Warmongers

I was able to attend the presentation and discussion of the film "War Zone" facilitated by professor Shawn Townes, Ph.D. The film is a documentary created by / staring Maggie Hadleigh-West and concerns her and other women's experiences with men and sexual oppression/violence and cat-calling on different city streets. (New Orleans and New York City)

Professor Townes was great, and so was the film, but the overall experience was a mixed bag. I am happy that events like this are presented at Foothill - it is positive and important work to discuss the dynamics of gender and sexual oppression, especially as it lately seems to have fallen out of the forefront of people's minds, as opposed to the place it had in the 60's and 70's.

What was disappointing was the attitudes and ideas that some of the guys who showed up held, even after the movie, which at the end had a very explicit and horrifying replay of a 911 call of a woman being raped and the hour or more of discussion we had. It seems that they just weren't able to see the very real and direct correlation between harassing behavior such as objectifying women and cat-calling them on the street has with rape culture - like they aren't aware that rape culture exists. I for one had trouble sleeping after hearing the call on the film.

Something the filmmaker talked about was a memory of almost being abducted by a man on the street and her thought that it was "inevitable". Along those same lines, I find myself simultaneously not surprised by the attitudes expressed by the men in the room as well as their apparent decision to retain their attitudes about cat-calling. What's wrong with paying a woman a complement after all? It seems an impossible task to express how situations make something appropriate and not appropriate and how this behavior is still rooted in the belief that women are merely sexual objects to be admired and displayed for men and how that goes a step further in creating an environment in which women are unabashedly harassed and violated as a mater of course.

Givin' The Ol' Man the What For

BEECHER STOWE

" 'You oughtenter wish that to any human crittur. '

[...] 'Lor, if the devil don't get them, then what's he good for?' And Anunt Chloe covered her face with her checked apron, and begain to sob in good earnest
'Pray for them that 'spitefully use you, the good book says,' says Tom.

'Pray for 'em!' said Aunt Chloe; 'Lor, it's too tough! I can't pray for 'em.' " (Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin)

This is an exchange between Tom and his wife, Chloe. Here Tom has over heard a conversation that Chloe is having with little Jake and Andy about Mr. Haley and slavers in general. Tom overhears Jake and Andy say that they wish that they would burn in eternal damnation (or go to hell forever :o)). This quote opens with his chastisement of the boys for saying that and following is Chloe's interjection and response to Tom's disapproval. Tom thinks that wishing someone to damnation is wrong and is so terrible that it shouldn't be wished on anyone, not even slavers. Chloe disagrees with Tom and flatly says that if damnation isn't for people like the slavers, then hell isn't serving its purpose. Tom responds with a quote from the bible essentially saying to be merciful to people who are cruel and to not be so judgmental to which Chloe retorts that it is too difficult not to judge them and wish good for them.

This is an awesome exchange. Chloe saying "Lor, if the devil don't get them, what's he good for?" has got to be my favorite quote of the whole piece. Chloe is asserting her opinion as valid she is calling Tom out on his inability to stand up for himself and it's incredibly funny. This is a moment in the book where the exchange isn't as high-melodrama as it is in other places (although there is the crying.) and Chloe's reaction seems genuine; what is hell and the devil good for if it isn't for punishing bad people? That's what I thought the concept of hell was all about.

Fun bits aside, the real reason I wanted this to be my quote for this entry is that it is an example of one of the reasons why I think Uncle Tom's Cabin is valuable in feminist literature. This exchange between Chloe and Tom is just one of the many points in the book where the women of the book assert themselves. They all have their own opinions and thoughts and they freely and fearlessly express them. All the women in Uncle Tom's Cabin aren't necessarily wonderful characters, but each of them do what they feel is right when the time comes. Women have a very central and dominate role in this book.

"You ought to be ashamed, John! Poor, homeless, houseless creatures! It's a shameful, wicked, abominable law, and I'll break it,for one, the first time I get a chance; and I hope I shall have a chance, I do!" (Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin)

Here, Mary Bird is laying into her husband Senator John Bird for voting for the Fugitive Slave Law. She is not only expressing her opinion of the law, but chastising her husband for his role in passing it; more than that, she is boldly announcing her opposition to her husband and her intentions to disobey a law he helped to pass. It is amazing to see these type of exchanges because they aren't common place. Obviously it should be said that Stowe's own opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law clearly played a role in this passage, but she did choose a woman to express her feelings, where she could have very easily had a man express it. I think that is powerful and important to notice. One other thing is that this exchange parallels the one that Chloe and Tom have, illustrating the connections between the two groups as well as validating the relationships and ideas of black women.

Something else that is interesting is the role that men play. Stereotypically, men are supposed to be forceful and assertive. There isn't a lack of those sort of men in Uncle Tom's Cabin rather, there is a presence of men who aren't all about stereotypical male gender. Tom is a good example of this. He is gentle and nurturing. He is a caretaker for Eva and for people in general. St. Clare also exhibits some non-alpha male behavior when dealing with Ophelia. St. Clare buys Topsy for Ophelia. Sure, he is trying to show her that her racist feelings are wrong, but he is doing it in a way that caters to her. He isn't going around, bellowing and enforcing his ideas on her - instead he's come up with a way to prove his beliefs.

That Harriet is pretty cool.

Why I Hate to Love Emerson

EMERSON

"But let us deal with them greatly; let them make their way by the upper road, and not by the way of manufacturing public opinion, which lapses continually into expediency, and makes charlatans. All that is spontaneous is irresistible, and forever it is individual force that interests. I need not repeat to you,--your own solitude will suggest it,--that a masculine woman is not strong, but a lady is. " (Emerson, "Woman")


I've taken this from an address Emerson delivered entitled "Woman". Seems to me that he is saying that men should be nice to women and that they should provide separate avenues for women to pursue their interests and influence society. He goes on to say that this is what women want, they don't want to "dirty their hands" so to speak with politics because it will damage them and masculate them, which is undesirable. Taking a full role in politics detracts from their womanhood and that is unattractive.

I am so disappointed. I truly am. While I think it is way too strong to call Emerson a misogynist, (I don't see any evidence for that at all.) he is not completely on the side of women. I read this address and I can't believe that he wasn't booed off of the stage. He doesn't grasp the idea of equality completely - that want to take their place as true equals. He seems to be taking a "separate but equal" stance - that women have their role in society, and men have theirs and that a woman that would seek to realize her role and influence in society in the same manner as a man isn't as powerful and the very act detracts from her value and virtue. AHHH! On the flip side of this, what makes it okay that the men are made into "charlatans"? The whole idea he is expressing is that women can't take it - they are too delicate. This very idea is sexist in that it still puts women in a "less than" position. He misses the point, and maybe a lot of other people did as well at the time. Still, what is confusing is that he says this after earlier in the address he says:

"One truth leads in another by the hand; one right is an accession of strength to take more. And the times are marked by the new attitude of Woman; urging, by argument and by association, her rights of all kinds, in short, to one-half of the world;--as the right to education, to avenues of employment, to equal rights of property, to equal rights in marriage, to the exercise of the professions and of suffrage. " (Emerson, "Woman")

Here he is saying that strengthening the rights of women strengthens everyone. And goes on to have a solid stance that women should have equal rights to general institutions and tangible items. I find myself frustrated an confused. He publishes and supports essays like Fuller's "The Great Lawsuit" in The Dial but then he gets right on up and says, "yes, women need rights, but let's not kid ourselves, they can't take being political like men can - we should protect the delecate things!" What in the world is that? I can't completely decide if Emerson is against women having FULL equal rights (including their societal roles) and thereby just not getting the concept or if he is against it because he is against politics in general, which would follow the pattern in his life. I don't see how he could be good friends with people like Margaret Fuller and Wendell Phillips or even Thoreau with the lack of follow though. I suppose the point of this, is that I love his work otherwise, but I can't really respect him on the point of "the woman question". His participation in the movement seems obligatory at best and it's hard to reconcile his ideas of the equality of men and slavery and those he held for women's rights. However, his level of participation seems to go along with his general principles and disposition and I do respect him for that.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. "Woman". American Transcendentalism Web. 09 Nov. 2006