When we read about the early public readers, I asked what made "reader" an acceptable profession for a "lady". After reading the Gilbert article I ask, what makes "comedian" an acceptable role for a "feminist"? What does this say about the state of gender-based prejudice in the United States today?
Angry and passion full of comedy that is performed by a woman is viewed as a part of "feminism" in our society. Female comedians make jokes about stereotypical issues to help others see the problems with stereotypes.Unfortunatly the sarcastic humor about the traditional sex roles in the society tends to make people think that female comedians are all feminist. Just because a woman wants to make fun of a gender based bias, she is immediatly seen as a feminist due to her intelligent and brave humor.
Women making statements against the male dominated issues are not accepted by the society. Female comics that pick on dominant male figures are seen as crazy, or out of ordinary because for the longest time, women stayed silent towards domination. Women were not expected to be blunt and point out social stereotypes. Now that there are women perfomers in comedy, society is seeing a different side of stereotypes.
The main idea to female comic performances is to bring attention to stereotypical gender roles by not only entertaining but also capturing attention by pointing out important issues. Humor is effective because it makes us laugh and think about a problem that we might have not considered. It is a great idea to bring light to stereotypes with humor.
We continue to have gender based bias in our lives today. Dominant women are seen as scary and crazy because intelligence is not valued. Looking at the past, we have definitly made progress towards equality. There are still many steps to gender stereotypes but there is a definate improvement. We see more and more strong female figures in talk shows and entertainment to follow everyday.
I remember watching this video on youtube that relates to this topic. I thought it was one of the funniest skits ever! Its about how different men act towards women to get their attention for the first time. Its not only making fun of men in general- but also culture and ethnicity differences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wlsTg2MCHg&NR=1
start it 1.00
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Essay #4
Although the article draws no attention to the fact, all of the teachers of "expression" and most of the students mentioned in "Expression in the Popular Culture of Dallas" were women. What made the teaching of "expression" a suitable career for a lady of this period? How was learning "expression" supposed to prepare girls to become suitable young women? And suitable for what? What does this reveal about the state of gender-based prejudice during this time period in America?
Teaching "expression" was a very suitable career for a lady because most of the students who were in expression classes were women. These classes were more like charm schools for women who were learning about the "lady like" way to learn how to express themselves infront of others. It was important for women to learn behaviors and skills that will make them a suitable future wife. Men wanted women who were fragile and spoke in kind words. Expression classes helped with language structures and self confidence.
One of the other reasons for women to take expression classes was to develop a good sole. Since women are more sensitive and effected by their environment (future relationships, children, finances) it was important for them to formulate a strong, good sole to make good choices in their lives. Learning how to express themselves infront of other females was also a good way to develop their self-esteems and self concepts. The expression classes allowed women to fully engage and learn positive parts of being a women and communicate in good manners.
There is a major gender base prejudice in the sense that women are supposed to be nurtering and sweet. One of the main reasons for women to teach expression was to show the possible future husband, a positive and feminine side of themselves. It is almost as women are molded into being what the society wanted them to be. Expectations of what the men wanted out of a wife is also a major factor in expression classes. Women wanted to seem as they would be good choice as a wife, so they continued to take expression classes to learn about expressing themselves.
Today, we continue to have expression classes such as cheerleading, sororities, dance classes, etc. Women do continue to build their self-esteems through modern self expression classes. One of my personal examples to expression classes was an assignment that I completed in a dance class. Each person was to make a figure out of any material that represented the physical and emotional elements of themselves. It was amazing to see each persons creativity! After completing our self object, we presented the reasons behind why we selected the material. Each student connected to one another in a sense that we all had a self image that connected to our soles.
Teaching "expression" was a very suitable career for a lady because most of the students who were in expression classes were women. These classes were more like charm schools for women who were learning about the "lady like" way to learn how to express themselves infront of others. It was important for women to learn behaviors and skills that will make them a suitable future wife. Men wanted women who were fragile and spoke in kind words. Expression classes helped with language structures and self confidence.
One of the other reasons for women to take expression classes was to develop a good sole. Since women are more sensitive and effected by their environment (future relationships, children, finances) it was important for them to formulate a strong, good sole to make good choices in their lives. Learning how to express themselves infront of other females was also a good way to develop their self-esteems and self concepts. The expression classes allowed women to fully engage and learn positive parts of being a women and communicate in good manners.
There is a major gender base prejudice in the sense that women are supposed to be nurtering and sweet. One of the main reasons for women to teach expression was to show the possible future husband, a positive and feminine side of themselves. It is almost as women are molded into being what the society wanted them to be. Expectations of what the men wanted out of a wife is also a major factor in expression classes. Women wanted to seem as they would be good choice as a wife, so they continued to take expression classes to learn about expressing themselves.
Today, we continue to have expression classes such as cheerleading, sororities, dance classes, etc. Women do continue to build their self-esteems through modern self expression classes. One of my personal examples to expression classes was an assignment that I completed in a dance class. Each person was to make a figure out of any material that represented the physical and emotional elements of themselves. It was amazing to see each persons creativity! After completing our self object, we presented the reasons behind why we selected the material. Each student connected to one another in a sense that we all had a self image that connected to our soles.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Essay #3
What made the career of "public reader" more acceptable for a lady than the career of "actress" What does this reveal about gender prejudice during this time period in America?
Women were criticized and looked down on for following a career in acting. Mowatt, Kemble and Cushman tried many different performance styles and found what worked best for them. All three women connected acting, reading and performing to entertain and educate their audience.
Mowatt who did not have any serious acting experience before she became a professional reader, started out by writing, directing and acting with her siblings. She went against the societies norms by making public appereances. Women were not to take on major rolls in the society just yet. People were curious but also judgemental towards her braveness. I found her passion towards reading very powerful.
Kemble who started her career by acting with her father, later on discovered the power of reading Shakespeare. She valued dramatism and had harsh words for theather because of its lack of reality. This reminded me of Stanislavskys performance methods. The importance of human nature should be as real as possible. "Men does not live by bread alone" (Thompson) is a great saying that still answers why performers who do not make enough money still do what they do for our society today. Her sense of feminism and passion for performance is incredible because the powerful women in the past opened doors to equality.
Cushman's sense of acting was criticized by many people. Her acting as Romeo and Lady Macbeth brought many questions to minds. Because she brought power and strength as a women to stage, she was refered to as too violent. Her physical characteristics and emotional strength is judged because it carries masculine characteristics. She later on made a career out of her readings which the audience enjoyed the most.
The society was not ready for women to take such strong rolls in acting. These three women seem as they are stand up performers of today. Their power and dedication to performance was seen as awkward and not welcomed by many people. Through performance, they pushed the limits to equality and showed the society that women are just as capable of reading and performing as men.
Women were criticized and looked down on for following a career in acting. Mowatt, Kemble and Cushman tried many different performance styles and found what worked best for them. All three women connected acting, reading and performing to entertain and educate their audience.
Mowatt who did not have any serious acting experience before she became a professional reader, started out by writing, directing and acting with her siblings. She went against the societies norms by making public appereances. Women were not to take on major rolls in the society just yet. People were curious but also judgemental towards her braveness. I found her passion towards reading very powerful.
Kemble who started her career by acting with her father, later on discovered the power of reading Shakespeare. She valued dramatism and had harsh words for theather because of its lack of reality. This reminded me of Stanislavskys performance methods. The importance of human nature should be as real as possible. "Men does not live by bread alone" (Thompson) is a great saying that still answers why performers who do not make enough money still do what they do for our society today. Her sense of feminism and passion for performance is incredible because the powerful women in the past opened doors to equality.
Cushman's sense of acting was criticized by many people. Her acting as Romeo and Lady Macbeth brought many questions to minds. Because she brought power and strength as a women to stage, she was refered to as too violent. Her physical characteristics and emotional strength is judged because it carries masculine characteristics. She later on made a career out of her readings which the audience enjoyed the most.
The society was not ready for women to take such strong rolls in acting. These three women seem as they are stand up performers of today. Their power and dedication to performance was seen as awkward and not welcomed by many people. Through performance, they pushed the limits to equality and showed the society that women are just as capable of reading and performing as men.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Essay #2
What was the socio-cultural function of the feasts of Corpus Christi? How did these festivals serve as celebration of "the body"? What socio-political groups interests were served by the festivities?
Socio-cultural function of the feasts of Corpus Christi was set up for the celebration of the body of the Christ. What we eat is the metaphor for the body of the Christ. This way people felt like they were a part of the Christ. Every movement they made after the feast signified the "movement of the Christ" The body was also a symbol of how the body was percieved. Guilds celebration of the body was a statement of "we are alive"
As celebration, there would be bible readings and plays. The whole community would gather and form communitas. These gatherings would also have an effect on the dynamics of the culture. Middle class was formed through out the time of celebration. This is very important because the gaps between classes started to not become as wide and noticable. Middle class men could hope to be high class. They could show their power and possibilties of becoming high class through their performances.
In most countries and regions, the class situation is a problem in our society today. The saying "rich is getting richer, the poor is getting poorer" is still accurate for some countries. In Turkey, the gaps between the low class and high class are still very noticable. The idea of the middle class is not developed. I wonder if the reason behind that is because the low class never had the chance to prove themselves to the society. It is amazing to me that through performance, people could show their strength and creativity to their society. The hope of posibilities is a vital turning point in any society.
Socio-cultural function of the feasts of Corpus Christi was set up for the celebration of the body of the Christ. What we eat is the metaphor for the body of the Christ. This way people felt like they were a part of the Christ. Every movement they made after the feast signified the "movement of the Christ" The body was also a symbol of how the body was percieved. Guilds celebration of the body was a statement of "we are alive"
As celebration, there would be bible readings and plays. The whole community would gather and form communitas. These gatherings would also have an effect on the dynamics of the culture. Middle class was formed through out the time of celebration. This is very important because the gaps between classes started to not become as wide and noticable. Middle class men could hope to be high class. They could show their power and possibilties of becoming high class through their performances.
In most countries and regions, the class situation is a problem in our society today. The saying "rich is getting richer, the poor is getting poorer" is still accurate for some countries. In Turkey, the gaps between the low class and high class are still very noticable. The idea of the middle class is not developed. I wonder if the reason behind that is because the low class never had the chance to prove themselves to the society. It is amazing to me that through performance, people could show their strength and creativity to their society. The hope of posibilities is a vital turning point in any society.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Essay # 1
What role did women play in the performance of cultural texts in this era? Why were there differences between the performative roles of men and women? Were the contributions of one gender valued more highly than the other?
Women were involved in many parts of the society. While men had to spend their lives in battlefields, women were responsible with taking care of the house hold. Conquergood stated that the women "managed the important domestic affairs which hold a society together, they probably sang work-song in the fields, soothed wedding-songs, educated children with hortatory tales, gossiped and joked among themselves" (Taylor, 2010). Women had to find ways to support their family.
The difference between the women and men's performative roles were significantly unlike because men were using performance as a support mechanism. There were pre-battle performances that kept men focused on their task. It was important for men to feel cohesive with eachother. The form of performance men used was to stay strong and be ready for the battle. On the other hand, women were left behind with children. They were responsible with taking care of the household and educating children which could be a difficult task for a women to deal with all by herself.
The contribution of one gender was not valued more highly then the other because each gender had responsibilities that required mental and physical strength. "There is no doubt that old english society allowed to women, not only private influence, but also the widest liberty of intervention in public affairs" (Stenton, 1942, p.1). Women had a say in almost all topics in the soceity. The performative roles of men and women were equal in Anglo-Saxon era. "The interdependence which women had enjoyed was never completely lost during the centuries of old english history" (Stenton, 1942, p. 13). Since men had other duties at that era, women had to step up and stay strong.
Stenton, F.M. (1943). Presidential address: the historical bearing of place-name studies: the
place of women in anglo-saxon society. Royal Historical Society, 24. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3678611
Women were involved in many parts of the society. While men had to spend their lives in battlefields, women were responsible with taking care of the house hold. Conquergood stated that the women "managed the important domestic affairs which hold a society together, they probably sang work-song in the fields, soothed wedding-songs, educated children with hortatory tales, gossiped and joked among themselves" (Taylor, 2010). Women had to find ways to support their family.
The difference between the women and men's performative roles were significantly unlike because men were using performance as a support mechanism. There were pre-battle performances that kept men focused on their task. It was important for men to feel cohesive with eachother. The form of performance men used was to stay strong and be ready for the battle. On the other hand, women were left behind with children. They were responsible with taking care of the household and educating children which could be a difficult task for a women to deal with all by herself.
The contribution of one gender was not valued more highly then the other because each gender had responsibilities that required mental and physical strength. "There is no doubt that old english society allowed to women, not only private influence, but also the widest liberty of intervention in public affairs" (Stenton, 1942, p.1). Women had a say in almost all topics in the soceity. The performative roles of men and women were equal in Anglo-Saxon era. "The interdependence which women had enjoyed was never completely lost during the centuries of old english history" (Stenton, 1942, p. 13). Since men had other duties at that era, women had to step up and stay strong.
Stenton, F.M. (1943). Presidential address: the historical bearing of place-name studies: the
place of women in anglo-saxon society. Royal Historical Society, 24. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3678611
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)