Choice & Excess

I thought Oliver's analysis of Hollywood's characterization of pregnancy and the pro choice/pro life argument was interesting in that it seems to reflect a general view that Hollywood often projects of women: one in which women are rather shallow, empty objects waiting to be fulfilled by something else, whether it is falling in love with the perfect guy, having the ultimate life of leisure, or having a child. It seems that these images support the idea of women as "the other," while also taking it one step further by saying that the only way we can become whole is through a man (marriage, family, etc.). I don't disagree that a woman can find her own, autonomous fulfillment in a marriage or children and I think both can be beautiful things. That said, I think the hyper emphasis on absolutely needing those things to be happy or have purpose objectifies women in such a way that they are a means to an end. It made me think of an op ed that came out in NYT last week that discussed how fetal protection laws are slowly pushing women to provide the perfect uterine environment because it is their duty as a mother and wife.

Here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/the-error-of-fetal-homicide-laws.html?_r=1

Pregnancy: Choice & Excess

In her chapter, Kelly Oliver analyzes Hollywood's "anxieties" over pregnancy as depicted in both contemporary and older films. She identifies the media's underlying, widespread issue with pregnant women is that "pregnancy and birth are still considered processes that make a woman like a beast or an animal out of control" (69). While I certainly agree with this phrase, I am surprised that the author did not focus on the common pathologization of women's "extreme" desires for a baby (aka for doing what society says they should be doing). Besides brief use of the words "neurosis" and "Sigmund Frued," the author barely touched upon how women's desire for babies is not only strictly encouraged in society, but it is also pathologized in a way.

Oliver talks about the films that feature older women who desperately want a baby and mentions how this is depicted as "baby hunger" in certain tabloids. However, the phrase I most often hear is "baby fever." The phrase is often on the headlines of supermarket tabloids magazines, and if you type "baby fever' tabloids" into Google, more than 17,000 results come up. Clearly, "baby fever" is an infectious disease that is marketed towards women, but it also serves to simultaneously reinforce cultural stereotypes while at the same time making women seem absolutely, infectiously crazy for living up to societal expectations. It even reminds me of how women were still treated for "hysteria" not too long ago. I would like to hear other's thoughts on this topic, though. Do you think a desire for pregnancy is pathologized, and if so do you think older women are are portrayed differently when it comes to pregnancy?

Choice and Excess

In Pregnancy: Choice and Excess, Kelly Oliver deconstructs Hollywood’s representation of pregnancy. The chapter that stood out to me the most was Craving Babies. In this chapter she deconstructs the Hollywood phenomena of representing women who do not want babies but fall in love with their babies when they give birth. This representation psychologically pressures women to not get an abortion by giving them the impression that if they get an abortion they will be giving up their happiness or access to happiness. This is very problematic and similar to the other representations of Hollywood that she deconstructs because it restricts women’s free will to get an abortion. Also by solely presenting happy mothers as child bearers, these movies assert patriarchal norms by stressing the importance of family and children. So in short what Hollywood does through these movies is to spread patriarchal propaganda to persuade the viewer to have a baby in order to attain "the ultimate happiness". Also as expected many of the movies that she deconstructs are directed by males. It is not surprising as only %7 of movies produced by Hollywood are directed by women.

Currently the Turkish President is also following the same subliminal tactic to brainwash people to only value women if they are mothers and reinforce patriarchal family norms. Since he was elected he continuously stressed in his talks that every women should have 3 children and condemned abortion as murder. Also recently he increased the number of children that Turkish women should have. Apparently now we need to have 4 children?! In Turkey abortion is state funded and a women can get an abortion for free up to 10 weeks. After 10 weeks it depends on the doctor’s decision as if the baby is threatening the mother’s health a women can still get an abortion for free, otherwise she pays for the abortion. So on paper, Turkey has pretty good laws but definitely the president’s non-sense speeches are effecting women’s decision and existence in society.

Pregnancy: The Issue in Choice and Excess

This essay seems to take issue with “Hollywood” portrayals of pregnancy and the pro-life/choice argument surrounding abortion, and I think the problem is more about cultural expectancies and perceptions. These Hollywood portrayals are both based in cultural perception and perpetuate them, but at the same time, there is some truth to the stories. If there wasn’t truth in them, people wouldn’t want to see the movies. Even horror movies where the fetus is some paranormal being plays on real fear. On a side note, nobody wants to see a movie about a pregnancy (or live) isn’t raffled with complexity; a mother who wants a child and gets one or doesn’t want a child and chooses abortion (after an unexpected pregnancy) and everything stays stagnant in her perceptions and actions, doesn’t make for a good story. Stagnant ideals and desires don’t always portray real people. (This isn’t to stay that perpetuating stereotypes about pregnancy, abortion, and motherhood within the cinematic framework isn’t problematic.)

Perhaps the most shocking idea presented to me, was that the idea of white supremacy could permeate into the discussion. That white middle-class women need to push aside their careers (or even include children as part of the plan) in order to produce children with better odds of being successful and contributing society, fundamentally devalues life (and pregnancy and motherhood) based on racial and socioeconomic lines. Is abortion and the exercise of choice to not having children in different races and socioeconomic backgrounds viewed differently?

Pregnancy: Choice and Excess

All of the films, except If These Walls Could Talk and Waitress, were directed by men. 

In my opinion the majority of men filmmakers don't really intend to use abortion or pregnancy for moral reasoning, IE. Antichrist, various sci-fi movies, etc.. (why may actually push towards revealing how pregnancy and abortions are/ can be terrifying). In these films, I find an overall message: if a woman decides not to have an abortion, she will be happy; if a woman contemplates whether or not to have an abortion, she will be met with (a) miscarriage or (b) sadness, grief, disaster; if a woman has an abortion, she will either (a) die or (b) suffer. 

Five days ago, Vice published an article entitled "Jemima Kirke Speaks Out About the Stigma of Abortion". Jemima Kirke is best known for her role in the series Girls but she is, also, an important activist in the Draw the Line campaign (which deals with the fundamental issues regarding women's reproductive rights). Read the article if interested: http://i-d.vice.com/en_us/article/jemima-kirke-speaks-out-about-the-stigma-of-abortion?utm_source=vicefbus

Oliver describes a multitude of stigmas regarding abortion, including terms such as "excessive", "dangerous", "bloody", "monstrous", etc. Most of these stigmas have manifested themselves within the Hollywood film industry. She further references the  Romanian film 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days that exposes the consequences of the illegality of abortion. Countries within Central America, South America, Africa, South and Southeast Asia are home to some of the strictest abortion laws in the world (where by many women seek abortions elsewhere). 

Here is a link to map that indicates the abortion laws throughout the world: http://worldabortionlaws.com/map/

Kelly Oliver is my Idol

Sammy Karon

17 April 2015

Ideally, for this blog post I would just like to write this quote and then fill the rest of the page with exclamation points:

1.     “In sum, pregnancy and birth are still considered processes that make a woman like a beast or an animal out of control” (69).

2.     !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However, for the sake of academia I will try to put my thoughts into more eloquent words.

Kelly Oliver’s piece, “Pregnancy: Choice and Excess,” hit me like a rock to the head. It honestly knocked all the small and separate thoughts I have had about becoming a woman into one place where they could finally build off each other and make sense. As a woman, my sexuality is either my only source of personal development or the only barrier to my personal development, depending on context (52). In college, I see it as a barrier: if I get pregnant I won’t be able to go to class every day, school won’t be my main priority and most of all, at least some people in my community of support will turn away from me. As a college woman, I don’t want to get pregnant, and because I have made that choice, I am distanced from my body and the involuntary organs that might contradict that choice.

Yet, in another context, pregnancy could be my only source of personal development once I move from girl à woman. Oliver touches on this with the phrase “both/and,” which represents the difficulty of being a woman biologically/socially and then some: there is more to being a woman than existing as one (54). Women have gifts and skills and power and things to share with the world, and ideally being a mother is one way for them to exist as both a woman and as their other values separate from their body.

Ultimately, thought, women don’t get to choose their context (most of the time). Humans can’t chose where we are born, and women, more so than man one could argue, can’t always afford to move somewhere new. In addition to that, I can’t think of a society I could move to where men wouldn’t subconsciously correlate pregnancy with, and this might sound weird, anarchy. There is not internal control for pregnancy: humans cannot make themselves or their partner get pregnant and they can’t prevent it either. It’s an irrational process in that way: reason does not cause or prevent pregnancy, and because of that, women are associated with a “less than” existence because they contain this source of anarchy. Right?

Pregnancy as Choice and Excess

Caleb Parsons

Kelly Oliver's piece "Pregnancy as Choice and Excess" delves into the representations of reproductive rights and pregnancy within Hollywood and popular media. At the core of Oliver's debate lies the depiction of innocence and a relational lack of control in motherhood. The difference between "accidental" pregnancies and "chosen" pregnancies blurs the reality that encapsulates pregnancy. While some women may want to become pregnant and engage in sex in order to achieve this, the physical act of conception does not follow the will of the mother. The debate around "choice" conceals connections to class and race as well. The portrayal of white, middle class women who are "baby hungry" can be humorous to audiences, with the narrative typically ending with the woman discovering that traditional family life leads to existential fulfillment. On the other side, many women do not have the luxury to decide between family and work. In the film Precious, the protagonist navigates the terrain of teenage motherhood in a violent household. Impregnated twice by her father, and facing additional abuse from her mother, Precious struggles to liberate herself from her traumatic past and harrowing experiences. This particular instance strays from popular representations arising in the entertainment and media industries. Ultimately, the issue of choice boils down to if the mother can "choose correctly." By resorting to traditional patriarchal paradigms that present successful women as child-bearers, Hollywood reinforces a culture that places the interests of the nuclear family over those of the actual women forced into these ideological corners.

The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter

Caleb Parsons

In Cynthia and Julia Willett's chapter "The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter: Bitches, Whores, and Other Fumerists,"the topic of feminist humor is at the forefront. For Cynthia and Julia, humor serves as a better outlet for "moral suasion" than fact or argument. Humor's power lies in its ability to make subjects recognize intersubjectivity. This recognition connects consciousness beyond identity politics. Cynthia and Julia's chapter focuses on humor's ability to reconfigure notions of motherhood and sexuality. Two realms that have historically suffered under male-dominated representation. The erotic force of feminist humor, or "fumerism," enable this medium to free women from the oppression of societal norms. Janet Halley elaborates on her concept of "governance feminism," which takes into consideration pleasure in female humor. Much of fumerism relies upon the shock value of the "obscene." While the female comedians humor may appear to be "obscene" from the outisde (male) perspective, it really just flips male comedy on its head. So much of male comedy focuses not the female body and body parts as a source of ridicule and entertainment. Fumerism subverts this system by doing the same thing, yet doing so in a way that leaves the women empowered rather than objectified. Subjects such as menstruation, abortion, and female genitalia become topics in female humor. This in effect turns men's comedy "inside out."

The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter

Andrea Gamboa
"Not holding in your anger is what feminist comedy does best. You may be a victim, but you will have your revenge, and a clever one at that" (21). 

In Cynthia and Julia Willett's chapter, The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter, the two authors analyze what characterizes feminist humor. In particular, the authors focus on how humor can be used a tool to fight back against oppression. In a passage describing Tina Fey's ostensibly "immodest" sense of humor, the authors also noted how feminist humor tends to subvert the traditional ideas of who the victim and the oppressors are. Using satirical rhetoric, feminist humorists, or "fumerists," warp and exaggerate the reality of living in the patriarchy in order to magnify the importance of feminist issues. For example, Kristen Schaal's bit on the Daily Show satirized "money rape" as a faux-consequence of providing abortions for rape survivors and in turn made advocates against abortions seem frivolous, illogical, and even cruel.

I really enjoyed reading this piece because I agree that feminist humorists are often ignored and erased. This erasure is due in part to the culturally-ingrained idea that women are not "naturally funny." Being a woman who spends time with considerably humorous women, I do not understand the roots of this idea. I suppose that this idea originated because traditional views of femininity place little value on a woman's personality and experiences, two things critical for being a good humorist.

The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter

I thought this chapter was incredibly interesting because it seemed to take a less philosophical or theoretical approach to feminism and more of a practical, pop culture-esque approach in attempting to shape the discourse surrounding feminism through laughter and satirical comedy. When I think of comedy, I most often think about the fact that women really lack visibility in the industry. From late night comedy talk show hosts to TV shows such as South Park and the Simpsons, women are noticeably absent. The few women in comedy seem to adapt by becoming more striking and assertive, taking on culturally tagged "male" qualities in order to survive and become successful much like women in corporate America. It seems like in order to actually reshape the discourse, women would have to actively reshape their role within comedy (much like every other industry) to create laughter from a place on entertainment and not from the snarky roasting sessions that have come to characterize comedy now, I wonder if Kristeva's concept of internal revolt could come into play here? I would think she would argue too that women need to bring a certain degree of "intimacy" back to comedy in order for the process to create the internal/external revolt dynamic that she sees as so necessary.

The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter

When I started reading Cynthia and Julie Willett’s essay, “The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter: Bitches, Whores and Other Fumerists,” I was immediately draw back to the work of Lloyd early on in the semester as they discuss how all women (particularly feminists) aren’t associated with humor and how typically men are. In Lloyd’s work (“Reason, Gender, and Morality in the History of Philosophy”) a groundwork is placed for why women are associated with emotions and men are associated with reasons. As the Willetts say in their essays, there are plenty of serious issues that feminists try to deal with, and the seriousness of both the issues and their approach to them may create this image, but I see a large disconnect somewhere.

If men are seen as the people more associated with reason, how can they also be seen as the people with humor? Yes, a good joke sometimes requires well thought out rhetoric in word play or irony, but then again people also laugh at some very unintelligible things.

Another thing to consider: There have been multiple studies that show that women who smile seem more attractive (than woman who don’t) and men who don’t smile seem more attractive (than men who do), so why is it that men are more associated with a something that makes people smile? And why should attractiveness go against a general association?

People must really not know what they want. Do you even know yourself?

Erotic Powers of Laughter and the Guerilla Girls

Cynthia and Julia Willett argues that humor is a powerful tool for feminists and they define a new movement called fumerism. They refer to humor as the master’s tool and consider turning the tables by using humor as a liberation.  I do agree with their stand point but I also understand the feminist distancing from humour. “… coming of age with or soon after the second wave of feminism, it is hard for us not be well versed in the sad facts about hostile workplace climates, statistics on violence against women…” I often find myself troubled by these oppressive norms, as any other women, and even get depressed but I think bringing in humor also serves the cause rather than hindering it. For instance, I think Guerilla Girls, briefly mentioned in the article, are a phenomenal group of women artists who exposed the sexism of the art market by making fun of it. Their ironic work The Advantages of Being a Women Artist is my favorite. It lists the advantages of being a women artist as follows: Working without the pressure of success, not having to be in shows with men, having an escape from the art world in your 4 free-lance jobs, knowing your career might pick up after you are eighty, being reassured that whatever kind of art you make it will be labeled feminine, not being stuck at a tenured teaching position, seeing your ideas live on in the work of others, having the opportunity to choose between career and motherhood, not having to choke on those big cigars or paint in Italian suits, having more time to work when your mate dumps you for someone younger, being included in revised versions of art history, not having to undergo the embarrassment of being called a genius and getting your picture in the art magazines wearing a gorilla suit. The idea of the male genius is still present within the art world and this ideology still effects my and many other women artists’ career but spending some time looking at the works of Guerilla Girls always makes me feel better and continue doing what I do despite the ironies of life.

The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter

Sammy Karon
12 April 2015

            In “The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter,” Cynthia and Julia Willett evaluate the power dynamics behind comedy as a gender-relating tool. They reevaluate comedy from harmless fun to powerful communication, a way to “[unravel] and [disrupt] conventional norms through ridicule” in order to “free our thinking” (16). This argument has great potential for feminist theory, as it is easier to communicate ones needs and experiences to an open-minded listener, which is not the natural human state. Thus, by shaking things up and reestablishing communicative norms, comedy has the power to further feminist ideas into traditionally non-feminist arenas.

However, in their effort to reclaim comedy from men to women, the Willetts suggest comedy is some form of a privilege or a private good. They write, “But still one could see the temptation to slap back, through sharper, more pointed ridicule. This we would call turning the master’s tool so-to-speak against him” (17). This quote struck me with a new idea: comedy is a privilege that not all humans have access to. Being funny isn’t a privilege, but having the ability to communicate your ideas through humor and have the listener understand and laugh, is. I had never considered this before, but it now seems blatantly true.

Furthermore, if comedy is a privilege, then laughter is a gift. By withholding laughter, then, one gains power over another. By defining women as specifically unfunny, men limit the modes of communication for feminists. Comedy helps people connect to each other, build professional relationships, demonstrate understanding and trust. Without comedy, the feminist cause can only go so far. For this reason, I am grateful to the Willetts for mapping out the politics of laughter for those of us who had previously taken it for granted.