Author Archives: erayton

There is a myth disseminated throughout the film, The Devil Wears Prada, that woman cannot have it all. They cannot have a successful career and a successful and fulfilling relationship[1] simultaneously. Yet for men, ‘having it all’[2] is possible. What this breeds is a double standard where women are considered incapable with having both a successful career and a healthy relationship or family, while men are celebrated, congratulated and encouraged to have both. This paper will explore how Hollywood discursively promotes the incompatibility between women and the idea of having it all. Furthermore, this paper briefly examines how the masculine ideology of ‘having it all’ is simply a reaffirmation of a patriarchal system but if deconstructed through a feminist lens, women could redefine what it means to ‘have it all’.

For years Hollywood has created films that convey the message to women that having a career and raising a family simultaneously is unachievable and has done this in such a way that makes the feminist movement appear as a failed project.[3] In fact, feminism has often been touted as a “rejection of conservative values” (77),[4] and some postmodernists would argue that the feminist movement “failed to provide women with happiness and equality” (78).[5] Most Hollywood movies have continued to support this idea by creating storylines that illustrate the tension between being a successful career woman and having a relationship. For women in film, having a career means being alone while having a family and being a wife means having no career. Female characters are portrayed as incapable of managing or negotiating these two environments and so must choose between them. If a woman is career obsessed and challenges the status quo, as Marshall suggests, then she is considered a “bad woman” (81)[6], and a “larger-than-life demon” (81).[7] A strong, powerful and successful woman also “threatens a man’s masculinity and therefore risks losing her relationship” (87).[8] Yet, if she chooses to be the faithful wife devoted to her relationship and her family then she is considered a “good woman” (82),[9] and a “good and loyal wife” (83),[10] who abides by the status quo. A “career-obsessed woman experiences loss: control of career means loss of control of family, and the notion that woman succeeding in their careers reinforce the dangerous assumptions that all ‘bad’ mothers are ‘devils’“(87).[11] The notion of having it all is based within a masculine ideology. For men, having it all is never questioned. For men who strive for the successful career and happy home life, having it all is a very real and attainable goal. Yet a woman with the same goals and aspirations is reminded time and time again it is just not possible. In the film, The Devil Wears Prada, the two main characters are faced with this dilemma and the audience becomes a salient witness to this scheme. To be a successful career girl, Andy Sachs, an assistant to fashion mogul Miranda Priestly, must give up her non-work relationships. For Miranda, maintaining a successful career means alienating her family and ultimately destroying her marriage. As Marshall suggests, “successful women are devils and home wreckers, successful men are seen as successful and free from backlash and unfavorable consequences” (88).[12]   The idea of having it all is an idea that has been constructed within a masculine ideology steeped in patriarchy. In this ideology, women are caregivers and homemakers while men have autonomy and freedom outside the home. Furthermore, if having it all is what determines success then perhaps there needs to be a new definition of success. Having it all within a masculine ideology means women will continue to fail at achieving this type of success. And although the film, The Devil Wears Prada, does challenge the expected norms for women by bringing awareness to the double standard that exists between men and women,[13] it still insinuates that a healthy relationship and a successful career are incompatible.

To conclude, what needs to happen within Hollywood cinema and in society is the creation of a new pedagogy that redefines having it all through a feminist lens. In this way, there is the possibility of establishing new parameters so that success in both a career and in a relationship is a natural and normalized synthesis of womanhood.

NOTES

[1] Erika M. Thomas, “Punishing Unfaithful Wives and Working Mothers: Messages of Postfeminism in Contemporary Film.” In Ruggerio, A., Media Depictions of Brides, Wives and Mothers, New York: Lexington Books, 2012: 77-90.

[2] Ibid., 78.

[3] Ibid., 78.

[4] Ibid., 77.

[5] Ibid., 78.

[6] Ibid., 81.

[7] Ibid., 81.

[8] Ibid., 87.

[9] Ibid., 82.

[10] Ibid., 83.

[11] Ibid., 87.

[12] Ibid., 88.

[13] Ibid., 88.

Throughout the ages the body has been the target for improvement. Although men have received encouragement in maintaining their bodily appearance, it is women that have been the recipients of the never-ending barrage of fashion and makeup advertisements, body sculpting suggestions, fitness regimes, and diets. Companies, such as the numerous cosmetic corporations, have created a multibillion-dollar industry that encourages people to define their identity by their consumption habits that include buying into the notion of the wrong body trope.[i] Within the last few years, cosmetic companies have broadened their scope to include transgender women. To maintain their feminine appearance, and thus their identity, transgender women become avid cosmetic consumers honing their consumer practices, which in turn encourage identity to be defined by consumption. This paper will examine the connection between consumption and identity for transgender women.

            The notion that there is no perfect body and that a woman’s body is flawed and in constant need of improvement is not a new phenomenon. For years the message of appearing attractive and perfectly feminine has influenced how women perceive themselves. Within the last few years the wrong body discourse[ii] has gained momentum and moved from the sphere of heterosexual women to include the transgender population. Evidence is seen in the growing popularity of transgender celebrities like make up artist Manny Mau, reality star Nadia Almada, and Olympian turned reality star Caitlyn Jenner. The desire to change from male to female is closely linked to the need to become authentic and self-determining. “Caitlyn Jenner’s utilization of her physical beauty is a means of showcasing her authentic female self” (6).[iii] Showcasing the authentic female self is directly linked to identity and within current society identity is political. For people within the transgender world, identity politics is a complex issue.

There is a difference between transsexual politics and transgender politics. Transgender politics is informed by the “queer understandings of sexuality and gender” (502)[iv] and strives to “disrupt and abandon categories of ‘woman,’ ‘man,’ and transsexual.’ (502).[v] The goal here is to eliminate any gender oppression.[vi] The focus is on gender identity. Transsexual politics turns its focus to the “human rights of a person,” (502)[vii] including all legal and medical rights.[viii] Interestingly, some celebrities tend to shy away from the political arena and as Caitlyn Jenner and Nadia Almada state their decision to become a transgender woman is personal not political. However, in a postmodern society identity is increasingly defined by consumption. What we consume has become a representation of who we are. When we purchase something, we manifest our identity and we express ourselves through what we purchase. Jenner and Almada’s reasons for reassignment surgery allowed them to finally connect with their true identity and essential selves.[ix] They felt flawed in their skin as men. To right this wrong and connect with their true identity they consumed reconstructive surgery procedures and products that enhance feminine beauty. The notion of the ideal woman must be maintained through a consumerist culture because feminine embodiment is produced through “make-up, clothing, hormonal supplements and surgical interventions, which must be constantly and perpetually maintained” (8).[x] The change from male to female and the continual consumption of beauty products is a political act. The company that sponsored Almada’s reassignment surgery and Vanity Fair’s cover shoot and article about Jenner is a political act. We live in a society where we can buy and express our identity through our consumer habits. We interpret this expression as authentic and real, a reflection of who we are. The companies that sponsored both women have capitalized on their identity and sexual expression. Anything economic is inherently political. Therefore, although Jenner and Almada refer to their actions as non-political they are, in fact, very political. Culture and politics are intricately connected and these inform economics.

Transgender peoples have the right to transsexual politics. They should have the right to exercise their freedom of expression and identity in a safe environment where they have all the same legal and medical rights as any heterosexual person. It is important to remember however, that in a postmodern society like ours identity and authenticity is closely linked to consumerism and therefore capitalism. Our identities have become defined by our consumer habits. While the wrong body discourse is alarming and for some a negative reinforcement of the body, it has worked “to mitigate the potential for trans visibility within the popular domain to disrupt common-sense understandings of personhood as contingent upon identification as discreetly male or female” (12).[xi] Nadia Almada and Caitlyn Jenner are strong, inspirational women that have decided finally to live as their authentic selves. In so doing they challenge the dominant heteronormative discourse. Challenging the dominant discourse is a positive step towards equal rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation, but it is a political move whether they intend it to be or not. Despite the apolitical stance that they have, in our modern society how we choose to express our identity is a political act. Turning into a transgender woman is political. Whether by consumption and identity creation or by protesting, identity is increasingly becoming defined by our consumption habits and corporations understand this by capitalizing on any form of gender expression.

Notes

[i] Michael Lovelock, “Call me Caitlyn: making and making over the ‘authentic’ transgender body in Anglo-American popular culture.” Journal of Gender Studies, 2016: 1-13.

[ii] Ibid., 8.

[iii] Ibid., 6.

[iv] Katrina Roen, “’Either/Or’ and ‘Both/Neither’: Discursive Tensions in Transgender Politics,” Signs, 27, 2 (2001): 501-522.

[v] Ibid., 502.

[vi] Ibid., 502.

[vii] Ibid., 502.

[viii] Ibid., 502.

[ix] Lovelock, “Call me Caitlyn,” 4.

[x] Ibid., 8.

[xi] Ibid., 12.

Once considered taboo and watched in secret, various types of pornography now appear in the open within mainstream society subjecting everyone, including women and young girls, to it on a regular basis through television shows, commercials, adverts and films. For most people, discussing pornography is uncomfortable so talking about watching pornography is even more uncomfortable.  For some women the topic is awkward and troublesome while others view it as a form of empowerment and liberation whereby they can challenge its repressive and often demoralizing nature.[1] In this reading analysis I analyze the pornographic dilemma women are now experiencing within a postfeminist society and how this contributes to their sense of identity.

Pornography is based on heteronormative ideologies of patriarchy,[2] which means that women regardless of race, class or ethnicity are considered the lesser or the Other. Recently studies have shown that women featured in pornography are not the only ones considered the Other. Black men who participate in pornography are subject to heteronormative ideologies because they reinforce the white man ideals of black men, which is nothing more than a dominated being. Black men are likened to animals, to the Other, and subject to the male gaze.[3]  There is a racist assumption that they represent power and savagery; that they are the symbol of the dark, demonic powers let loose to ravage and ruin the angelic white woman. [4] Both the black man and white woman fulfill the heteronormative ideals of being unequal and of lesser importance compared to the white male and therefore subject to his power and control. Ultimately, pornography symbolizes power over another and the person with the power is the one that controls the situation. Additionally, the ideals of pornography insist women involved in the physical production of it are women who are willing and able and therefore, objects to be beaten, violently abused and sexualized.[5] Pornography is a reminder that we live in an unfree society where “most of the activities called ‘consensual’ represent the capitulation of the powerless to the demands of the powerful”(298).[6]

Within a postfeminist society however, power dynamics are shifting. Women are reconstructing their narrative and redefining their femininity. They are moving from the sexual object to the sexual subject[7] and this can be seen in the way women are re-appropriating pornography. Once considered something for a man’s gaze, more and more women and young girls are beginning to participate in the viewing of pornography.[8] By watching pornography women feel empowered and capable of “writing their own sexual identities (284).[9] However, pornography still has foundations within heteronormative ideologies and women tend to remain the sexualized and controlled object. So women are conflicted. Some feminists argue that pornography perpetuates the control and power of men over women while others from a postfeminist perspective argue that pornography is a liberating and empowering expression of femininity and helps in “achieving their sexual freedom”(298).[10] There are many women that enjoy watching pornography yet many of these women express inner psychological and emotional conflict in doing so.[11] So women face a dilemma. Instead of having the ability to watch pornography freely research has suggested women often feel ashamed and experience discomfort between “their beliefs, feelings and actions”(293),[12] while simultaneously feeling empowered and reassured of their individual sexuality.[13] Therefore, women in a postfeminist society face a conflict of identity. On one hand they understand the derogatory and submissive nature of pornography but they also understand it can arouse and free their sexuality. This new sense of freedom may encourage them to work towards reclaiming pornography for their own authority and agency so they can redefine their identity, but in doing so it may present a challenge to their own morals and beliefs. As Ciclitira states, “women may identify with both the oppressed and oppressor, seeing themselves outside and yet within the terms of others who dictate their condition”(293).[14] It is a frustrating dilemma.

When considering pornography from a postfeminist lens, women will feel empowered and become their own sexual subject where the body is theirs to decide how it will be presented. However, because pornography was created through a world of hegemonic masculinity,[15] it is very difficult to separate the underlying message of power and control and the male gaze. The lens we view pornography with must come from a place that is not trying to resist heteronormativity but rather from a place that redefines and recreates the narrative of female and male identity. By doing this it may eliminate identity conflict by welcoming a new criteria in which to understand our sexuality and thus our reimagined identity.

Notes

[1] Karen Ciclitira, “Pornography, Women and Feminism: Between Pleasure and Politics.” Sexualities, 7, no. 3 (2004): 281–304.

[2] Gail Dines, “The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.” Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 18, no. 1 (2006): 283-297.

[3] Dines, “The White Man’s Burden,” 292.

[4] Ibid., 290.

[5] Ciclitira, “Pornography, Women and Feminism,” 285-286.

[6] Ibid., 298.

[7] Rosalind Gill, “Postfeminist Media Culture: Elements of a Sensibility.” European Journal of Cultural Studies, 10, no. 2 (2007): 147–166.

[8] Thomas Johansson and Nils Hammaren, “Hegemonic Masculinity and Pornography: Young people’s attitudes toward relations to pornography.” The Journal of Men’s Studies, 15, no. 1 (Winter 2007): 57-70.

[9] Ciclitira, “Pornography, Women and Feminism,” 284.

[10] Ibid., 298.

[11] Ibid., 293.

[12] Ibid., 293.

[13] Ibid., 293.

[14] Ibid., 293.

[15] Dines, “The White Man’s Burden,” 287.

We live in a heteronormative society that maintains the ideals of heteronormative sexuality that promotes the ideals of hyper-sexuality among young girls and boys. Women are usually considered the object of sexual desire and the focus of the male gaze while men are the directors of that gaze. What is problematic is how this may create confusion for the masculine identity especially when the male gaze becomes an erotic male gaze directed towards other males. This critical analyses will consider the paradox that lies within a heteronormative society where, on the one hand, men are instructed to repress any notion of erotic desire while on the other, they are often discreetly encouraged to look at men through the lens of the voyeuristic and fetishistic gaze within cinema.

Society has its own fetish about gender performance and maintains a divide between who is included and accepted within this performance structure and who should be excluded. A heteronormative society encourages men to repress expressing their sexuality if it does not align with the expectations of their gender while women are encouraged to flaunt their femininity and have their sexuality objectified because it is the accepted norm. Katz states that, “adults alternately lament the loss of youthful innocence and then facilitate, if not openly encourage, our children’s exposure to exploitative sex and violence”.[1] Katz’s statement refers to the tension that exists between children’s costumes at Halloween and the state of American culture. He explains that American culture tends to legitimize and justify the wearing of a hyper-sexualized outfit for young girls or violent suggestive costumes worn by young boys because it has become an accepted and normalized perception of gender roles. The heteronormative hyper-sexualization of women is a pervasive and common topic not only at Halloween but also in society and most definitely within media and film studies. What is less common is the discussion about how heteronormativity affects the male population, specifically within media studies and in relation to the male film audience. Neale suggests that there is a problem with heteronormative expectations because men must repress anything that expresses a male as an object of the erotic gaze and must be motivated in some other way.[2] Although male identity tends to steer towards the omnipotent and powerful character, Green suggests that there are a lot of movies that involve male bonding and emotionality, violence and/or “male sartorial beauty” (47).[3] Although these tensions need to be repressed and denied, Green explains that, “audiences can and do ‘identify’ with characters in films in ‘multiple and fractured ways’ (38)[4] and these fractured ways can transform into male fantasies directed towards other men. Neale suggests that men are often the subject and object of the erotic gaze and employs two types of ‘looking’ to support his argument. The first is the voyeuristic gaze in whom the main character in a film is seen from a distance that separates the viewer and the subject that is being viewed.[5] This separation allows for a sense of identification by viewing the character as a subject within the narrative. Men find a connection to the character through his actions, dress, speech or male bonding. In the fetishistic gaze the viewer is captivated by what they see and acknowledges and participates in the viewing as the subject moves from subject to object and spectacle.[6] An example of this is seen in the film 300, where throughout the film the lead characters stand gazing toward the camera giving the audience the chance to observe the sculpted, tanned, muscled male hero clothed in nothing but a toga. In both the voyeuristic and fetishistic look, male viewers experience both identification and spectacle as the character on screen is both the subject and object of the male gaze. It is because of the expectations of a heteronormative society that this dichotomy of subject/object creates a tension, or confusion, for men regarding their own identities and desires.

The male erotic gaze defies the accepted omnipotent and powerful masculine role.   In turn, it gives men the ability to identify and react freely. Within a heteronormative society men are constantly encouraged to conform to their roles of power and narrative subject just as women are expected to conform to their roles of sexual object through hyper-sexualization and narrative object. Therefore, the erotic male gaze seen in cinema today presents a challenge to this type of gender performance by employing both voyeuristic and fetishistic looking and spectacle.

[1] Katz, Jackson. “Porn Chic, Gender Performance and Halloween Fashion”. The Blog, Accessed 20 October, 2017. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-katz/porn-chic-gender-performance-and-halloween-fashion_b_4159679.html.

[2] Steve Neale, “Masculinity as Spectacle.” Screen, 24, no. 6 (2017): 2-16.

[3] Ian Green, “Malefunction.” Screen, 25, no. 4-6. (2017). 36-48.

[4] Green, “Malefunction,” 38.

[5] Neale, “Masculinity,” 11.

[6] Neale, “Masculinity as Spectacle,” 14.

In the chapter Feminist Poststructuralism & Psychoanalysis, Chris Weedon questions whether or not femininity is a permanent psycho-sexual theory or if it is indeed changeable if viewed from a historical and cultural perspective requiring the process of psychoanalysis to produce this theory. Weedon demonstrates how the Freudian and Lacanian theories have become footholds in the discussion of femininity, feminism and sexuality within a patriarchal society. The theories brought forward by Freud and Lacan focus on castration anxiety and the Oedipal complex illustrating how each has become very powerful within the psyche of human beings. In addition, the phallus represents control, power and authority and without it, such as in the case of women, there is a lack of power and control. They suffer from penis envy and have a need to fill the lack, that is, the lack of desire they cannot seem to satisfy. One feminist perspective he discusses in particular focuses more on the pre-Oedipal complex with the mother. According to Chodorow, in the pre-Oedipal complex there has been no “gender acquisition” meaning femininity of an infant has “not been repressed by patriarchy and women have not yet become man-made” (p. 54). In addition to this, other feminist scholars separate the female body and its libido and sexuality from men giving her her own power and authority. However within this chapter and in the reading by Segal there seems to exist a tension between feminism and psychoanalysis. On the one hand women want to be women but wish to resist the social construction and meaning of ‘the feminine’ but they also want to “deconstruct and critique” (Segal, p. 66) the ideas of the feminine.

Throughout these articles I came across quiet a bit of information I was unfamiliar with and some I was at least familiar with but uneducated about. In fact, one thing that stood out to me was how many times I have watched various Hitchcock films and yet never really noticed how much he relied on Freud’s theory. A term that I was unfamiliar with was mimesis. Mimesis, as I understand it, is the imitation or representation of a person or of the self. Segal refers to Irigaray’s concept of mimesis as “imitating, affirming, performing the ‘feminine’” (Segal, p. 66). Women are instructed to fight the feminine by re-evolving the definition of ‘the feminine’ by making [women] “truly unreadable in terms of gender categories… the more unreadable you become, the better” (p. 66). I’m not sure I agree with this. The term feminine has roots that refer to feminine qualities or women collectively. The Latin word for female was femina meaning “she who suckles”. Medieval Latin used the term femella and in the Twelfth Century we see the Old French term femelle. It wasn’t until the mid-Fourteenth Century that we see the word femina changed to female, to mirror its masculine counterpart, male. So I can’t help but wonder if it is even possible to continue the gender debate if we continue to refer to women as females, a word altered to reflect its masculine counterpart rooted in patriarchal values.   Encouraging women to imitate or perform their femininity are we are adding insult to injury by asking them to be unreadable because in doing so we ignore the separation of woman from man and continue the notion of dominance through the phallus by being neither feminine nor masculine but unknown. Is being unreadable another way of being submissive or is it indeed a way to re-invent and reconstruct the world of the feminine?

These readings are very informative to my research and indeed my every day life. As a woman I am constantly faced with situations I struggle to reconcile. There are so many man-made rules of how a woman should present herself. But within these rules is the constant question of is this for him/them or me? There is constant analysis of my own psyche. My research focus is on women who work in a hyper-masculine world and I want to examine what qualities they display and the experiences, motivations, and challenges they face. I believe it will be important for me to differentiate between feminine and female because the later is a socially constructed word to fit within a patriarchal society while the former refers to qualities or women collectively.

There is an overall theme within this week’s readings: the (mis)representation of women in media. This representation that has been created within a patriarchal world and perpetuates the submissive and weak nature women are ‘encouraged’ to maintain, if they are in fact, part of the world of media in the first place. At the time of Smith’s article there were very little women in the film industry and those that were were limited to the roles of demure housewife or pretty plaything.   A woman’s film presence was one that displayed her attractiveness and highlighted her physicality while minimizing any sense of seriousness or thought. She is either cute and silly or a sex symbol without brains. Women in today’s films haven’t changed that much. Even women who portray strong, independent, intelligent women must still appear feminine and attractive. Lara Croft, the heroine of Tomb Raider, is highly intelligent, strong and athletic but she is often seen wearing skintight clothing that accentuates her chest and bottom. As Bordo demonstrates women are now encouraged to go to the gym and workout but even the image of a fit woman is connected to the cultural message that she must look a certain way and wear a certain type of clothing. It was delightful to learn about Artel and Wengraf’s compilation of Positive Images. Their goal is to challenge the current trend of gender stereotyping and present women as they are: non-stereotyped, resourceful in non-traditional work. The idea of showcasing men in non-traditional roles is excellent as well because men are faced with their own cultural messages and expectations everyday. Tuchman is spot on when she asks her readers to consider what is a woman? What is it? What does she truly look like?

A new concept for me was feminine machisma. The New Woman is strong and independent and professionally successful. She is her own boss, she is the one that is at the helm of her ship and she is the hero of her own story. She needs no man to help her for she is a woman capable of rescuing herself and any man that needs rescuing around her.  Ironically, this woman is still inundated with society’s expectations. She must still have sex appeal, she still must be attractive and fit, she must wear clothing that correlates to the grey suit of successful men but this suit should be a skirt and the shirt should be snug fitting and slightly unbuttoned. And this feminine machisma must not be too strong and independent or successful because it will threaten the masculine machismo, making men feel weak and subordinate and ultimately unworthy. Women in the media have a glass ceiling they cannot go beyond. They say life imitates art, is it possible for art to imitate life?

This material is very important to my research. My thesis is looking at women who work in the whitewater rafting industry and if the characteristics they display resemble that of Wonder Woman. She is the perfect example of feminine machisma. She maintains an aura of femininity through her appearance but she is strong and powerful. Women in the adventure industry display similar traits yet their representation in the industry is still dogged by misrepresentation. They too must remember that they cannot display too much masculine power or they won’t be considered feminine but if they are too feminine they won’t be taken seriously. So where is the balance? What exactly is feminine and who has the right to tell a woman what is feminine or not? Not even Beyonce has the answer. She says she is a feminist but she too conforms to society’s expectations of what is a level of acceptable femininity and what is not.

        Women are the Other and objects for men to gaze upon. They are the pretty servants to their husbands and loving caretakers to their children. They are happy in this position and really need nothing more because nothing is wrong with this. This is the overall theme in Simone de Beauvoir’s Introduction in her book The Second Sex and Betty Friedan’s chapter The Problem that has no Name in her book the Feminine Mystique.  I admit I have been the Other in a few relationships and I have not liked it. In my current relationship I recall a time when the roles were actually reversed and he was the Other. My boyfriend, Bob, was going back to school to earn his teaching degree while simultaneously finishing his Master’s degree so I was working full time, similar to the “PHT” discussed by Friedan. In a conversation one night I half-joked I was the breadwinner of the family. He didn’t like this response and a short argument followed that ended in my being asked never to use that term again. I agreed as long as it was mutual. My partner’s masculinity was threatened. He grew up learning the role of a man from his parents who came from a generation of Leave it to Beaver and I Love Lucy ideologies. So this word, breadwinner, evoked a sense of insecurity, threat and submissiveness. He was the Other. I relished the position. I had power, I had my individuality, and I was important and dominant. I was the subject. In the end we were both guilty of sexism. We have been so conditioned to play the roles society has taught us to play that when the roles were reversed it was uncomfortable for him and empowering for me. I was guilty of thinking like a man, or at least the way society teaches men to think about women. I clearly see now how empowering this is for men, to treat women as objects, to take care of them and dominate them because it gives them a feeling of self-worth and it meets society’s expectations. I encouraged this cultural expectation by being proud to assume the role of the dominant one. From that moment on we continue to be very vigilant by not positioning ourselves as subject/object or I/Other.

I have read Friedan’s The Problem that has No Name before and it was during that reading that I was introduced to the fact that once upon a time women had lost themselves and society had blatantly led them down that path. I was startled by this phenomenon. Until the post-war era, women had a place in society that was more than just the kept wife. They contributed to the household income, they were part of organizations and clubs and they had their autonomy. They had a purpose and it wasn’t just tending to the home using the latest modern gadgets. But after the war women were forced into a life that everyone else thought would be better for them because it was better for men. Did anyone ask women if they wanted to be shuffled out of the workforce and into suburban life? What struck me the first time I read this and again during this past reading, was that the dominant society of male influence refused to acknowledge that it was their actions that resulted in women feeling purposeless. Instead of dealing with the problem they chose to make excuses for it casting the blame onto women making them seem ungrateful to massage their guilt. No wonder my grandmother was so supportive of me having an education and working around the world. To her I had purpose, I had drive; I was a human being doing what human beings do best, living their life on their own terms.

It goes without saying that this material will inform my own research because it gives me a good foundation on which to build upon. It helps me put into context the issues women were facing regarding feminism, gender roles and women in the workforce in a time before I existed. And it allows me to have a more informed approach to the issues women still face today.