So the rough draft of our essay is due on Friday. I am actually having a little bit of writer's block; it's just hard to organize my thoughts. There are so many different aspects of each kind of category that I don't really know how to unify them. I hope that I can piece them all together well enough. I've actually been tempted to delve into the deeper psychological aspects of each kind of of topic, but I think that would go a little too off track. I'm not the greatest argumentative writer, so I hope that this turns out alright. And I feel like there's so much to be said about these kinds of things too, but then I can't seem to set them out in a coherent manner. I think it will probably be alright, though.

Freaks

I am just grateful that so much has changed since the time that this movie was made. First, I find it pretty upsetting that there were actual exhibitions like this where the differences between people were drawn upon. It's obvious that the "freaks" in the show were in a kind of family unit, but I think it's sad that they came together as part of sideshow. Like the "mother" of the ones with microcephaly. She obviously cares for them, but still allows them to be paraded around as part of a laugh for someone else. It's just sad to me. And they don't really know any better, either. And then there was the ending. The retribution laid upon Cleo. Although her end seems just, I don't agree with it. I think it just reinforces the idea that "freaks" like them are dangerous, and widens the gap between "normal" people and anyone who seems different. I don't really think that extreme of a measure was deserved. All that does is continue a cycle of fear and mistrust. I know that overall, the film humanized those with physical deformities- however, seeing poor Zip(or Pip) advancing in the rain with a knife in her hand!- was one of the most frightening images of all. Seeing someone who wouldn't know better taught to think or act that way- that to me, is one of the most frightening and dangerous things imaginable.

Masculine Mystique

I thought the interview with Sylvester Stallone was pretty interesting. Despite all of the media's emphasis on physicality, being regarded solely as a physical being seems like it can have the same degree of damaging effects as lacking those kinds of attributes. And then it must be more difficult for the guys. Any kind of disorders that have to do with image are less common in men and only more recently have they been put symbolically into the same kind of image group as women. So to realize men have the same fears and problems as women regarding image is something we're probably not used to. I guess in a way it's good because these kinds of things have at least made us more aware of the feelings and thoughts that surround a person's image. But then I also think that maybe it's just another telltale sign of the pressures of image and appearance, and that nothing will really change that. All that's changed is the addition of men to the group of normally targeted people for physically demanding jobs or lifestyles. Well in any case, men and women are at least more aware of the feelings they both share regarding these types of things.

I think you have to be careful when writing a piece like In the Combat Zone. The message is clearly about breaking the stigma of female helplessness, and acknowledging the dangers we face. But at the same time, it offers a very strong view point that defends gun use, the one thing that equalizes all. I understand why she puts forth such a strong voice for that kind of self defense, but I don't really agree with it. A gun is just an object outside of our own selves, and one that can be used against us if given the opportunity. Plus instilling the 'ready to kill' instinct in women is, in my opinion, a bad idea. To have to kill one person to save another is a sad thought. It just seems like a depressing way of emphasizing a person's helplessness, that such extremes have to be taken. It also makes everyone seem like a potential threat, and that kind of suspicion can really alienate others. What if she felt threatened by Brent Staples walking down the street? And what if he, feeling angry at his being persecuted, veered towards her for sport? I just think it's important to think about the details, and not just take the 'whatever it takes' kind of attitude regarding self defense and gun use.

I always have mixed feelings whenever I read something like The Black Notebooks. It's not difficult to understand the ways that race affects a person today, and in accordance with our history and everything. On the other hand, I think that when dealing with something as complex as racial bias, sometimes the focus shifts to something that is not really the center of the problem. Take Toi Derricotte. She has trouble forming her identity because her cultural background doesn't complement her physical appearance. She emphasizes her alienation from white society as well, but she insists on living in an all-white community. I guess what I don't understand is why a person would put herself into that kind of situation and then victimize herself for being taken as something she's not. The issue of race lies in appearance only- the greater part of one's cultural identity and such lies with one's ethnicity and upbringing. So maybe you look white- that doesn't make you any less of what you are, even if others see you differently than you see yourself. Many times such incongruance will occur regardless of race. I probably sound insensitive, but I think that her position was one that could have been quite advantageous given the right mindset. Of course I empathize with the plight of racial inequity, but I think it's wrong to gloss all of one's problems into racial issues. The sooner you accept yourself and put yourself forward as simply another hardworking, intelligent individual, the sooner others will do the same.

How to Tame a Wild Tongue

Language is something that is truly important. When I was younger and learning French in middle school, I'd never understood how much language pertains to a culture's individuality. They made us learn French songs, like "Frere Jacques", and I didn't understand why the words didn't rhyme in English if they meant the same thing. Later on I realized that it was because a language like French was formed independently of English; both languages came up with different words to symbolize meaning for the same thing. It wasn't as though one language based their vocabulary off of another's. With that came the understanding that each culture's language is a great part of their way of communicating and expressing. There is no way to substitute the individual meaning and subtlety that accompanies each language. I wish I had been able to pursue more opportunities for language studies at a younger age. There are even complete schools of thought on language development in psychology! It's a big part of life.

In response to Lauren's post about Free Union, I also agree about the surrealism of the piece. I suppose that this is where I part with a certain level of artistic license. Sometimes I feel like pieces like these are so abstract that no one will ever really understand, on their own, the intent of the author. I mean you get the general picture, but at certain points one kind of feels like, "What exactly did I just read?" And I understand that pieces like these are meant to be subjective, but I still think that people presume overmuch when they look at something like this. Like I'm not too fond of William Carlos Williams. I don't really think that much about what he's trying to say by some of his poems. I think I would shoot far beyond the mark if I tried. But I think sometimes it's alright to admit that you don't have to completely understand something in order to appreciate it.