Flowers from Another World

I was extremely pleased with the representation of the women in Bollain's Flowers from Another World, particularly the three protagonists, Patricia, Milady, and Marirrosi. As is noted in Parvati Nair's piece, the fact that the story takes place in a rural setting proves interesting since we usually associate modernity and transculturality within metropolitan areas-- the places most often inhabited by diverse peoples. This "diversity" is instead transplanted to the rural village most associated with tradition and stability. I was first struck by the fact that these city women, though immigrants, are portrayed as much more modern than the men in the village, which is usually the opposite in films. The immigrant is taught the ways of the big city in which they travel to. All three women come from much bigger places, Madrid, Havana, and Bilbao-- it is they who have the upper hand in terms of modernity, synonymous with worldly knowledge.

I also found it interesting that all three women had alternative motives for traveling to the village, rather than just wanting to get married for the sake of getting married. Milady was using her partner as a way to see more of the world, eventually leaving him to travel to Rome. Patricia was looking for stability for her two children--she would much rather have just been able to work, but is unable to do so because she lacks Spanish citizenship. Marirrosi isn't even there to get married and stay, she wants to continue her life in Bilbao with her son and job.

The success of the three relationships depends on the ability of the men to adapt to the lives of the women they couple with. Damien and Patricia end happily because he shares her culture (transculturality) by eating the plantains when her family and friends visit. He adopts her two children. He learns to vocalize his passion for her, which she feels is necessary. Milady and Carmelo are a complete failure because Carmelo will not curb his macho need for constant sex and possession of her. True, she never allows him to come close to her, but I propose this is because she is always seen as a foreign object to him and the other men in the town. She is the sexy, exotic, other souvenir Carmelo has brought back from Cuba. Marirrosi and Alfonso tragically are incapable of ever being together because he refuses to progress towards modernity. While he toils with his greenhouse (agriculture as a foil to modernism) she is the epitome of a modern woman-- single mother with a stable, good job. Alfonso wants her to give that up to live with him in the past and she refuses.

None of the women change from who they start out as, which is completely counter-intuitive to present society. How many films have we seen in which the female changes something about herself so she can get the guy? There is something inherently wrong with her and she must adapt to better fit the needs of the male counterpart. Flower from Another World completely tears apart this standard, which I for one am tired of constantly seeing.

-Victoria Hallebo

Globalization and Flowers from Another World

In Flowers from Another World I found the representation of the women and their expected roles within the culture of the rural town genuine. However, I found the intentions behind their decision to attend the single's party or to move to Spain altogether much more authentic and telling about the structure of national identity and globalization in modern society, specifically in regards to Patricia. Patricia's decision to leave Latin America to find a husband and therefore security for her children speaks to potentials of globalization in finding financial and emotional stability in other countries. The institution and system of her own country failed her leaving her no choice but to travel illegally to Spain. However, once in Spain she can't find work because she could only leave the Dominican Republic with illegal papers. Again she uproots her life for the sake of her family based on the promise of a husband in rural Spain. I found this representation of Patricia's life and circumstances incredibly moving. For the sake of her family she was forced to travel illegally and the only possibility for her family's financial security is by marriage. She can't support herself independently because the institutionalized system doesn't allow her to do so. As Yuval-Davis discusses in "Gender and Nation," the construction of national identity and citizenship is largely influenced by gender. Yuval-Davis talks about the meaning and influence of the privileges given to women (or not) in their respective countries--a point very relevant to Patricia's struggle to find security for her family. She was not given any ground to stand on in the Dominican Republic after her husband left her and was forced to find opportunity across the world. I find Patricia's situation fascinating and telling in regards to women and the constructed institution of the nation-state in the modern world.

Lesbian Filmmaking in Reference to "Dyketactics"

Similar to many others who view this film, I was initially made very uncomfortable by how graphic and explicit the content was. At first I saw now reason as to why this film had to get so up close and personal and really expose these women in the most vulnerable state; the only reason I could think of was to use shock factor to make her point to the audience that sexual relations between women are almost never shown in film. I viewed this film as a way of rebelling against the culture of cinematography at the time, and as a statement that lesbian sex was and is still such a taboo subject and should be no more taboo than straight sex.  Despite this, after reading Hammer’s article “Lesbian Filmmaking: Self-birthing” I understood this film from a completely different perspective. Hammer states that the purpose of the film was to portray the sensuality of lesbian love and have the viewer experience as best they can the touch and sensation between the women in the film. I think this aspect of the film was amplifies by how there was little to no dialogue, and so as a viewer you could relate easily to anyone in the film. After I read and understood that the purpose of dyketactics was to show the relation between two women rather than to promote a sociopolitical message on the inequality and discrimination that surrounds the gay community, I found a new appreciation for the film. I love that this film was made to show the sensuality between lesbian lovers rather than to preach a message because it is a refreshing break from many other feminist films that seem to all ridicule the life of a 50s housewife, or ridicule the way lady gaga and Miley Cyrus act in society. 

Paris Fashion Week Protestors

            Last week I saw an intriguing story on the news reporting topless women staging a feminist protest at a Paris fashion show. Two models stormed the stage, each with the slogans “fashion dictaterror” and “model don’t go to brothel” painted in black across their bare chests. They were immediately escorted off the stage, and thanks to the professionalism of the models, the show went on without another hitch. This experience reminded me of a similar one that I witnessed myself this past winter in Paris when topless protestors stormed the Notre Dame cathedral rejoicing over the Pope’s resignation.

            This particular group, known as Femen, regard themselves as strong feminist activists who defend women’s rights. Their topless-ness is, in the group’s own words, redefining the meaning of the female nude. “By stripping, women expose their vulnerability but also their naked bodies as weapons. Its grand aim is to give new meaning to the nude female, as a political tool instead of as a sex object.” However, comparing this incident to our class discussions, I find this form of protest extremely regressive. While the symbolism of a strong female is clear, topless (not to mention attractive and blonde) women are not mocking male voyeurism, but promoting it. The male gaze is evident even in just the comments section of the online video. The discussion focuses on how the security guard got to “cop a feel” while escorting the women off stage, rather than discussing the degrading nature of the fashion industry – the very thing that the protestors were protesting against. Additionally, the protestors themselves were more provocatively dressed than the models, once again diminishing their argument. Ultimately, I think that going topless gets these feminist activists more news coverage and, therefore, more ample opportunity to promote their cause. Unfortunately, this radical form of protest is in direct opposition to the female rights that they are trying to address.    

Here’s the video of the fashion show protest if anyone’s interested: 

http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/27/scouse-model-punches-topless-feminist-protesters-after-they-storm-paris-fashion-week-4125098/

Citizenship, Gender, and Representation

In Nira Yuval-Davis’s “Gender and Nation,” the author discusses gender relations and citizenship. She states, “That is its dualistic nature: on one hand, women are always included, at least to some extent, in the general body of citizens of the state, and its political, social and legal policies: on the other hand, there is always more or less developed, a separate body of legislation which relates to them specifically as women.” I agree with this assessment of citizenship. In the United States alone women make up half of the population, yet fail to be represented in the “body of legislation.” The role of the legislative branch is to make laws that protect its citizens. However, when women are not present in these discussions, legislation has the ability to hurt women. According to a recent report released by the Center for American Women and Politics, “Women currently hold 18.3% of seats in Congress and 20% of the seats in the Senate.” There is a large discrepancy between overall population and representation. Women represent less than a ¼ of the entire legislative branch, causing what Yuval-Davis states as the “dualistic nature” of citizenship.

Additionally, Yuval- Davis states that there are three dimensions of citizenship, “civil, political, and social.” She argues that though women are present in the political realm via voting, that women are largely excluded from the civil and social dimensions. I agree with her dimensions of citizenship, however, women across the world are deprived of their political rights daily. I would be wary to assume the political citizenship of all women globally. Although many women feel connected to their state, they are not “full-members” of the sovereign state. 

Teaching Project Ideas: The Makeover in Reality Television

Hey guys, I'm posting this here to see who else might be interested in forming a group focusing on the makeover in reality television for the teaching project assignment. It's a hugely broad topic, and super prevalent in today's media, in everything from America's Next Top Model to The Biggest Loser to Extreme Makeover. I don't want to narrow too much before we are able to establish a group because I think it can be useful to bounce ideas off of each other and find a focus together on something within that field we might want to hone in on. I did want to put forward one program I find extremely interesting in particular -- the British program 'Snog Marry Avoid'. It was huge in the UK and basically focuses on giving 'make-unders' to girls who are accustomed to walking around with fake tans, fake hair, heavy make-up, etc. The hosts go out into the street and ask random men if they would snog (kiss), marry, or avoid this girl before and after her 'make-under'. I find this program particularly fascinating because it proposes this whole 'natural beauty' message, which is veiled in a discourse of applying 'natural' make-up and wearing the 'right' and appropriately conservative (i.e. 'sexy but not slutty') clothes. I think it's incredible how it disguises this discourse as one that's trying to help girls get back 'on the right track' and avoid 'fake beauty' but it does so by putting forward its own agenda of what natural beauty should look like, and moreover uses male judgements to define this. It just brings forward a lot of interesting ideas to debate about how we define beauty, what are our standards for evaluating it, and emphasizes how women's bodies and styles have become commodities to be changed and shaped on our television screens (as in all makeover shows). I highly recommend checking out an episode as they are a lot of fun to watch; there are full ones on youtube. Here is one example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpBfy4amu7Y

Anyways, if anyone is interested in pursuing this topic let me know so we can form a group and start bouncing around some ideas.

How important is accessibility?

With last week's readings, I was most struck by Su Friedrich's article. I was surprised when I checked the date it was written (1989), expecting something at least a decade earlier- it seems to me that while certain societal stipulations still seem frustratingly backwards, we have come a long way. The fight for equality seems to have shifted, somewhat, if only because "radical" is a term that now seems like it would be wielded by the oppressors, and one that many on the left want to avoid. We don't want gay or lesbian stories to be seen as radical based solely on the sexuality of the characters. Friedrich says, "Both avant-garde film and gay consciousness must be resolutely created in a world that insists on a homogeneous sexuality and narrowly-defined aesthetic enforced through a stiflingly limited media" (119). While the mainstream film world is still overwhelmingly heteronormative, I think our world has changed vastly since 1989 in terms of expecting a "homogeneous sexuality." We have gone beyond Shotime-only fare like "The L Word" and seen queer characters pop up all over television, from teen-aimed hits like "Glee" and "Pretty Little Liars," to shows that also have an older fanbase, like "Modern Family" and "The Good Wife," and "Rizzoli &...oh wait, never mind about that last one. Of course I'd also be remiss if I weren't to mention our good friends to the north and "Degrassi," which I think has probably now covered every possible issue that could ever possibly happen to anyone, now including transphobia. (Go Canada!) Actually the reason I bring up Degrassi is because of how it helped me start thinking about homosexuality when I first started watching it at 13 or 14 years old. It's a ridiculously soapy show, yes, but it talked openly about these issues when American television was full of stereotypes and nothing else. In essence, it "taught [me] about how others live, think and feel, and that experience has made me re-evaluate my own prejudices, taught me the narrowness of my own thinking and my own experiences, and compelled me to put my life in the context of all those other lives out there" (122). That's why I feel it's important to have films with these kinds of stories be accessible to a more mainstream audience. For better or worse, media is how many of us accept and learn things and grow as a result. -Chelsea Gibbs