her baby child. Peoples' lives don't turn around their relationship with the opposite gender, and neither do their actions.
                 So why so some peoples’ perceptions of individuals completely depend on their gender? Why are people stereotyped and pigeon holed for their gender to such a extreme degree? Any idiot will tell you that not all girls are exactly the same and neither are all boys, so why are treated like we speak for our entire gender?  A boy and a girl of the same age will have far more in common than a child and an elderly person both of the same gender.
          And this is by no means harmless, some of our biggest day to day conflicts arise from the way we separate genders in our mind. I’m not saying we should separate people at all, but if you are going to, there are far more logical ways of doing it than male and female.

Grandmother interview

Going back to the question whether or not it is better to be a women now or fifty years ago, I decided that one of the best ways to answer that would be if I was to talk to a women who had had experienced both lifestyles. If I had gotten my first choice then I would have talked to Queen Elizabeth II, however, for obvious reasons this was not quite possible. Instead I chose the more realistic option and interviewed my own grandmother.
           After asking her a series of questions about her past and lifestyle, the first thing I noticed was how much her life reminded me of the famous movie Greece. After that however, I started to notice some far more significant regarding society. After a while it became quite clear to me that my twelve year old sister already has more freedoms than my grandmother claimed to experience in her entire teenage life. Of course, this may have something to do with the fact that my sister is only twelve and not yet into the world of a teenager. Not to mention she goes to a posh girls only school on the outskirts of London.  However, she is still treated fairly similarly to the way I was treated at that age while my grandmother and a boy of the similar age would have almost been living in separate worlds. Of course, there are differences between the way me and my sister are treated my our parents and by society as a whole, some of them justified. Everyone is far more protective of her than myself. It should be said that when I was twelve I was very tall for my age and I went to school right in  the center of London, not to mention I was faster and more responsible than she is. It is more than fair to say that I would be less of a target than she would and if I was confronted in some way I would be far more able to protect myself. This is not to say that she can't take care of herself. But, there is definitely a logical reason in the difference some people are treated.

Power of Music

After looking at gender issues in photography, I couldn't help but notice very similar issues in another favorite art form of mine; music. On my iPod I have nearly two thousand songs covering the majority of common genres. What I've noticed recently is that my library contains more stereotypes than I can imagine and a large amount of them are gender related. While not all of them are negative, there is a large proportion of them highlight the issues between genders. This is clear in the music itself, but when you consider music videos and the whole celebrity persona then it really becomes 'punch you in the face' obvious for lack of a better term.
           This is mainly a problem with female artists. You'll find hugely talented artists that record labels won't sign, instead they'll pick completely talent less people simply because they are deemed 'popular' and attractive' enough to make them money. I've also never heard an interview on the radio with a male musician where the interview is giving them a go for their sex references yet I hear this constantly with female artists. Some male artists have proven that there is almost no limit to what they can say without anyone paying much attention yet female artists get grilled constantly for the message in their lyrics. Had Madonna been a man, she never would have had such a hard time for referencing 'dance drugs' in one of her concerts. In fact, male artists would never have done it as 'subtly' as Madonna did. I've seen videos from concerts where they take drugs on stage and yet no one seems to have a problem with this. While this may seem to be a problem for women, it is actually a bigger problem for men as it is promoting illegal and otherwise immoral behavior among young men.
           What really puzzles me about this is that music, for the large part, is generally aimed at females. Very few female artists have large male fan bases while the majority of male artists have a significant number of female fans. So why themes that are deemed only acceptable for men used in music?
           

Increase or Decrease?

Having recently being reading 'The Beauty Myth' by Naomi Wolf a question that I've noticed coming up more and more is whether or not women have a better everyday life now or back a few to when they had less legal rights. Obvioulsy what makes this such a hard question to answer is that people disagree as to what makes a better lifestyle. People who fought for the equal rights of women are going to be more inclined to prefer life today, but not everyone agrees that these rights have come at a worthwhile cost.
This is the basics of the question, is it better to be held back by legal methods or by mindsets? Legal methods may be more constricting on what you can and can not do, but at least you know one hundred percent where you stand. Women nowadays may have the right to vote among others but they have very little to defend themselves from the way the treated and though about by men.
             In 'The Yellow Wallpaper' by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a 19th century house wife is driven pretty much insane by the 'second citizen' nature of her relationship with her husband. What surprised me most about this when I re-read it was how not surprising I found this simply because of the time setting of the story. Nowadays, while women do have new problems to deal with, they are at least considered to be equal human beings (if not people) in most educated circles.
             While I personally have never experienced any serious discrimination against myself, it is still hard for me to understand how anyone would prefer the life my grandmother lead over the life my little sister lives. I actually find it hard to understand the point of view of people who would prefer to have their rights taken away than to deal with the problems modern day life presents us. This is just my opinion, but while it may be more obvious to know your goal when fighting for equal rights, surely it is all together easier to deal with our modern day issues of sexism?

Genders in Media

Recently while studying the issues that commonly arise between the two different genders I've learnt about a lot of the subtle ways in which men and women 'battle' with each other. Ways as simple as body language and minor behavioral qualities. But as I've studied this topic more and more I've started to notice how out in the open it really is. It's pretty much every where that we go. From massive billboards to the news.
          In a lot of articles I've read recently on this topic that are written by women, there is this idea that men are holding back and objectifying women in this almost 'sneaky' way. In my opinion from what I've noticed recently, it really isn't that 'sneaky'.  Like the book 'The Beauty Myth' by Naomi Wolf, I agree that the main reason that this issue has come out in the open recently is through advertising. People know that sex makes money and wiling to go above and beyond in what is considered 'appropriate' to make even more. When people of older generations attack newer generations for 'lacking morals', they really putting blame on themselves for allowing money to become more important than their so called morals.
          It has even become the case that places where money shouldn't be a major factor has embraced this ideal. Maybe news stations have become a less honest place in the last few decades or so, but the reason female news anchors, weather girls etc. are forced to look better and 'sexier' than there male counterparts is because advertisers have overridden us with sex and 'sexiness' being linked to success and money. It's why, there a far larger proportion of successful, famous, 'unattractive' male actors to 'attractive' male actors than there are with actresses. Why more often than not you'll find movies have given 'attractive' famous actresses token roles to boost audience ratings and very rarely do the same with male actors. Directors and advertisers equally link a movies 'sexiness appeal' to it's future success, yet only one of these people can be blamed for this type of thinking.
        This isn't a happy accident advertisers have stumbled upon. They know they're doing it. Why wouldn't they do this? As long as advertisers have the legal rights to use sex to sell products that may have nothing to do with sex and as long as this continues to make them money then we can't expect them to have a sudden moral turn around.

Who really runs the world?

I'm beginning to reach the last of my blogs of feminism and feel myself asking the same question over and over. While I've read multiple articles and stories that all claim to be able to answer this question one way or another, I still don't know; who really does run the world? The source of all the main issues between the two genders is that one of them normally has power over the other group. If we're talking politically and physically than historically it is men who have had the power over women. However, if we're emotionally and sexually than women are generally considered to have power over men.
           Recently, I've read a fair few articles and stories that address the subject of one gender controlling the other. I've read stories such as 'The Handmaids Tale' and 'Jasmine', both of which are set in religiously based societies in which women are controlled (believed for their own good) by men. While both of these make connections with modern day life, both also have very obvious differences to our Western life in 2012. On the other hand, I've also read works such as 'The End of Men' and 'The Beauty Myth' which both have other ideas.
         'The End of Men' by Hanna Rosin is an article that tries to prove her point that women have now over taken men and are actually the leading force in places such as businesses and government. She may not have any decent proof to back her argument up, but her idea is definitely a strong one. The idea that, while for a long time women have been suppressed by men, in fairly recent years they have been able to improve their situation and that, if they haven't already, they have the ability to draw level, if not overtake men in terms of power. While so much of the world is changing, it is still hard for me to imagine what the world would be like if women indeed got or already had the power men have for so much of history.
         The other piece of work I've read recently that had an interesting view on this subject was 'The Beauty Myth' by Naomi Wolf is a non-fiction book that addresses many of the reasons that women are being kept down, especially by men. While it probably would have been all too easy to use this book as an opportunity to blame men for the problems of women, she actually chooses to use a more educated response to the problem. According to her, it is not so much men that are responsible for the control of women, but instead it is mixed between other big companies and other women. Going back to the idea of power, it doesn't need to say that big companies and banks do have an extreme amount of control over the common man. However, it is far less obvious that women have a significant amount of power over other women and themselves. Which would suggest that women do in fact have more control and power in their own lives  but they just don't know enough to be able to use it.

What makes America so good?

What makes America so Good?

As I am currently reading "Jasmine" by Bharati Mukherjee, a story about an Indian women making a new life for herself in America and risking a lot to travel half way across the world to make it happen, I am forced to ask myself, what is so good about America? Why do so many people risk their lives everyday just to reach America? A country that is no longer the most powerful in the world and is currently in enormous debt. While this doesn't directly relate to the time period of 'Jasmine', it still creates a good question, what is so appealing about America?

             When people think of 'The American Dream' they think of possibilities for anyone and everyone. But even a country like America has it's limits. With thousands upon thousands of immigrants (as well as actual Americans) living in America, it is a wonder as to how many possibilities the country truly has to offer. In , arguably, the best country in the world you'll find people in squalid poverty living in some of the worse living conditions imaginable. Yet, people still flock to shores of America for a better chance of a humane life, just like the main character in the novel 'Jasmine'.
          Now, I'm not saying that there is a massive problem with America and people wanting to live there, I myself live very good conditions and yet I still want to live in America some day, but I do feel as if America is overrated. It's own set of ideals and common dreams has out shined the reality of the country. People now come to the United States not for America, but for the American dream. For example, thousands upon thousands of Africans come to Europe and America constantly to avoid war or famine in their home countries. While a lot of them will aim for America, England and France, they could almost as easily find an equally good life in another European country that is in fact a lot closer to their origin. 
          In Jasmine for example, the main character, whatever her chosen name is, makes the dangerous trip to America for reasons that have less to do with reality and more to do with wishful thinking. She gets experience of rape, murder and dozens of other personal tragedies that, in my opinion, would be less likely to happen in certain other countries. While she does get a happy life in the end, it comes at the massive cost that living in America can put upon you. 

Gender in Photographs part two

Gender in Photographs part two

Continuing on from my last post about gender related topics within photography, I have chosen to

look at some more famous photos in a similar manner. 

In this photo you can see Lyndon. B. Johnson being sworn in as president of the United States shortly after the assassination of John. F. Kennedy. By his side is Jackie Kennedy, the wife of the recently deceased president. This picture has an overwhelming sense sadness in it. Johnson, as well as everyone in the background all have very serious expressions on their faces. This photo also has an overwhelming, yet not as obvious, sense of male power and female weakness. The main person in this photo is Johnson, the big man who has been called in to save the day and America during their time of need. He is the hero in this photo. But almost as much as this photo is to make us look up at President Johnson, it equally if not more, makes us look down at Jackie Kennedy. The former first lady, who was unable to save her husband, is pictured crying and altogether looking helpless by another mans side. It doesn't help that the background is full of men looking serious and dignified while the only other women whose face we can see is blocked off by Johnson's raised arm.


The last photograph that I've chosen is that of 'cowboy' Clarence Hailey. In 1949 Life magazine ran an article describing his life. It is fair to say that most people, if they read this article, would consider him to be a 'real man'. But what does the phrase a 'real man' actually mean? Surely it doesn't simply mean that he is a male human who truly exists? Or at least, that's not what most people get from it. Is being a 'real man' simply base around fairly trivial attributes or is there more to it?

        Without the article most people would think that they can get a pretty good idea of this man just from the photo. I'm sure many would even deem him a 'real man'. Does that mean that the phrase comes from purely looks of a person? Everything about this photo screams 'man'! His hat, cigarette, bandanna, the little you can see of his jacket and even his facial expression. So why is it that when a photo of a women, like the one of the migrant mother, focuses so much on the face, people don't call her a 'real women' with the same positive meaning? 

Genders in Photographs

While studying Women's lit I've started noticing gender concepts in many different places. One of them being a personal interest; photography. Some of the most famous photos in the world depict both men and women in a very stereotypical manner. While things may have evened up in recent years in terms of gender equality, a lot of photographers still have an act for capturing photos with a strong sense of either feminism or masculinity. In some older photos this is as clear as black and white. Maybe this set up on purpose or maybe it is completely natural but I'm going to prove my point with some famous examples.

My first example is the famous photo from the Yalta conference in 1945 picturing the leader of the allies; Winston Churchill, Franklin. D Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin sitting together. This photo has an extreme sense of male power as not only the leaders of Britain, America and Russia all male but the ten or so people in the back ground are all dressed in military uniform and are all male. 

The "Big Three", as they were known, are meeting to discuss the re-organization of war torn Europe and this photo seems to be saying "We are the people who now control the world". Especially at during World War 2, the people in this photograph would have been, what we consider now to be, "stereotypically male". I would say that everyone in this photo is easily older than 50 and you can just imagine the type of people they are in everyday life without the cameras. I don't think I need to spell it out for you.

The second photo I that can is a prime example of how genders are depicted in photographs is this one of migrant mother. Taken during the Great Depression in America. Taken by a female artist, yet this photo does nothing to help the cause of Feminism. In fact, I think it does the opposite. It shows Florence Owens Thompson, or the 'Migrant Mother' with her two children. Many people react to this photo in the same way, seeing the women as weak, poor and in-able to look after her children. Or at least, that is what the photographer wants you to see. She is wearing clothes that even though it is a black and white photo, still look dirty. She looks quite sad and even though you can't see the faces of the two children or bay, their body position still makes them seem distressed at the least. Compared to the first photo when the all the men, even the ones in the background, are pictured with dignity, this photo makes Florence Thompson look considerably week in a way that is commonly associated with women.  

Popular Culture

No matter what it is you are reading you are almost certain to find some sort of reference to modern day popular culture. It seems that at least now, people find it hard to think and write about something that is so different than the lives they live. Whether it celebrities, events, music or movies, 'pop' culture is all around us. And we don't always realise it either, if you were to read a book that contains two women shopping most people wouldn't think twice about this, yet even this can be considered 'pop' culture.
            While it may seem normal to include notions of our every day life in pieces of literature, it is interesting at the least as to how easily they fit into almost any story. Even in totalitarian novels set in societies completely different from our own they seem to sneak in without our noticing. In one such novel; "The Handmaids Tale" by Margaret Atwood, a seemingly religious society called Gilead is in control of a post apocalyptic society through what is essentially a dictatorship. Even in this flipped world we get glimpses of some very common aspects of our real lives. Certain things we wouldn't think twice about like magazines and scrabble are prized by people who live a twisted life.
          It is perfectly possible that some amount of time stories like these will make very little sense to people. That they'll have positively no clue about the significance of magazines and scrabble, of shopping and hotel rooms. That in the scenes where Offred and the Commander find emotional comfort in the simplest of priveleges, readers won't have the slightest clue what they're doing in the book.
        Al tough, even if it puts a limit to what people can understand of the book, I suppose it makes a lot of sense to use 'pop' culture as a way of describing the characters. To us, or to me at least, most of the 'pop' culture used in Atwood's novel is strongly linked with females, which fits in with the rest of the book. Maybe magazines, shopping and hand lotion are in fact the best ways describe female characters because that is the clearest way we will understand. Maybe 'pop' culture is the most effective way of describing something to an audience because that is the easiest way to connect with an audience. Even if you aren't connecting with everyone.
        The only problem is, not letting 'pop' culture lessen any significance and realism in the story you want to tell. Just because it is popular in our culture doesn't mean it always has or always will and should be treated on an individual basis.

The problem with age

The Problem With Age

Forget racial and religious problems, in my opinion the biggest type of discrimination in every day life is that of age discrimination. Arguably this could actually be worse than the other higher profile types of discrimination. What makes this possibly worse is the fact that age is a field where everyone is equal. As long as they live, everyone will go through the same stages of ageing equally at the same rate. Sure, some people will be more affected by it than others but none the less everyone is as much under its control as the rest of humanity. 

         So, if everyone is equal when it comes to age then how can there be discrimination? This is because while everyone is equal in terms of the rate at which they age, everyone is also unequal in terms of how far along the path of aging they are. For example, common sense would dictate that young children be treated with more respect for two reasons; the first one being that they are vital to survival of the man kind, but also because everyone, no matter how old they are, has gone through that stage in their life and should be understanding towards children. Unfortunately, this isn't the case, it would seem the older you are, the more you forget about your life as a child. The more arrogance you have at being older than other people, despite the key factor in this being something you have absolutely no control in. The time of your birth.
          Something else I've noticed about age is that, even though every single person on the planet pretty much experiences ageing in the same way, there are some incredible stereotyping when it comes to a persons age. There are stereotypes about pretty much every age group; teenagers, middle-aged adults and elderly people to name but a few. These can be almost everywhere in every day life from advertising to books. What else is weird about this is how everyone seems to find this o.k. and almost no one challenges this despite the fact it gets extremely boring after a while. How almost every story has very similar characters due to stereotyping. In Atwood's "The Handmaids Tale" the characters seem to be split between young and old to a certain extent. With the older characters such as the Commander and his wife and Aunt Lydia being the more wise and cynical characters and the younger ones such as Offred and the other Handmaids being slightly more out of control. Even though the age difference between all of them can 't possibly be a huge amount.
       

Any Questions?

Any Questions?

Recently I've finished reading Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaids Tale", and unfortunately for Margaret Atwood, this has completely ruined my view of her otherwise reasonably decent novel. While I'm not against cliffhangers per se, I find it pretty much spoils a book or movie for me when I'm left with an absurd amount of questions and lack of knowledge of the book itself. When a story is set in a society so different from our own, I feel the author has to make sure the readers understand what is happening up to a certain point. 

           It wasn't just the lack of answers we as readers were given, but also how the last chapter seems to be precisely put in for the sole purpose of clearing up the lingering questions we are certain to still have. Despite what seems to be the purpose of this final chapter, I found myself actually with more questions than I had before. If this wasn't annoying enough, the very last line really got under my skin. "Are there any questions?" is the way Atwood chooses to end her novel. As if  the assumption is that readers has naturally understood this post apocalyptic society and everything within it. Personally, I found this to be rather agitating and left me with bitter memories of the entire book. Not to mention that this paragraph completely and utterly ruined the mood of the book by looking back on this event that to us was the future end of  our civilization. 

           Despite all this, I found myself with rather a few questions. Not so much the character Offred. No, even I was happy to leave her fate on a cliffhanger. But about the general society the story is set in, because personally I think this is by far the most interesting part of the story. For anyone who hasn't read it, the story is set in futuristic society in North America where some sort of biological disaster has caused a lack of child births. To insure the future of the society, a seemingly religious group has taken control in a somewhat Nazi lie regime. 

          This all is clear enough, even to me. But, what isn't clear is to how this society actually came to be accepted by the average person and how it continues to be allowed, especially as it is set in America. Very early on we are introduced to tourists from a Japan that would appear to be similar to ours. To me, this society seems only to continue because it has managed to keep every one under control. Yet if there are tourists that are allowed in, and know about it, then why aren't they doing anything to stop it? They even ask the Handmaids if they are happy so they must be aware that there is an issue. Maybe this simply shows the selfishness of humanity?

symbols and stereotypes

Symbols and stereotypes

When reading through some of the stories and poems I've read regarding women in Literature there have been some major common trends that I have noticed. Most of them are also very common in the real world even today in our society of supposed gender equality. Many of them can be can and are considered insults by modern women. We wouldn't consider them to be of a very educated 'view', yet we can still find them in pieces of literature that have been written by educated women. They can get away with it because they are describing the hardships that women have gone through in the past. Even though, if any of them were to be used in a more modern piece of work then the author, especially if he was a man, would get absolutely slaughtered. 

            If I was a stereotypical 50's man, which for the record I'm not, then the words that would come to mind when talking about women would be; wife, mother, cleaner, cooker, ditsy etc. and the themes that I would think of might be; flowers, gossip, families, nature, simplicity etc. While the authors don't tend to go as far as call a women a ditsy so and so, they still use a lot of these ideas when describing women. In "A room of her peers" the main women in the story is said to be 'like a bird', 'real sweet and pretty, but kind of timid and fluttery.' If the author had decided to say this directly instead of through a character then it would be considered an insult in the eyes of the reader, since 'Bird' is often used as a term to insult women. But because it is said by a friend of the characters it makes complete and utter sense. The author does use a pet bird being kept in a cage and then killed as a metaphor for a wife being kept in a semi abusive marriage until her soul was destroyed.
             Another commonly used piece of symbolism for women is that of flowers. In 'The Handmaids Tale' by Margaret Atwood, flowers are used throughout the story in connection with the two main female characters. Offred, The Handmaid, talks about and is linked with flowers on multiple occasions. However, it is the Commanders wife where the biggest traditional stereotypical comes in. In the very early stages of the book we learn is that it is the wife who is in charge of the garden and takes good care of it because it is one of her few outlets for power. In many other stories, this would be considered distasteful, but somehow it fits in perfectly with the rest of this highly thought of book.

Power and Envy

Power and Envy

As is the case in any society, a big issue in the clouded society of 'The Handmaids Tale' is that of power. We see the story through the eyes of Offred the Handmaid, a character who has every aspect of her life controlled by certain forces. Some of which we see, some of which we don't ( as of yet ). As someone from our current society in Britain, it seems a very harsh way to treat someone that your society depends so heavily upon.  It almost reminded me of the way footballers and actors earn insane amounts of money for the seemingly insignificant work that they do, yet doctors and teachers (to name but a few) earn almost nothing compared to that for the vital work that they do. Both societies seem to treat people they depend upon as dispensable when in fact they are the opposite. This is taken to pretty much the extreme when you consider that handmaids are not only shipped to 'the colonies' (the location of which we don't yet know) if they fail to have a baby by a certain age, but they also can be executed (along with the rest of the society) for seemingly meaningless actions, many of which we wouldn't think twice about in our world. While we only see it from one characters angle, so we don't know the whole story, the society seems to work in a very self destructive way.
             Their entire society depends on the handmaids yet they don't seem to have any power or rights. In a way this makes sense, why leave the future of your people uncertain when you can take measures to ensure it. However, in my opinion, their society still seems to be shifting towards that of a complete dictatorship.
             In fact there are multiple similarities between the Gilead and Nazi Germany. The main one being the way they treat different types of people. Catholics, Jews and assumedly people from other non Gilead religions are hung and some have their bodies strung up on a wall. Men are sectioned off from women on a social level. Women are treated as inferior to men and the work of the handmaids could be compared to that of slave labor in camps like Auswitch.
            A lot of the women actually envy men. The line "Pen Is Envy" seems to be using the an actual pen as a metaphor for a mans penis. As pens and writing is forbidden, Offred gets a rush of power when she is allowed to use it. This seems to reflect the power that men have as the superior gender in this society.
         All of which reminds me of the power the Church used to have, especially in Western Europe. Mainly because how in both societies, logic seems to have been surrendered to ensure complete and utter control over regular people.

Women and Religion

Women and Religion

So, I've just started reading 'The Handmaid's Tale' by Margaret Atwood, the book is set in sort of post apocalyptic civilization. Al tough, the reader has not yet been given a clear view of what has happened we can make educated guesses about a few key things. For example, it is pretty damn clear that religion is going to play a massive part of the story, it seems as if a religious institution ( similar to Christianity ) has complete and utter control of the world we are introduced to. It also seems as if there is some sort of religious war going on we are getting the view from a citizen of the religious side. Albeit she doesn't seem to be completely happy with the civilization she is a part of. Another major aspect of the story so far is fertility. Whether or not a women is able to have a child seems to be a big deal with a large amount of women being unable. There are many mentions of giving birth but very few mentions of children. It would appear to us that the main characters ( whose name, Offred, we get from the back cover ) is a handmaid, a specific role ( whether optionally or not ) where her purpose is to have a baby.

                 That is the background to the story as I currently understand it, what I don't understand fully is what is the role of the women ( especially the handmaids ). The majority of the characters we have met so far are women. Some of which seem to be completely educated and smart. And yet, it would appear that the men in the story naturally have more power and control. For instance, the main male character we have been introduced by this point is the Commander, who most of the main female characters so far seem to be working for. If it is a religious story and setting then this would be in keeping with many real world religions. They seem to be the dominated force despit the fact that they are pretty much the sole hope for humanity as they have the chance to give birth to the future generation.  

The End of Men

'The End of Men' by Hanna Rosin is written as an article a magazine called 'The Atlantic' but comes off more like an essay you would find in a high school. The unoriginal title means there is no debate about the position of the author on the topic. Not that you would need one after reading for more than a couple of minutes, the author takes no prisoners when trying to convince the reader that Women will be ruling the world in the near future. Throughout the article she is continuously looking down upon men, even though the examples she chooses to use only raises our views of male morals. One story tells us about a man who is claimed to be a bad father, yet anyone with the slightest sense of sympathy feels bad for someone whose only crime is being crippled by the economic crisis. Another one takes the closest thing you can find to a stereotype of a cowboy and turns him into a seemingly level headed, wise old man, brave enough to change his mind.
              The only thing that she uses worse than her stories is her statistics, she very regularly uses statistics that back up the importance of men and then tells us to ignore them with no justification on why. Multiple times just she say that women make up around 50% of this or that, completely ignoring the fact that means that men must make up the other 50%. Many people who have past a certain age would be insulted by this. It also seriously insults her own intelligence that she thinks people won't notice that, it also makes her seem incredibly arrogant since she ignores the statistics completely and just goes on about the supposed importance of women.
She makes the reader listen to all sorts of statistics that proves very little and then relates them in some absurd way so they relate to her point. When I read it, I found very little connection between the statistics and stories she uses and the argument she makes from them.
                What also annoyed me about this was the extreme repetition within a very long article, the statistics she used all merged together after around five pages. Not to mention every story she used as an example had the same structure to it. In some part of the world women had less power, opportunity etc. and over the course of a certain amount of time, they got to a point where they were on a level field with men. in none of the stories do women ever gain a strong advantage over men. Neither is there any serious reason to believe that there will be in the future.
                  Yet, even the title of the article illustrates her point. she is insistent that women are now the dominant force in the economic and political world, but she refuses to look at the actual world around her.