| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

August 31st: Group Collaboration

Page history last edited by M. O'Neill 13 years, 6 months ago

Group Work by "The Pretty Women": Kelsey Hastings - Lindsey Braun - Elizabeth Sellers - April Sopczak - Meghan O'Neill - Jamie Boyko

Based on the 1990 Film Directed by Garry Marshall.

 

"People's reactions to opera the first time they see it is very dramatic; they either love it or they hate it. If they love it, they will always love it. If they don't, they may learn to appreciate it, but it will never become part of their soul."

 

FYI: THE MOVIE IS PLAYING TONIGHT 9/11 ON OXYGEN :)

 

Aug

 

 

 

 

^ RE: "the shopping scene"

 

Why is prostitution illegal?   What exactly IS prostitution?  Merriam-Webster defines it as "the act of engaging in promiscuous sexual behavior especially for money."  Then the dictionary goes on to define "money" as "something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment".  Well that's pretty vague.  If a man buys a woman dinner, and takes her shopping, and gives her "spending money", and she sleeps with him, is she a prostitute?  If Richard Gere & Julia Roberts get married at the end of the movie, and she becomes his wife, but he still pays her bills and gives her money, is she still a prostitute?  And even if the answer to these questions is "yes", is it even relevant to the legality of prostitution?  

 

Are prostitutes feminists, or are they the complete opposite?  What exactly is feminism, and how has it changed over the years?

 

Moving on from the prostitution angle and get on to feminism, gender roles and rights.  Merriam-Webster defines feminism as "the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes; organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests."  One of my personal interests happens to be shoes, and I am especially fond of high heels, but I have been told by more than one self-proclaimed feminist that I am "betraying my sisterhood" or something like that.  I Photobucketbelieve quite the oposite: that I am asserting my right as a woman to wear fantastic shoes. 

As Arielle Abeyta states in her essay For the Love of Shoes, "Shoes are no longer something one simply wears on their feet, but a passion, a hobby, one's personal statement, a source of authority, sexual independence and joy. They're a constant obsession in pop culture, endlessly talked about and fetishized in television, movies, song lyrics, and seem to be worn without fail by glamorous celebrities no matter the occasion. The most notorious of the shoe loving pop culture media is of the smash HBO series Sex in the City, in which shoes are one it's main themes."

 

So I started doing a little research to find out more about high heels, fashion and feminism.  Another interesting article I found online offers several viewpoints on the subject. Here's just one part of it that really stuck with me given that I am currently facing a brave new world of flat shoes:

 

ROSIE BOYCOTT: EMPOWER

High heels 

Shoes become power

 

 

"I gave up wearing high heels five-and-a-half years ago — not out of choice but because a car accident wrecked my ankle to such an extent that heels became impossible.

 

I well remember trying to struggle into a pair of blue, lacy, Emma Hope high heels and almost weeping when I found my newly configured right foot wasn’t going to accommodate itself inside this elegant and much-loved pair of shoes.

 

I cast my eyes round my wardrobe — high heels in all colours and styles were neatly arranged in rows along the bottom, as well as from specially made containers which hung inside the doors.

 

I started the slow process of giving them all away, but for reasons of pure sentiment I still have the Emma Hope shoes — residing like forlorn children next to my ‘new’ shoes, all of them sensible and flat.

I miss being able to wear high heels, in much the same way as I would miss being able to have my hair streaked blonder and my nails manicured.

 

Heels are undeniably feminine, and the extra height — I’m 5ft 6in, so a three or four-inch heel took me to eye level with most of my male colleagues — brings a certain authority with it.

They are also undeniably sexy, giving shape and tension to calf muscles, allowing a woman to cross her legs and casually, but provocatively, to swing her shoe gently from her dangling foot.

 

I’ve watched men’s eyes transfixed on such a sight, at times to such an extent that they lose track of the conversation going on around them.

It’s as though they’re looking at a woman in her underwear, rather than at a high-powered executive, who is just — well — crossing her legs and swinging her shoes.

 

Shoes become power in those moments — power to distract, disarm and seduce. A man lost in momentary lust is liable to agree to anything from a raise to a promotion.

 

In the Seventies, feminists were always derided for wearing boiler suits and boots — which I think meant wearing any sort of footwear that involved a sturdy sole and laces.

 

I was never that sort of feminist — the highest pair of heels I ever bought, a pair of bright green Yves Saint Laurent sandals (with 5in heels), was in 1972. I remember buying them with a sense of defiance.

I wore them with pride, not to hide my feminist politics, but to say: ‘I’m also a female who likes men and who knows that shoes like this are sexy.’ I also wore mini skirts, tight jeans and cropped T-shirts, but nothing worked as well for my sense of sexuality and femininity as heels.

 

Later, when I was in my 40s, I’d buy high-heeled shoes more for the height (and thus the power) that they gave me, but I still liked the fact they made my legs look longer and thinner.

 

Do I feel diminished in my post-heel days? A little, but I don’t miss the pinched toes, the bunion that was developing on my left foot (which has now receded) nor do I miss the fact I often found myself unable to walk quickly if my heels were just a tad too high.

 

But I think that has more to do with feeling comfortable with myself and with where my life is right now.

If I was still single and working daily in an office where power-dressing counts, then my inability to add those extra inches, and all that goes with them, would hurt (and to hell with the bunions)."

 

 

     Running in high heels! Wow. What's going on here? Are we reclaiming some control from our patriarchal society by casting the high heel as our choice? Our decision? I'll take over the objectification of my body, thank you very much. I'm not sure about this. High heels suck and can cause serious physical damage. It seems to me that high heels are an aesthetic choice, and how much of how we define ourselves should be based in aesthetic choices like fashion? I just don't know. I'm all for turning the masters' weapons against them, but I think we could find a healthier expression of our selfhood.

          Keeping with this clothing-themed response to feminism, I recently debated with my 12 year old niece about the literary canon. Specifically, we were talking about whether or not movies should be considered literature. From there, we wound up discussing Jane Austen adaptations and the Twilight series, which are the two focal narratives in Kate's life right now. In preparation for my academic statement of purpose and my canon project, I read an article by scholar Anna Despotopoulou, entitled "Girls on Film: Postmodern Renderings of Jane Austen and Henry James". If you're interested, you can find this article on JSTOR through the USF Library System. Anyway, Despotopoulou explores the use of postmodern literary criticism in recent film adaptations to uncover (or perhaps, magnify) some of the complexities of 19th century novels. In particular, she gives sound insight into the 1999 adaptation of Austen's Mansfield Park. Part of her article questions the role of costuming in these period films. For example, in the '99 Mansfield Park, the protagonist consistently wears dark, simple dresses, which Despotopoulou interprets as the director's attempt to redirect the audience away from objectifying the female lead to considering the character's embodiment of 'classic' female tension: the body on display and the marginalized mind.

          Kate hasn't seen this film yet, but we plan to get it soon. Her favorite Austen film is the recent Pride and Prejudice , which takes the traditional route of glamorizing the fashion, perhaps to the detriment of narrative substance. What interests me is the way Despotopoulou aligns traditional literary criticism (she actually uses the term canonical) with superficial adaptations and contemporary literary criticism (which expands critical theory to a variety of viewpoints including feminism, post-colonialism, etc) with these adaptations which actually incorporate a novel's 'heavier' themes. Have you ever tried to explain literary theory to a 12 year old? It's amusing, the way she shuts me down with, "Yeah Meg, but who cares?"

          So we went back to the familiar ground of clothing. Kate's favorite thing about Austen films? "Those dresses! Oh my God!"  I asked her about the protagonist Elizabeth and whether or not she's an empowered woman. She blew me off, saying girls were in "a different situation" back then and that girls today aren't defined by what they wear. She then begged me to take her to Hollister to buy a $50 t-shirt. What do you think? In terms of clothing, are 21st century women defined by what they wear? What does it mean to recognize an actress by what she wore in a scene, rather than by what she was saying, if she was saying anything at all? Can high heels transcend their traditional use of manipulating the female form and come to have a new meaning?

 

     I think that, in the end, what truly defines feminism is the ability of a woman to do whatever she pleases.  Some women like to be homemakers; others like to have careers.  Some women like to wear jeans and flats; others like to wear pretty dresses and high heels.  In the end, I think that it's all about choice and personal freedom, which really comes down to basic civil rights, regardless of gender. 

 

     Can a woman do whatever she pleases? For that matter, can a man? Or a child? Freedom to make personal choices and live by them is wonderful rhetoric that is not often practiced. And civil rights only encompass the legal aspect. It's in the Constitution; I have the right to vote. Great, but what if I never vote? What if every influence in my life tells me that politics are poison and it would be better to resist the system all together than compromise and take part? Civil rights do not encompass cultural values, cultural values encompass civil rights. The scariest thing a woman faces is not a lack of choices, but the framework in which those choices exist. And some things are not choices at all. Being a single mother is never anybody's first choice, but it happens. Choice itself is problematized by forces beyond the control of women. What does it say about our framework that a discussion about feminism has so far limited itself to fashion and prostitution, which are two of our biggest gender roles? When we think of ourselves, we think about jeans and flats, pretty dresses and high heels. And prostitutes. Choice and freedom within these confines. Is that truly defining feminism?

 

     If I dropped out of college, stopped working and got pregnant, all of my medical expenses would be paid for by the government. All I have to do is give up my plans, dreams, hopes, desires, dignity. Obviously, I can't choose to end an unwanted pregnancy and have the government pay for that, so I will just have the baby and then the State can pay for it. Truthfully, I just want to be taken care of, and if the government is there, why shouldn't I take advantage? How come only the tippy top and the bottom's bottom of the tax bracket receive welfare? I must be crazy to live my life on my own terms when the government is right there to take over for me. Now I know why those poor people never work: they don't have to. The State takes excellent care of them, whether they house them in the ghetto, the hospital or the jail cell. It's still a free meal, right? If I am lazy and hungry enough, any meal will do. Who needs self-respect, especially when you never had it to begin with? I won't know what I'm missing. I'll just keep churning out babies for the Man and cash my check every month. That's my choice.

 

 

Comments (4)

H.I.M. said

at 4:55 pm on Sep 2, 2010

lol @ high heels and betraying your sisterhood. Entertaining read, altogether.

kms said

at 3:12 pm on Sep 3, 2010

After September 11, 2001, while living in NYC, I didn't wear high heels for over a year. The women who did kept a pair of "flee shoes" under their desks. Footwear can be one key to survival. Finally, I think it was August 2002, I wore a pair of "kitten heel" (for you guys, that's mid-low, but narrow, heel) sandals. We had a blackout that day. I had to take them off and walk barefoot down 30 flights of stairs.

Elizabeth Sellers said

at 11:31 am on Sep 5, 2010

This is an excellent point, and I'm thinking of writing an essay called "Fashion -vs- Function"... I'm sure every woman can relate to your story, especially Kelsie, since we spent some time talking about this very subject last week...

kms said

at 11:48 am on Sep 5, 2010

Interesting that "Pretty Woman" was chosen. Last week in ENG 6319 after reading a handout from "Rhetorical Criticism, Exploration & Practice" I commented that 'Until reading this piece I had never thought of dress as rhetoric. As an expression of personality - yes, as rhetoric – no. However, I would think that, say, the dress of Julia Roberts’ character as a hooker in Pretty Woman did convey an understanding of what she wanted men to ascertain about her and it was a conscious decision.' Now I would add that her choosing the brown and white polka dress to wear to the polo match was chosing different 'rhetoric'.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.