Sexism in Rudolph

http://thefbomb.org/2012/01/rudolph-the-sexist-reindeer/
So I'm willing to bet quite a few of you have seen this at least once. Personally, I have seen the film several times, but being a child, never noticed the serious social implications. Women are blatantly kept in subservient positions, while men are able to aspire to and compete in the reindeer games, which can be related to a career or business or male-only organization.  There are several other flaws which the article doesn't touch on, however.  For example, Rudolph is bombarded with demands to conform for a "defect" that he does not consider a defect, much in the same way society is geared towards the able-bodied as we read in the Wendell article.  The misfit toys, who are led by a jack-in-the-box who has a stereotypically "gay sounding" voice are all banished to an island because they aren't proper or right, much how homosexuals were often excluded from society in the past (and continue to struggle today).  Santa Claus is ruthless and abuses his worker elves much like a plantation owner and slaves or a boss and sweatshop workers, pointing to a clear class struggle. Mrs. Claus sounds Italian as well, which may reference the practice of lower-income foreign women marrying wealthy older white men for economic gain and a way to the States, which is sometimes involved in human trafficking.
The effect of the movie isn't always good either:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmqUDjtbAjs
It looks to me like the little boy doesn't even understand the implications of what he's saying or that it's even inherently wrong and is just trying to tease his sister, as siblings are accustomed to, which demonstrates how children at a young age are indoctrinated to act in certain ways. No one is inherently a sexist, they are taught how to become one.

Women's Stories in Moveis

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonwillmore/the-other-woman-walk-of-shame-and-the-fake-feminist-comedy

After last class period where we talked about Ruby Sparks I read this article about movies that have recently come out. It really is sad how few representations of funny women there are in movies. I haven't seen either of these movies, but I know the basic premise from the trailers of both and from this article and I think that the plot of both of these movies is problematic for several reasons. One of the reasons is that both movies are about women's sexuality, and that's all. That a movie starring three women doesn't pass the Bechdel test seems ridiculous. I really like how the article highlights that many of the women in these movies are great comedic actresses, who aren't offered enough roles to highlight their abilities. It is very problematic when the only roles women are offered are as mistresses, ditzy wives, and as stars of "The Other Woman" and "Walk of Shame".

A Powerful Disney Character We Tend to Forget...

http://blogs.disney.com/oh-my-disney/2014/05/03/sarabi-long-live-the-queen/?cmp=SMC|blgomd|OMDMay|FB|Sarabi-OMD|InHouse|050314|||esocialmedia|||?cmp=SMC|blgomd|OMD-May|FB|sarabi-LionKing|InHouse|050314|||esocialmedia|||

I stumbled upon this article while searching through my Facebook News Feed, entitled "Sarabi: Long Live the Queen." It wasn't until I read this article that I remembered how powerful of a character Sarabi is. Once Scar takes over Pride Rock, she does not falter, continuing to lead the lionesses proudly, standing up to Scar bravely and not being afraid to exert her power over him once she discovers that he is at fault for Mufasa's death.

Nevertheless, as the title of my post suggests, I think we all tend to forget not just how powerful Sarabi is but Sarabi all together. The Lion King came out over 20 years ago, but here is proof that female characters getting a combination of power AND attention is such a recent phenomenon that we see in Rapunzel, Brave, and Frozen. What do you guys think? Do you think Sarabi is a powerful female Disney character? Do you think we tend to forget about her? What do you think about Disney's perception of female characters?

Vegetarians and vegans

Feminism is all about equal treatment, avoiding oppression, and really just providing higher quality of life where it can. With today's technology it can be doable to stop the slaughtering of cattle for our own sustenance. However, doing so (especially being vegan) is more expensive, requiring various vitamins and expensive organic food. Like any lifestyle, there are those that may be taking it too far. There are various counts online talking about how certain vegetarians and vegans will impose their life choice upon their pets or young children who truly need the natural sustenance provided by animal products. In these cases the pets and children are often affected quite negatively. It is certainly plausible to cut back on the amount of animals slaughtered, and there is zero requirement for any sort of animal cruelty, however certain groups may not be able to afford this lifestyle or just need the more natural nourishment. Choosing to be vegetarian or vegan is a wonderful choice to make, but only when it is plausible and truly a choice, there is no room for imposing our own lifestyles on anyone else (even our own children) in the hopefully feminist future.

Capstone Research Presentation Event

This past Tuesday, April 29th, I was able to see many intellectual individuals present their extensive, and often highly personal, research. Like this class, I originally intended on doing what I had to for the event (show up for maybe 20 minutes) and call it quits after the bare minimum. Like this class (which convinced me to pursue a minor), I kept staying for more. I came in the middle of a presentation on potential community garden systems, planned on staying through one more presentation, and found myself staying through the end out of sheer curiosity. I sat through four presentations and what was left of the community garden one I walked in on, all of which were highly thought provoking. Part of my enjoyment was seeing how engaged and invested these people were in their research, and how much more equipped they were to educate myself due to their own passion. I had a sense of how much these people have put into their research, and how much they have gotten out of it as well. A particularly moving presentation was that of a young African American woman who was raped and how her community did not pursue their beloved football star who was destined for greatness with his collegiate athletic scholarship. This woman read through her paper (which I imagine is an incredibly painful and personal thing to recount) positively flawlessly without any emotional lapse. Her power and strength completely took me back. According to her writing, her community said a woman needed to be strong, often implying self sacrifice for the community (in reality meaning men and children). She said that she did not view this extensive self sacrifice as strong, the confidence and power she displayed while recounting such an incredibly traumatic experience was the greatest amount of strength I have ever seen. The first woman presented valid issues and ideas to community gardens and starvation, pointing out how knowledgeable female gardeners are often ignored. The second presenter I saw was the young woman who was raped which I have already talked about more extensively due to the bravery displayed by her to share such a thing with me and everyone else in the room. The third was none other than Kurt from our own class. Kurt talked about the communication gap between charity givers and receivers. One such point was that a wealthy person may consider nice clothes as a nice priveledge, whereas an impoverished person recognizes nice clothes as a necessity to become employed and move up in life. This lack of understanding leads to ineffective help despite various efforts. The last two discussed issues with foster care and the value placed on the knowledge of women. The topics touched on were unique and non-obvious, educated me, and showed how much understanding of society may be provided to someone who digs for it.

Women NOT In Art

It's really easy to notice a problem with something that is present, depicted, or displayed. Women in art are often shown in a way that gives into all sorts of gender standards. Something else that may be equally important, however, is noticing the times that women are not shown in art at all. I have actually discussed this statue for another class in the past. At my first glance this was merely a religious statue, upon further analysis, this statue depicts severe, borderline genocidal, oppression in an excessively casual (on a Jesuit campus this is actually probably viewed positively, not just casual or neutral) manner. After taking this course, I've gone back to this picture and can certainly point out women's studies related factors. First is simply the existence of oppression in this statue. Not only in this depiction, but historically, Christianity was practically shoved down the native American's throats. Secondly, the fact that white Europeans did this almost as a form of charity (and simply the demeanor of the priest here) hints at a white savior complex. My third point, which I hadn't even considered until now, is simply how this statue is void of women entirely. This statue represents an extremely significant event. White Europeans forcing their culture upon the native Americans, and overall conquering their land and way of life. These things are exceptionally significant, and affected everyone, yet women are not shown. The drastic affairs were only the affairs of men.  

Women In Art

There are many places around Saint Louis full of art, any piece of which could be analyzed and critiqued through a feminist lens. However, I think it is important, as students of SLU, to analyze the art directly on our very campus. There are statues all around campus outside, and even more pieces of art inside almost every building. I focused on the statues outside throughout our campus due to my sheer familiarity with them from seeing them all the time. I have pictured here this statue between Griesideck Hall and Grand Boulevard. This statue is right there in the open and is seen by thousands throughout any given day. It is fairly simple, however upon analysis one can notice that it may be too simple, meaning it gives directly into every stereotype that it realistically could in this situation. I understand that the purpose of this particular assignment was to analyze women in art, however even the man's depiction goes along with what we've learned. The man and woman have a child, and as expected, the woman is holding the child. Going beyond that, the woman appears to be rather fixated on the child, certainly depicting her likely nurturing relationship with the child. Additionally, the man in the statue is holding the woman. The women looks directly at the child she is holding, showing possession to an extent but also love and concern. The man is holding the woman, certainly in a manner that could hint at possession, but is also looking away. This doesn't need to be entirely interpreted as negative, but if not, then it most likely must be interpreted as the man looking into the distance either intuitively (displaying curiosity and intelligence that the woman is not) or literally watching for danger (implying that the woman needs protecting). It is assumed that the woman will protect the child and the man protects the woman as the sole owner of his very family. In my opinion and experience, the most important thing when it comes to complete awareness isn't critiquing the obvious, but consistently analyzing everything in order to notice the little thing that others may not. This statue is right there in the center of campus, and certainly seems harmless (and I'm sure it never had any harmful intent), but is absolutely riddled with stereotypical gender based undertones.