#3 castillo & foster: conquest.

"Conquest. He was out to make a conquest. Didn't care what harm was done, just as long as he won the prize. Conquest. She was just another conquest. Didn't care whose heart was broke. Love to him was a joke 'til he looked into her eyes. And then in the strange way things happen. The roles were reversed from that day. The hunted became the huntress; the hunter became the prey."

This song by The White Stripes is describing a man's quest after a woman. But it is not talking about the power the man has over the woman or even of overcoming her, it is talking about when the woman becomes the powerful one-- "the roles were revered from that day. They hunted became to huntress; the hunter became the prey."

Why is sex is an important right of passage? What does sex prove?
In class we brained stormed about what sex means and made the connection between conquest and and sex. I definitely thought of ways men go after women in some of these terms before, but not really in this depth. I thought it was a really great exercise that led nicely into our talk about the "History of the Conquest of Spain" as well as "Coquette." 
We were asked to reflect on the ways in which sex is an important right of passage and of the things that sex proves. In a lot of ways, because sex is like conquest, it confirms that one is successful and victorious. Also, when men are pursing women it proves that they are indeed men and the superior sex. Sex, in a lot of ways, reconfirms patriarchy. 

Film: Wrestling with Manhood. why can we not break it? and other thoughts

Ed McMan in the film said that the WWE was entertainment that aimed to "evoke some sort of emotion" and that it was a "soap opera for guys". After watching parts of the documentary, it is clear that the WWE, violence and all the surrounding ideas, are evoking a feeling in men and young boys. Further, it is confirming the preconceived notion that men and boys must be tough and act out in ways that reinforce their manhood. Also, women are portrayed as sexual beings and an object of reward for men in wresting, often being humiliated in front of the audience as part of entertainment, letting the audience know that it's ok to treat women in such ways.


A couple of the issues that the film also brought up really stood out to me--that fear and respect go hand-in-hand and that physically domination and mental/emotional humiliation is connected with manhood. In class, Suzanne asked "Why can we not break it?" I think it's clear, that because such belief systems are constantly reinforced in through television, media or other outlets, there will always be this cycle. Society is constantly militarily, politically, economically and socially. If we are always finding a medium to operate these ideologies in, they will always be around until we make the collective, conscious choice to change it. 


The documentary also touched on issues of heterosexuality and the ways in which the entertainment business is always trying to find ways to both compensate for homosexuality and ratify heteronormality at the expense of glbtq individuals. The narrator of the film commented on how homosexuality is discouraged and the ways in which the industry tries to link heterosexuality to toughness, violence, lack of emotion and strength. To be a man, you must also be straight. There is no room for queerness.


As a woman and lesbian, I have dealt with conflict of identity. I have a style which I feel most comfortable and most like my self in. However, my boyish style does not reflect my girly personality. I love my hair and makeup and girl stuff. I have far more girl friends that guy friends. I have a total soft spot for romantic comedy and cheesy love songs. I am extremely sensitive and I have a strong emotional response to everything. There are times, even in my family, where those around me assume that my boyish look also means I have a boyish personality. People assume I should be tough, emotionless, and run with the guys. I couldn't be more of the opposite. Most of my friends and family are always telling me: "Sheesh Sarah, you're such a girl." 


It is very frustrating, to me, when anyone assumes one's personality or attitude determines their gender and sexuality or vice versa. This is not the case for me, and not the case for most. But, again, with the persistent societal back people learn such ignorance and outwardly expression of agreement, it is going to be hard to change such a cultural mindset. 

Film: The Patriot. Making men of boys
The clip we watched in class was pretty brutal. Blood, violence, hatred, disconcert, revenge, sacrifice. My heart, just by watching, ached at the sight of two young boys having to pick up weapons and kill. They were fearful, but obeying. Just like in the documentary on the WWE, fear is such a force in becoming and the authorize of manhood. Those boys were so scared and vulnerable, but they became men according in the eyes of society when they lifted the gun and killed. 


Rights of passage.. or initiation into "manhood" are common in every society across the world.  And the National Geographic's series "Taboo" examines different societal rights of passage and the ways in which initiation into manhood is an "abrupt or violent end to immaturity" Also, more interestingly, it talks about the way in which society poses membership on the body. The link between sexuality, violence, and manhood to the body is explored in the following clip where a young man is circumcised by another member of his clan and left in the woods alone in order to become a member of this society: 

Woman begins by resisting a man's advances and ends by blocking his retreat.  ~Oscar Wilde

#2 hawthorne, asma & rowlandson: identity.

Nathaniel Hawthrone’s The Scarlet Letter

In The Scarlet Letter, Hester Prynne is given her identity from the Puritan society in which she lives. When Hester is forced to wear the scarlet "A" on her chest as a punishment for adultery, she is also, in a sense, forced to embody its essence and implication. The scarlet letter was indeed a way for society to label Hester as a sinner and to use her as a representation of what not to be, but Hester embraced the scarlet letter in a way that made it beautiful, rather than grotesque. She made it her own. And the scarlet letter, too, made Hester beautiful:

"Those who had before known her, and had expected to behold her dimmed and obscured by a disastrous cloud, where astonished, and even startled, to perceive how her beauty shone out, and made a halo of the misfortune and ignominy in which she was enveloped. . . But the point that drew all eyes. . . was the Scarlet Letter, so fantastically embroidered and illuminated upon her bosom. It had the effect of a spell, taking her out of the ordinary relations with humanity, and inclosing her in a sphere of herself."

In a lot of ways, The Scarlet Letter, is about the taking on of an identity that was never your own and transforming it into something larger. The ways that Hester Prynne both uses and neglects her assigned identity aids in her coming into a self hood and uniqueness that's not a representation of her crime but a representation of her inner strength to deny a status that's not an accurate portrayal of her character.


Further, in the film, Easy A, Olive decides to control the identity society gave her. Rumor accused her of having sex, and when she realized the attention she received, she began wearing a scarlet letter. And, like Hester, she used the mark to her advantage. Plus, Easy A, is a pretty cool modern adoption of The Scarlet Letter.

Asma’s "Torture, Terrorist and Zombies"
I really liked what Asma had to in context of the Holocaust: "The Nazis rejected monogenism because the idea that all races had a common origin lent itself to the democratic contention that Jews, blacks, and Aryans were essentially brothers and sisters descendants of common parent stock. The polygenist doctrine of eternal divisions between races made it easy to think of the souls of other races (if they had them) as fundamentally other." I think it was Alison, who brought up the idea of the "other" in class and the function of the other in society. Hester was an other in society--having her own limits, boundaries, prescriptions and assumptions. She operated on a level outside of society. "Otherness" also is a way we categorize the "social dirt".  

Asma ask in the section "Instinctual Xenophobia", "Why do we transform other groups, whole races, into monsters?" Asma puts up a few theoretical responses to answer this question: that it is economically or socially advantageous, and instinctual--but cultural--fear, an obstructive view of the "other". Regardless the reasons, historically people are xenophobic. Whole cultures will go to extremes to protect or even guarantee their ethnic progress. For example: Chinese workers--when sent to work abroad--are sterilized so they will not be able to reproduce with women of other ethnic groups. Also, in America, during World War I, there was a law that restricted the number of Chinese and Islanders that were allowed to migrate to the US. Even now in the US today, xenophobia is still prevalent. Arizona has anti-immigration laws; The US government has a "Defence of Marriage Act" that defends one groups rights to marry, while neglecting an other's rights and arguing that it is what is best for a nation. All of these laws or societal norms is the product of fears.

Mary Rowlandson’s "A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mary Rowlandson" 
When Mary Rowlandson is taken captured by the natives, everything is literally gone: “all was gone (except my life), and I knew not but the next moment that might go too.” She only had her baby and her bible to keep her person—her identity—alive. When her child died, she wrote: “I went to take the dead child in my arms to carry it with me, but the bid me let it alone; there was no resisting, but go I must and leave it…I took the first opportunity I could get to go look after my dead child.” She desperately needed that child in order for her to remain in some sort of constant identity. She needs to be a mother and care for her child so she could maintain her identity in the midst of everything surreal that was happening. I think, when crazy things are happening, we tend to cling to the things that make us comfortable and things that reassure our existence as we know it. And, if we are religious or spiritual we subscribe more readily to our values and moral, and put more trust—if not all—into powers beyond us. Rowlandson did exactly this. Rowlandson’s narrative has God, his power, his presence, weaved throughout in every aspect. Her belief in God, gave her strength and permitted her to feel a sense of community: “I cannot but take notice of the strange providence of God in preserving the time with us were squaws, and they traveled with all they had, bag and baggage, and yet they got over this river…God did not give them courage or activity to go over after us.” God, too, was on Rowlandson’s side.

We talked briefly about ways that Rowlandson started to identify with her capturers. When Rowladnson felt helpless and started to have moments of doubt in her faith (and particularly) after losing her child, she found familiar comforts with the natives.

In the Sixteenth Removal Rowlandson writes something pretty cool: “My strength seemed to come again, and recruit my feeble knees, and aching heart. Yet it pleased them to go but one mile that night, and there we stayed two days. In that time came a company of Indians to us, nearly thirty, all on horseback. My heart skipped within me, thinking they had been Englishmen at the first sight of them, for they were thinking they had been Englishmen at the first sight of them, for they were dressed in English apparel, with hats, white neckcloths, and sashes about their waist; and ribbons upon their shoulders; but when they came near, there was a vast difference between the lovely face of Christians, and foul looks of those heathens, which much damped my spirit again.” Lovely faces of Christians.. foul looks of heathens. Woah.

#1 asma & mathers: madness. power. fear.

"Madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups."- Friedrich Nietzsche; Aphorism 156, Beyond Good and Evil. 


I totally dig Nietzsche and I quickly thought of his essay, "Beyond Good and Evil", when we started talking about the Salem Witch Trials and the surrounding ideas. A lot of students in class noted that while in a group situation we tend to have a group mentality and sometimes--without hesitation--act out in mad ways for the accepted betterment of the group. And I completely agree. Rather or not something is fair or unfair, reasonable or unreasonable, whatever the group decides is best is what they will pursue. There is lack of individualistic power in a group and a surplus of collective power. During the witch trials the girls started accusing individuals as being witches, and majority of the community not only believed them, but joined them, out of need to feel powerful and, perhaps, out of fear.

The selection from the documentary we watched about the Salem Witch Trial also reflects on this idea of madness. Even at the end of the documentary, they refer to the event as the "Salem Witch Trial Hysteria". And, in the trailer to the movie "Devil" it was clear that the group became immediately irate when one person started to act out. 

Who or what is more powerful?
To be powerful is to overcome something or someone, to be physically or mentally stronger, to be in some sort of position of authority. And I believe an issue of power was most certainly at stake during the Salem Witch Trials as well as in all other fight against evil. It is important to overcome evil in order to maintain power. The citizens of Salem, in the name of God, felt it extremely important to maintain power and control over both the land and community of Salem. If imprisoning and executing accused witches allowed them to feel more powerful and in control, they would absolutely do it. Like I mentioned in class, it was not until the members of the court were being accused of witchcraft, did the damning of citizens stop. Not only do I think this is a representation of hierarchy, but also an example of how important power, authority and control is in any situation. And when evil was at work in Salem, the members of the community felt a strong urgency to overpower it to maintain their power. The members of the court, just like the girls who were accusing, were in a position of power, and would only stop if they were to be challenged. I am not sure if the Puritans believed actually that there were witches among them. But I do feel they needed to overcome something--even if not real real--to maintain a sense of power.

And further, as Asma mentioned, Job has to overcome Satan and God's test not only to prove his loyalty and faith in God, but also to show that he was stronger than anything he was put up against. Nothing could or would bring Job down and he stayed steadfast in his fight against the plague of evil just as the Puritans did in Salem.

What is evil? Evil as fear. 
When we are powerful, we are fearless. When we are fearful, we are powerless. And when we are fearful, we believe in and fuel evil.

We were asked to meditate on our personal definition of evil and how we think it operates in the world. Evil, to me, is whatever we fear, projected. When we are fearful or feeling vulnerable in any part of our world, we tend to feel that something otherworldly is at work and we are at risk. And, when something does happen that seems unreasonable or not fair to us, there obviously has to be some sort of force that would cause such distress. I am not sure if there is any real, sufficient evil at work in the world-- I really just like to think things are just so. I do believe the universe has a part in everything, but I do not believe evil is one of things that is used to manage this world. It is not needed. And as for a religious sort of evil, I do not think good or evil is predefined. 

And, by looking at the types of monsters as defined by Asma, I think it is clear that evil (and monsters) are products of our fear. Asma explains monsters as things that, "threatens human health and happiness," "threatens order and stability," and "as enemies to be crushed or overcome". I understand health and happiness as something that we really value. If we have nothing, we have our health; and we search for happiness in every aspect of our lives. These two things, being most valued, are the things we are most afraid to lose. As I mentioned before, power is such a big issue and a fear of losing power or control encourages us to fight anything and everything that poses as a threat. Therefore, all the things we are most fearful of--losing our health and happiness, our order and stability, being crushed or overcome--are all the things this "evil" is fighting against. This is why, I think in a lot of ways, that evil is not something real as much as a product of our own feelings. Evil is the thing that takes away or challenges the things we value most.