Notes:
Lorelai embodies the values of a third-wave feminist: a feminine feminist
Rory represents a dangerous "faux feminism" because her "Romantic relationships are marked by dysfunction and inequality, her life decisions are often shaped by patriarchal influences, and her lifestyle becomes more and more dependent upon money and privilege. In this way Rory represents the many women today who claim to be feminist but actually exhibit qualities that are in opposition to feminist ideals, making one wonder if, as feminist scholar Toril Moi asserts, feminism today really is 'languishing'" (36).
Apparently Rory is the ultimate "woman in waiting", she acts like a "kept mistress" to Logan
According to McCaffrey, because Rory never initiates nor ends relationships she has no real sense of agency... obviously this fails to account for EVERY OTHER decision that she actively makes in her life that have nothing to do with men... am I to believe here that it is only her relationship to men which can grant her or deprive her of agency?
Response:
To be frank, I found this essay both offensive in content and appalling in form... I don't remember the last time I had such a visceral reaction to an "academic" piece of writing (I use the term loosely). First of all the author makes sweeping statements that are based upon unfounded claims and short-sighted thoughts and second, her approach seems frighteningly limited. According to McCaffrey, Rory is a "faux feminist" in that she consistently defines herself by the traditional standards of patriarchy... she makes the claim that because Rory defines herself in terms of her romantic relationships, she is an anti-feminist. Ironically, the author falls into the same trap that she accuses Rory of... the entirety of the essay details Rory's romantic relationships. Thus, the author (a self-declared feminist on at least every other page) likewise insists upon limiting Rory to the same patriarchal standards she is judging her for adhering to. Her analysis of Rory's wardrobe proved equally absurd- apparently there exists a link between "fashion forward" females and a willingness to submit to oppression. The only thing that seems as trite then, is an analysis, done by a feminist with a capital F, of a filmic text in which fashion and sex are apparently the only grounds upon which to examine a female character...
Friday, March 19, 2010
Progress
Being without a computer over spring break (both my laptop and my family computer fell victim to the fire...) meant that I was unable to update my blog, so instead I did it the old fashioned way. Pen and paper. I am in the process of typing and transferring my notes now, so my progress is as follows...
Finally the book "Gilmore Girls and the Politics of Identity" arrived from ILL and so over break I was able to read all 15 essays, some of which were predictably inane but there were several surprisingly stimulating pieces.
Also, I have set up a meeting with Dr. Nathanson and have already gotten some good suggestions from her as to where to go from here.
Finally the book "Gilmore Girls and the Politics of Identity" arrived from ILL and so over break I was able to read all 15 essays, some of which were predictably inane but there were several surprisingly stimulating pieces.
Also, I have set up a meeting with Dr. Nathanson and have already gotten some good suggestions from her as to where to go from here.
"Good Girls, Bad Girls, and Motorcycles" (Alicia Skipper)
1950’s sitcoms became a means of coping with a world in which women were ill equipped to change
June Cleaver, Donna Stone, even situation comedies like One Day at a Time and Alice…these independent women are not thriving or prosperous without a male counterpart
Representations of single motherhood on television are few and far between- even less are unwed mothers, regardless of the fact that they are clearly present in the population…And the gap between THEORY and PRACTICE prevails… why is that these days film theory seems to represent a paradigm that has shifted? Why doesn’t it seem as applicable and poignant as it once was?
Despite the changing face of the American family, television shows still insist upon representing the traditional American family unit with a mother and a father…
MUST READ LISA JOHNSON: “ Portraying women as either domesticated victims of male patriarchy or angry man-hating feminists doesn’t permit the nuances of real women’s lives to continue to come into clear view, just as assumptions that single women who long to be married must be ‘unfeminist’ obscures a more complete picture of contemporary women’s psyches” (pg 83 “Good Girls, Bad Girls, and Motorcycles”)
As of late I have been having an immensely difficult time attempting to reconcile with these concepts. Unfortunately, I feel myself becoming increasingly skeptical of the foundations upon which the film theory that I have been so personally invested in is founded upon. In the context of academics it seems to ring true but when applied to the situation of real life, of real people, of my life, of my experiences, it feels so contrived. There is a blatant disconnect that I can’t ignore anymore… I feel like feminist discourses are stuck, they seem to be still so invested in notions that were prevalent in the 50’s and 60’s but have since changed and it seems the fundamentalist approach that the subject seems to require doesn’t allow for the recognition of that change…
The binaries of feminist and anti-feminist seem archaic, I believe that now more than ever the notion of gender and sexuality as a spectrum is being embraced… What does it mean to be a contemporary feminist? What space am I supposed to occupy, as a heterosexual upper class white female, within this discourse? It’s becoming increasingly obvious to me that there might not be one…
June Cleaver, Donna Stone, even situation comedies like One Day at a Time and Alice…these independent women are not thriving or prosperous without a male counterpart
Representations of single motherhood on television are few and far between- even less are unwed mothers, regardless of the fact that they are clearly present in the population…And the gap between THEORY and PRACTICE prevails… why is that these days film theory seems to represent a paradigm that has shifted? Why doesn’t it seem as applicable and poignant as it once was?
Despite the changing face of the American family, television shows still insist upon representing the traditional American family unit with a mother and a father…
MUST READ LISA JOHNSON: “ Portraying women as either domesticated victims of male patriarchy or angry man-hating feminists doesn’t permit the nuances of real women’s lives to continue to come into clear view, just as assumptions that single women who long to be married must be ‘unfeminist’ obscures a more complete picture of contemporary women’s psyches” (pg 83 “Good Girls, Bad Girls, and Motorcycles”)
As of late I have been having an immensely difficult time attempting to reconcile with these concepts. Unfortunately, I feel myself becoming increasingly skeptical of the foundations upon which the film theory that I have been so personally invested in is founded upon. In the context of academics it seems to ring true but when applied to the situation of real life, of real people, of my life, of my experiences, it feels so contrived. There is a blatant disconnect that I can’t ignore anymore… I feel like feminist discourses are stuck, they seem to be still so invested in notions that were prevalent in the 50’s and 60’s but have since changed and it seems the fundamentalist approach that the subject seems to require doesn’t allow for the recognition of that change…
The binaries of feminist and anti-feminist seem archaic, I believe that now more than ever the notion of gender and sexuality as a spectrum is being embraced… What does it mean to be a contemporary feminist? What space am I supposed to occupy, as a heterosexual upper class white female, within this discourse? It’s becoming increasingly obvious to me that there might not be one…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)