Angry Black Women

Quotes from Claudia Rankine's Citizen

“A friend tells you he has seen a photograph of you on the Internet and he wants to know why you look so angry. You and the photographer chose the photograph he refers to because you both decided it looked the most relaxed. Do you look angry?... Obviously this unsmiling image of you makes him uncomfortable, and he needs you to account for that.”

__

“For Serena, the daily diminishment is a low flame, a constant drip. Every look, every comment, every bad call blossoms out of history, through her, onto you. To understand is to see Serena as hemmed in as any other black woman thrown against our American background.” 

Our society has the tendency to label African American women “angry black women” as soon as we are no longer able to keep quiet despite the constant scrutiny and judgement we face in our day to day lives. Some people group all African American women as always being upset: waiting to yell and hit someone or resorting to violence over small inconveniences. In my own experience, people have made comments about me like “she looks like she’s about to fight you” just because of my facial expression or because I am disagreeing with someone. I know my character, and I know that I wouldn’t cause harm to anyone over something small but it seems like other people envision me to be that way because of my race and gender. 

This stereotype also ties into Serena. She was labeled an angry black woman by the press because of her response to a referee who she believed was making unfair calls. Other races and genders are able to express their distress about certain events, but when Black women do, we are seen as extremely violent; and others think we need to calm down and suppress our emotions. 

This “angry black woman” stereotype is unfair. Our anger and emotions are not unwarranted and we should have the freedom to react to the issues that we believe hinder on our well being. 

"Nice" White Women: The Intersection of Gender and Racism

Throughout "Beloved," Toni Morrison demonstrates the lasting psychological effects of slavery and racism on the Sweet Home slaves and their relations.  In the face of such a truthful portrayal of an evil system, some readers might want to find some kind of hope in the other characters in the novel, seeing a sort of kindness in the white women in the story. However, this approach leads to neglecting the oppression these women perpetuate along the way.

When Sethe decides she and Halle want to get married, she immediately chooses to tell Ms. Garner her idea, hoping that her mistress will allow her to have some level of a ceremony. After explaining to Sethe that Sethe will be pregnant someday and complimenting Halle for his kindness, Ms. Garner laughs at her slave, touching her head and stating, "You are one sweet child" (31). Numerous aspects of this interaction demonstrate that Ms. Garner is not as benevolent as she sees herself, or as some readers may see her. She calls Sethe a child, despite the fact that Sethe is old enough to get married and perform forced labor for the Garners; this serves to infantilize her and 'put her in her place.' Her statements digress from Sethe's question, and patting her on the head is very patronizing. Letting her get married does not demonstrate any sort of motherly love for Sethe -- a mother would not keep her child in bonds.

Amy Denver, the other white girl in the novel, both seems and acts a lot nicer than Ms. Garner. Guiding Sethe through the woods, massaging her feet and legs, and helping wrap up baby Denver were all genuine gestures of kindness. However, Amy is not immune to racism, despite her 'good intentions.' Specifically, she tells Sethe, "I don't want to see your ugly black face hankering over me [if you die]" (97), and 'that she wouldn't be caught dead in daylight on a busy river with a runaway" (99-100). It's true that Amy would be in danger if she stays with Sethe, and that she does care for Sethe.  But she is also aware that her race gives her privilege over Sethe despite their relatively similar family background and personal experiences, and uses that knowledge to occasionally reinforce her superiority over the runaway.

These two characters demonstrate the ways that gender and racism intersect: white women are seen as kind, innocent, well-intended victims, even when they either directly and willingly perpetuate violent racism (Ms. Garner) or make remarks that reinforce racism (Amy Denver). As a white girl in 2017, I see the lasting legacy of this trope in the way that I'm treated by teachers, administrators, and others. It's too easy - and dangerously ignorant of centuries of history - to glance past white women's actions in "Beloved" by assuming that facing sexism cancels out racism.

Patriarchy in The Stranger

I will admit that the role patriarchy played in The Stranger was not clear to me when I read it. While at some points it was clear that men were dominant, I had never considered the possible theme to be related to misogyny. I think that this ignorance was due to my privilege as a man, and the ingrained ideas of gender I live with and around. However after further reading and analyses by my peers, I understand the importance of gender in this text. When considering the theme, I immediately began to think about Meursault, and what message Camus was trying to tell us about life through him as a character, rather than how Camus chose to tell his story only with male characters and women were only viewed as inferior and useless.
I think this is due to how regardless of how hard men try to be agents of change and promote feminism, our society is in many ways patriarchal and we as a society often enforce it subconsiously. Throughout my reading of The Stranger, the issues of gender and dominance were relevant, however I still treated them as if they were lesser and normal. When Raymond abused and mistreated his mistress, Raymond may have been the one committing the act, but Meursault's silence is also part of the problem. His indifference to the situation strengthens and empowers Raymond. If Meursault is really the existentialist that we believe him to be, than his silence and indifference to the domestic abuse of a woman is his building is very important. It tells us that Meursault truly could not careless about what happens to women, since as an existentialist he should stand for what he believes in and create his own "Authentic" life.

Nonchalant Sexism: Purposeful or Subconscious?

'Is Albert Camus doing this on purpose or is this an inherent and subconscious ode to sexism and superiority complexes?' This question is so absolutely reoccurring in my investigation into the meanings behind this book that I'm more questioning of the author than the main character (the character everyone is supposed to be mad at (for good reason)). Yes, we all know Raymond is the personification of toxic masculinity. This is visualized through his physical and psychological abuse of "his mistress." It is also evident that Raymond has an identity and pride insecurity, as these commonly run parallel within sexist/oppressive ideologies. We, as readers in the 21st century can often become numb to grave issues such as sexism, racism, xenophobia, ableism, etc. So when we read texts with these characters, it is common for us to demonize that one character instead of questioning all relevant and present characters, and also the author, the originator of the story's being. Meursault, playing the role of the bystander, is thus choosing the side of the oppressor in every interaction of sexism. He is perpetuating an obvious discrimination by allowing Raymond to think one can do so much damage, and justify it afterwards without repercussion. Although, relating back to my point, what worries me is the fact that Marie, who is dating Meursault, is also constantly being put into, whichever side of the binary, this sexism. This underlying and unquestioned inaction worries and pushes me to ask, is Albert Camus doing this on purpose or is this a normalized concept in the world and time period in which this book was written? What frustrates and "surprises" me is the objectification and lack of action done by Marie. Not only does Meursault become affectionate towards Marie only when "he wants her" but she, much like the Benjamin binary text we read eariler this year state, that she plays a role into this binary by allowing it to happen and laughing it off.  I believe this Marie character is far more important to the text and global issues than we are giving her. We could go the route and say this constant laughter is her being put in uncomfortable situations and her way of dealing with the issue is laughter, which is a very normal response to pressured experiences. Although, in the scene when Meursault and Marie see Raymond abusing the woman, all she does is ask someone else to call the police. This worried me greatly. One could argue this is her being a bystander as well. In situations of any sort, if someone is bleeding to death due to assault, merely asking someone else to call the police is not enough. We as readers must realize there are many more origins of sexism than the, while still obviously unacceptable and valid to the story, physical abuse Raymond earlier had on the woman he was involved with. There are many roads to go down on this concept and I tried to scrape the surface, so that's it for now.

Misogyny on the Mind

Throughout part one, there are multiple incidents of physical abuse against women. Our first encounter with this abuse is with Raymond: a true embodiment of hyper-masculinity. Raymond feels himself rejected by a woman with whom he was romantically involved, and therefore feels the need to retaliate against her. This woman is never actually named or given an identity. She is solely referred to as "the girl" or "the woman". I feel that Raymond's failure to name her exemplifies two things. First that he does not value her as worthy of a name. Secondly, if he were forced to give her an identity when explaining the situation to Meursault, he would have to acknowledge her as a full human who did in fact reject him (or so he assumes). Raymond's desire to "punish her" (31) is a result of his masculinity and ability to provide for her being threatened. His way of coping with these feelings is to use his physical strength and size to violently assault her.

While Raymond is actually beating "the girl" up, Meursault watches indifferently and does nothing to help her. In fact, he actively does not call for help even when Marie asks him to. When the police do arrive, Raymond looks to Meursault for approval to follow the cop's orders. It is very clear that Raymond feels no sympathy for the woman that he has just brutally assaulted. It is also clear that Raymond is incredibly insecure about his standing as a man and feels the need to constantly remind others of his "manliness" by controlling women and engaging in violence. 

What is even more disturbing is Meursault's reaction to Raymond's actions. He too seems to view this woman as deserving of punishment. Let us not forget that is was never actually confirmed whether or not "the girl" ever actually cheated on Raymond. On page 37, Meursault tells Raymond that "he ought to be happy" about his perceived accomplishments. It is also noteworthy that these two men deemed this woman deserving of such merciless violence. To them, she us subhuman: a sex object. Even when Raymond was describing the nature of their remaining relationship, he said he "still had sexual feelings for her" (page 31). The idea of Raymond admitting to having an emotional connection to her would push him too far out of his comfortable yet constraining masculinity. 

DQ: What role does Marie play in Meursault's ability to recognize or understand women? Do you think that Marie will help him understand his mother better? Through their relationship will he develop empathy for the victim of Raymond's abuse? 

Exposing the Issues of the Generic Corporate Office through Comedic Satire

The Office is a popular comedy series on NBC that successfully ran for nine seasons.  The show is centered around the employees of the Scranton, Pa branch of the fictional Dunder Mifflin Paper Company.  The office is eminent for its satire which illuminates the issues that occur in real corporate offices.  Several of the characters in the show experience racism, sexism, and discrimination due to sexual orientation.

Racism is one of the most heavily highlighted issues in the series.  In an episode titled, "Diversity Day" Michael (Steve Carell) decides to create a seminar where he will "educate" his coworkers about various cultures.  May I remind you this is a white man in the position of power in this establishment.  How it worked, he wrote on various cards with different races and had his coworkers placed them on their foreheads and then were asked to treat each other based on the race on their foreheads.  Obviously, the activity does not go very well.  It exposed many popular offensive stereotypes and disastrous parts of other cultures such as the Holocaust and slavery.  One of the most effective lines was when Michael stated that he did not want to make a card that said "Arab" on it so then, "the meeting wouldn't be explosive."  I'm just going to leave that there.  Throughout the series many characters struggle with daily remarks about their race, sex and sexual orientation.

The way the television show approaches these issues is in the style of satire.  Other television shows such as Parks and Rec and 30 Rock follow the same style.  And even after the shows end many of the actors continue to base their careers on satirical humor.  For example, Aziz Ansari, a familiar face on Parks and Rec, continues his comedic career with a heavy influence of political satire.  Just recently he hosted SNL and his opening monologue was talking about the people who are now "coming out of hiding" and believe it's okay to stop pretending to not be racist.  Yes, these people exist.  Satire is a huge influence on today's culture and I believe to be a very important one.  Not only does is address the issues of the world but does it in a way of comedic relief and simplifies the messages for the more ignorant people who need to hear it.

You Can Have a Great Life! But Only if You're a Wealthy White Man

Alright, so perhaps the title is a little cynical, but I have been having some major problems with all this existentialist theory. We all die in the end, that much I buy. But that's about where I draw the line with existentialism. Can I really believe that acknowledging that life is made up of meaningless suffering will make me the freest person ever? No. Is that because I'm a woman? Maybe!

I think it is extremely elitist to say that merely accepting your fate will make it better. Take Sisyphus, for example. Camus claims he was the happiest man to ever exist simply because he understood that his fate was filled with suffering, so now he could be free. On a more mortal level, the logic is that if we understand that all of our lives kind of stink for no reason and that all the social institutions familiar to us merely try to cover that, then we can be free to be whoever we want to be.

I would be surprised if Camus could look in the face of a Syrian refugee mother (hypothetically, of course) and tell her that if she accepts that her life and the lives of her children are all absurdly horrible, then they are truly free from any pain and misery. Make your own choices! Fly away if you want to!

Maybe I am misunderstanding existentialism. Maybe there is some profound explanation that Camus would throw at me, and I would fall at the feet of all existential philosophers. But Camus is dead, and my understanding of this theory is that it is a privileged one. I'm not saying I can even begin to understand oppression; I am a white girl from River Forest. But I know stories of the prejudice people have faced, and I could not even begin to imagine telling them that they should just accept the absurdity of their fate in order to be free from all their suffering. I mean, could you?

Comedy and Gender Roles

Based off Aristotle's idea of a comedy, I believe Sydney Pollack's 1982 movie Tootsie fits the definition. Since my family does not have Netflix, I am usually stuck watching older movies on random channels (think channels 852-944). But, I was pleasantly surprised by this movie.

In this comedy, the comedic hero is Micheal Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman) who is struggling to make it in the New York acting biz. Micheal is a very hardworking, respected guy; but his only drawback is that he is a perfectionist, thus making him a little difficult to work with. In the movie, in order to find work, he dresses up as an older woman, calling himself Dorothy and auditions for a role as a female hospital administrator for the soap opera Southwest General. 

In the movie, Micheal ends up getting the job as a woman. I don't really want to go into the details of the movie because I don't want to give the plot away. But, he ends up falling in love with one of his co-workers while he is being a woman.

I believe Tootsie fits the definition of an Aristotelian comedy because Micheal, despite his imperfect character is a very charming, likable hero. And, he isn't a rich guy either. He is simply an average guy trying to make it in the show biz, just like the other millions who are doing the same. Also, the movie is filled with many ordinary characters such as Micheal's friend who is a struggling actress as well and his roommate.

And, the movie also has a heavy emphasis on gender roles. Because Micheal is a acts like a woman for most of the movie, he is able to experience life as a woman. I believe the movie does an amazing job of showing viewers the differences between the lives of women and men, as well as their remarkable similarities despite those differences.

Gender in Beloved

One of the things that really makes Beloved stand out as a slavery novel is that it features such complex (and numerous!) female characters. Most of the greatest slavery related books, such as the works of Frederick Douglass and Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, and written about males and often from a male perspective.

Even without considering the racial factor in Beloved, the fact that it is a book by a woman about a woman told from a woman's perspective and that it's become such a well-respected novel is astonishing. A quick look at the statistics of most major literature awards, particularly those for exclusively adult literature, reveal that the books about women and by women receive the least honors. Predictably, books by men about men receive the most.

At the core of this matter is the simple problem that the world is taught to see things from a man's perspective. This is often called the male gaze. Non-male individuals are constantly surrounded by men's stories - created by men, starring men, and from a male perspective - so they learn to accept it and appreciate male stories. Men, however, are hardly ever forced to appreciate women's stories. Even when stories are about women, they're often created by men and for men, thus creating a story that isn't sincerely female or true to the female experience.

Beloved is a perfect triple threat: it's written by a woman, about women, and told from a female perspective. This gives it the ability to approach the topics of slavery and racism from a perspective that isn't usually heard.

When we learn about various types of discrimination in history, we usually learn about one at a time. There was sexism, then there was racism, then there were a few little squabbles over sexual discrimination. The fact of the matter is that all of these types of discrimination have coexisted and overlapped all throughout the course of history. During the fight for women's rights, women of color were often left behind - and later, during the fight against racism, the same thing happened. The recent movie Stonewall is an excellent example of this one-minority-at-a-time mentality; the true heroine of the Stonewall riots, a latina trans woman, was replaced with a white gay man. Apparently, seeing people who fell into two minority categories at once was just too much for the American public.

That's why I think Beloved is such an important novel - it unflinchingly tells the story of those who are doubly wronged, and thus doubly forgotten.

George Saunders flounders!

I'm an enormous fan of George Saunders. However, after reading a number of his stories, I've noticed a strange pattern. With the exception of The Very Persistent Gappers of Fripp, which stars an excellent heroine named Capable, every George Saunders story I've read has featured men as the primary characters and women as being put in powerless/demeaning roles - usually in a sexual way.

To be clear, when Saunders' women are put into these situations, their predicament is in no way meant to be glorified. In each occurrence of this trope, the man who overpowers and violates the woman is definitely portrayed as being in the wrong. In The Brief and Terrifying Reign of Phil, it's Phil himself – indisputably the villain of the story – who fantasizes about, idealizes, violates, and eventually murders his female crush. "Escape from Spiderhead" portrays women being killed after being sort-of sexually violated in the context of an experiment (again, the man who kills them is not supposed to be a sympathetic character). The short story "Victory Lap" features a rapist who means to rape and murder a female child, "Jon" has young girls being impaired by accidental pregnancies, and "Tenth of December" features a young boy who fantasizes about a girl being kidnapped so he can rescue her. In none of these cases is the reader supposed to sympathize with the overpowering of these female characters, and yet there they are.

It's difficult to tell what George Saunders is trying to say through this repeated trope. On the one hand, he's definitely making a statement against violating women or using them as objects. On the other hand, that's what happens to most of his female characters (again, with the exception of Capable, who is an excellent non-sexualized young heroine).

What this says to me is that Saunders is making an effort, but he's not truly there yet. It's been proven time and time again that male authors have more difficulty telling the stories of female characters than female authors do when telling the stories of male characters. This is because the majority of media is presented from a male perspective; therefore, women are constantly forced to see things from a man's point of view, whereas men are never forced to see anything from a woman's point of view.

It seems that Saunders is on the right path (saying that women should be treated as equal human beings) but he hasn't quite made it to the point of actually portraying them as human beings, instead focusing on the damage that occurs when they are not treated as such. When it comes down to it, it's a case of mutual recognition: Saunders has reached the point of saying "You're not less than me" but hasn't reached the point of "You're equal to me."

I hope to see this repetitive trope disappear as I read more of his writing. After all, a writer is only great if they can write from the perspectives of both halves of the population.

The Difference Between Sims and Humans

Our society's need for organizing things often takes precedent over what might actually be more efficient to fill the gaps in what it needs. It is easier to file people under the two categories- on a form there is only so much space for boxes to check. You are male or you are female. You are straight or you are gay. You are mother or you are father. But, in truth, humans are way too complicated for every single one of us to fit into these boxes. The ideals that are being held on to only perpetuate institutional sexism and, especially in developing countries, holds us back. Children, and therefore our future, are heavily affected by the idea of mothering to be inherently female. Nancy Chodorow wrote in The Reproduction of Mothering "equal parenting would leave people of both genders with the positive capacities each has, but without the destructive extremes these currently tend toward".Clearly, the mold that exists for our definition of family is not working. Chodorow was on to something back in the 70's and it's still a progressive idea now.

On holidays or family gatherings, it is often my job to entertain my 9 year old cousin. Every time, without fail, she wants to play The Sims, a very popular life simulation game for those who don't know. Since she could click a mouse, when she comes over she plays the sims. Every time she begins a new game and creates her household. And every time, every single time, she creates the same family- varying only in names, hair color, and clothing. She creates a woman, a man, a male child and a female child.They are always white and thin. All of them will either be brunette with brown eyes or all of them will be blonde with blue eyes. Upon finishing her household and starting to play the game, she employs the man as either a politician or businessman, and she does not employ the woman but instead improves her cooking and painting skills at home. She has both of the children excel in school, and on the weekends the male child dabbles in creating potions and the female child dabbles in baking on her easy bake oven. Not only is this an extremely boring method of playing, it is quite shocking to me, considering that she is Chinese, adopted by my single aunt. Every week they meet with other single mothers with adopted daughters.  So why does she create the same family over and over again? How far in her head has this model been drilled? The game itself does a fairly good job at not perpetuating norms aside from the gender binary- your sims don't have any concept of gender or race when interacting with others or in the workplace, they can have literally whatever skin color you please- even green, and even beyond death they are playable. 

The virtual world her family of sims reside in might not be struggling with gender constructions, but ours definitely is. Your sim may not have any kind of relationship with their children and they'll turn out fine. Humans are not as simple. Child psychology is a very complex and ever changing field of study. We can't know how these constructions of what a mother is and isn't are affecting us as we don't really have an example of someone growing up without them. Even in a household that might differ from the norm, kids see it everywhere on TV. It would take a multitude of generations of change for these barriers to be broken- as Chodorow wrote: "this outcome is historically possible, but far from inevitable". It will take an active effort to reverse the negative affects of this ideology.

Chodorow and the Real World

I thought that Chodorow's did a great job of developing her argument in her book The Reproduction of Mothering.  She went into clear explanation of the claims she made and illustrated these claims with examples.  Besides a few details I disagreed with, Chodorow's argument was pretty well-developed.  I especially appreciated her hopeful, constructive viewpoint, identifying the fatalistic fallacy that women's mothering is biological and unchangeable.  What I found glaringly inaccurate was the assumed statement that the whole book is found on explaining and changing: that women parent and men basically don't.

Now I do understand that she to an extent recognizes the generalization made in this assumption, but her argument as a whole is still shaped around explaining an idea that is fundamentally unstable.  At least in my own life, I feel that my father has parented me greatly.  While he may not cook and clean often like my mom, my dad has very intentionally nurtured me - emotionally, mentally, and morally.  The raising of myself was undoubtedly a team effort by my two parents and would be drastically different if my dad's parenting were to be removed from the picture.  And, in regards to Chodorow's assertions about the mothering trend in the past, I am sure my father would assert that he grew up in a culture where the father's role as a parent was highly valued.

While I would say that my family is unique in several ways, including some divergence from standard American gender stereotypes, I don't think that it is alone in this case.  Though I can't judge any other family without having been a part of it or a close observer, I would definitely say that I have noticed what appears to be parenting and important emotional ties between the child and the father.  Perhaps this sign of dedication to child-rearing isn't quite as prevalent as I think it is; maybe it is somewhat unique to my socioeconomic status.  Even if this were the case, however, Chodorow's societal generalizations does not allow room for such a case.  In fact, her implications of widespread absence of male parenting and unhealthy female parenting came to a glaring point in her line found towards the bottom of pg. 217 in her Afterword: "...children are better off in situations where love and relationships are not a scarce resource controlled and manipulated by one person only."  The idea that in most families love is "scarce" and "manipulated" by an apparently tyrannical and unstable mother appears to me to be rather and inaccurate - and, to be frank, insulting.

Chodorow's theory does manage apply to Toni Morrison's Beloved pretty well.  This is not because of a work-oriented, pedophobic father, however.  The problems of Denver, the younger daughter of the story, that could be explained through Chodorow's theory stem from the absolute lack of her father's presence and being isolated to only her mother and, for some of her life, her grandmother (both of which are actually unstable for unrelated, very understandable reasons).  Under these circumstances, where the absence of affection from the second parent is undeniable because he is literally not there, Chodorow's theory does perfectly.

Can Zombies Free Women From The Mothering Role?

In Nancy Chodorow's The Reproduction of Mothering, Chodorow seeks to describe how the social construction of "mothering" and the patriarchial society we live in came to be, as well as how people need to move toward less rigid gender roles.

Chodorow first seeks to give backround to how "mothering" came to be. She acknowledges that throughout history women have been confined to the home because of their biological connection to the children. As time has progressed and science has started to dispute the validity of women being the sole nurturer because of biological predispositions our patriarchal society has moved to keep women in the home by creating the idea that women must be nurturing and caring, while men seek to stay in the public sphere.

Chodorow says the to combat this social construction of gender roles people must move towards coparenting as well as attempting to escape the endless cycle of mymicing the same gender parent.

I think that presently, although not  anywhere near perfect, our society has taken steps towards gender equality. The media in America controls many people's perception of gender, and how men and women are supposed to act. Many of the mainstream TV shows advertise women as the mother and men as the provider. The Walking Dead has slowly but surely started to challenge these norms.

In the beginning of the show there were still plenty of mothers mothering, but as people started to fall victim to zombie attacks the mothering role started to erode. In the current season there are no mothers. Women are not confined to caring for the camp or the children, but have equal say in what goes. They are on the frontlines killing zombies side by side with men.

There is a baby on the show named Judith. Judith's birth mother died, and in almost every scene she is being held by a man. The man in most cases is the very strong and masculine Tyrese. Tyrese takes pride in caring for Judith and mothers her as well as any mother could during a zombie apocolypse.

These subtle changes to what most people believe to be normal are actually quite brilliant. The Walking Dead shows that women are equally as capable as men when it comes to killing and protecting themselves, and men can make great mothers.

It pains me that women can only escape the mothering role when confronted with a zombie apocolypse, but hey progress is progress.

Add Gender to the Melting Pot

In short, there are two main concepts to grasp if we are to understand why women still mother. First, babies admire and emulate their same-sex parent. So females emulate their nurturing mothers, and males emulate their distant fathers. In this way, females grow up to value and seek out nurturing, and males grow up to value and seek out impersonal affairs. This explains the dichotomy, but not the hierarchy.
Another concept is necessary to explain why men are commonly thought of as superior. As we have learned, women often psychologically value nurturing roles in society. These roles are commonly found in the private sphere of life, confined to the home. Men often psychologically value impersonal roles in society. These roles are commonly found in the public sphere of life, outside the home. In societal structures around the world, most notably Western capitalism, the public sphere dominates domestic, thus men dominate women.

With an understanding of the psychological models that promote the social perpetuation of gender roles, and an understanding of the political and societal structures that qualify the binary, it is simple to see why gender discrepancies exist today.

I believe that, while these concepts hold true in American society, the system is flawed. By this I mean that an extreme differentiation of gender roles is unhealthy for individuals for society. Women need immersion in the public sphere, and men need deep personal connection. Society needs a nurturing perspective in public policy, business affairs, war. Children need a fatherly figure and the home needs refurbishing.

So men, consider taking a sabbatical and spending time with your kids. Those workhorses staying late in the office next door may be missing out on the most important facet to their lives-- their families.

Women, consider applying for that position. Those savvy policy-writers may be overlooking the need to nurturing those in need when they next re-allocate government funds.

Communities : Label Makers

A community is a world of its own.  It may have different opinions than those surrounding it or it may have similar beliefs but either way it is held together in a union of beliefs that are passed on to newcomers and imprinted into childrens malleable brains.  In society different communities have different cultures that establish language, opinions, and stereotypes that everyone is assumed to follow.  Some community’s work to dissipate the idea of stereotypes.  For example in the New Haven community they have a workshop for children to raise awareness of what stereotypes are and how to get rid of them.  According to an article in The New Haven Register, “The workshop will focus on how negative stereotypes of black people are hurting the children, how and why stereotypes were invented, and what parents and other caregivers can do to destroy those stereotypes and help heal the wounds they inflict.” In other instances communities hold on to the stereotypes given to race or gender and pass them on to their children, only to continue the vicious cycle.

Within Light in August community plays a significant role in shaping the thoughts of its persons.  In the town Jefferson, the two stereotypes passed down throughout the community are Racism and Gender relations.  In Light in August what I find interesting is the demonstration of how if one believes differently than the community how they are exiled.  Hightower believes and acts contrary to how the community believes and acts.  Hightower is said to have relationships with his black servants and has a unsuccessful relationship with his wife.  Both of these make an impression on the community and they respond by trying to make him leave.  Why does he stay?? Hightower is threatened, attacked, and shunned, yet he stays in Jefferson.  I think that his place in society has become his identity.  

Hightower takes on the identity of the outsider of the town, just as other identities are given to the different members.  When Lena arrives the community deems her the bad woman, just as when Christmas’s true racial confusion is addressed he is deemed as the violent black man. Both Lena and Christmas were judged upon only their physical appearance, Lena arriving with a pregnant stomach and no man, and Christmas with a slightly darker skin tone.  In Lena’s case her identity was less desirable whereas Christmas was struggling to accept an identity being racially mixed.  I think that Hightower, even though chosen to be an outsider, was comfortable in Jefferson because he was given an identity which is something that people strive to gain.  Within a community one might be searching for their identity however, once it is given sometimes it is less desirable.  Communities are organizations that label people with identities and stereotypes, it is hard to deviate from the path that a community has chosen for you if you remain there.

Don't Wanna Take My 6 Finals

I have six finals. Seniors shouldn't have six finals.

The ending of Light in August, for me, was actually pretty well done. It flowed well with the rest of the novel; including new characters, mentioning (or implying rather) sex, and traveling (or running away). The furniture salesman was an interesting yet incredibly random character to include, and it is this sense of randomness that makes Faulkner a solid writer. If a person were to read the first chapter and the last chapter of Light in August, they would think the story is solely about Lena. However, if you read all the chapters except the first and the last, you would have an altogether different view of Lena.

Of course race is a subject that can't be avoided when contemplating this book. Even in modern day America, the land of the "free", we find that our racial system isn't even remotely close to being perfect. Nor will it ever be. BUT, we can certainly try to achieve that goal in which people aren't judged for their heritage; or for that matter their sexuality, gender, height, hair color, sport, religion, fashion etc. The world is ever changing and ever terrifying- we should strive to make it a better and easier world for the generations to come.

Favorite Satire Ever (I don't even know if its satire, its just absolutely hilarious)

Affirmative, Yes. Comprehensive, Hardly. (Fixing Affirmative Action)

The Light in August is as profound an exposé on the inner workings of racial perception as any psychological treatise. While Faulkner seems to have debunked the great 'mystery of race', I struggle in class to understand how I can apply his revelations to my everyday life. I've decided to examine a current racial issue and attempt to apply Faulkner's genius...


America boasts freedom. Equally present -- but not so fun to shout about from your rooftop -- is the degree of inequality that results. Today, the United States' government takes steps to make up for these injustices.

By examining Affirmative Action in the college admission process -- one attempt at righting past wrongs -- I will address two questions: How are we currently seeking to remedy injustice, and how can we better this process?

Affirmative action has been in place in the United States since the 1960’s, when it was first introduced to enforce compliance with civil rights laws. The policy was intended to help minorities who have been discriminated against, especially in employment and educational settings.

Colleges throughout the nation favor those minorities who in the past, have suffered injustices at the hands of the United States' government. In this way, the government seeks to level the playing field by giving those who have been denied opportunities the chance to recoup their status.

We will overlook the arguments against Affirmative Action's practical fallacies (For example, favoring minorities presupposes their inferiority; opportunities are being taken away from qualifies members of the majority; these favored kids are unprepared for the rigor at the universities to which they are admitted) and focus on the big picture.


The basis of this system is far from perfect, and Faulkner sheds a light onto its problem. 

Here is the crux of my argument:

Faulkner pins race as the single most dividing quality in American history, because it's the most visual, clear-cut option by which people can be alienated. But he deliberately makes a point to emphasize that this is but one of many factors, including gender, religion, school of thought, and social status/wealth, based on which people differentiate themselves and discriminate.

Each one of these factors has been the basis for injustice in American history. 

So, in my opinion, the United States needs to either take all these factors into account (in proportion to their documented effect on need for favor in the college admission process) when evaluating need for favor in the college admission process, or take none. To only consider race is to deny the existence of divisions in society based on factors other than race.

On a more reprehensive note,

By failing to recognize the link between prejudice and those human differentiations other than race, the United States government jeopardizes the authenticity of the apologetic sentiment at the core of Affirmative Action. 

Affirmative Action has been enacted as a reactionary measure to appease 1960's civil rights activism.
If a government is unwilling to right wrongs other than those for which it has been vilified, is it truly seeking justice, or is it simply defending its reputation?





*I am aware that this 'all-factor' plan is quite idealistic.
As a step towards the 'all-factor' plan, an amendment that has a greater chance of being enacted is Affirmative-Economic-Need Action (ENA). While not as comprehensive as the all-factor plan, its measure of wealth in addition to race for the determination of need for favor in the college admissions process more adeptly evaluates need for favor than Affirmative Action because the biggest dividers in America today are race and class.

Is it really 'Just a Dress'?

Faulkner presents an intricate understanding of how race "works" in his widely-acclaimed novel, Light in August. Recently, we've seen the way he manipulates the characters in the story to elicit a greater meaning and/or truth about the world after Brown reports Christmas as a "half nigger" to support his claim that Christmas was the murderer rather than himself. The sheriff's response brings up the argument of "How could that happen? Why might something as insignificant as race matter more than something as gruesome as murder?" The answer lies in the power of social binaries, Benjamin would agree.

In the same way that race functions as a defining characteristic for many in the world today, gender often dictates an individual's actions as well as the expectations for that individual. In fact, gender dictates that in six months, I must walk through an arbor in a white dress with a bouquet of roses in my hand. What's that you ask? Who's the lucky man? Well, don't get your hopes up because...

Plot Twist: That'll be when I graduate from Oak Park and River Forest High School.

In our school, the graduating seniors uniformly sport white, floor-length dresses for women, while men dress in black suits with a red tie to match the women's bouquet of roses. For the past 101 years, this tradition has prevailed as a tribute to the school's history and as many have told me, "just looks so good in pictures." To both, I agree. However, my desire to honor tradition is clouded by my understanding of the origin of OPRFHS graduation attire.

Again, I remind you of the image of an 18-year old woman in a white dress holding a bouquet of roses walking under an arbor. Following her is a line of 18-year old men dressed in black suits with a red tie. As I sat and watched my siblings' graduation ceremonies at OPRF, I couldn't help but think that it looked as if they were all getting married. As a unit. Imagine that. Definitely would save a lot of money. But besides the point, it is 2014. Women and men today are, generally, not focused on marriage at eighteen years old anymore. Times have changed. Oak Park has changed.

I understand that some may read this in annoyance because to them, the idea that a white dress symbolizes purity, virginity, or marriage is outdated. To them, graduation would be nothing without the traditional OPRF graduation attire. After all, it's 'just a dress'. I also want to make clear that the point of this is not to shame others for wanting to wear white dresses because each student should wear whatever they choose. That's exactly my point. I am angry I am forced to wear white on a day completely unrelated to my wedding. I am angry that I cannot appreciate the tradition as others do. But I'm mostly angry because I am forced to wear an outfit based on my gender. The varying attire splits the sea of graduates in a completely unnecessary way. We are no longer "graduates", but rather "male graduates" and "female graduates": an arbitrary divide within the class. The issue now becomes, is it really 'just a dress'?

A Chauvinistic Christmas

In Faulkner's 'Light in August', Joe Christmas struggles with his identity. Although appearances may be deceiving, Christmas knows himself to be a negro. Given that this story takes place in post- Civil War south, being black entails a sense of inferiority, as if a curse. Christmas grows up aware that his race places him on the subordinate side of the power struggle, or binary, that existed between people at the time. This sense of submissiveness in relation to the dominant white man has engraved a belief of shortcoming causes Christmas to find an outlet in which he can expend these feelings and obtain power, even if only for a moment.

For the most part, Christmas finds this through sex. Throughout the novel, Christmas pays prostitutes for sex, and often times, these relations with women end in violence. When Christmas has an affair with Ms. Burden, this inferiority complex is indirectly explained via the times he assaults her with relentless blows. Because Christmas is unable to assert his dominance and control over his white male peers, he uses the opportunity to control women through sex. This opportunity arises from Christmas's desire to flip the binary and, for once, be in total control of his counterpart. This is why any display of love and affection from a women, which is especially clear in Christmas's relationship with Ms. Burden and Mrs. McEachern, pushes Christmas away and usually causes Christmas to use violence and disrespect in the relationship. Any display of affection and love is seen as a threat to his dominance. At one point, Christmas hopes that Ms. Burden will have left him a note that says that there affair is over and is to be forgotten, yet Christmas finds himself the subject of Ms. Burden's desire to hand over her wealth and power. Faulker writes that Joe Christmas  always wanted to have something kept a secret from the women in his life, whether it is with the rope and Ms. McEeachern or the whiskey and Ms. Burden. This shows that Christmas desires to be in greater control than the women not only in sex, but in knowledge. Because of this desire to flip the binary that he is a part of, Joe Christmas portrays himself as a very male chauvinistic individual that will fight to assert dominance over any female counterpart.

Male Ignorance

Reading Virginia Woolf's essay on Shakespeare's sister makes me appreciate who I was born as: a white male.  Specifically, it also reminded me of this Louis CK bit on being white: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg48ZZ2wYfM

As Louis says, being a white male is pretty much living life on easy mode.  While men aren't completely free of gender roles, most of the expectations for us involve being successful and creative, so it's not restricting so much as aggressively/unhealthily motivating.  While I know women are no longer forced to marry at age 16, they are still held back in many ways by societal norms, and this is something that, as a white male, I've only recently become aware of.

Honestly, I think it should be required of all men to read something like what Ms. Woolf wrote -- otherwise, we will continue walking around in ignorance.  Until we got to the feminist unit in AP American Literature last year, I was completely unaware of how poorly represented females are in American culture.  And once it was called to my attention, I finally understood why feminism is necessary.  Women have had it tough in life, and they continue to live with more constraints than there should be, and I like to think most men would agree that that's not okay.  They just might not realize the true reality of their situation.