Adrogyny:

What is Adrogyny?

One of the biggest and most prevalent mistakes in Western culture is the idea that there are two separate and "opposite" genders, masculinity and femininity. This gender dualism is not only false and without any factual or scientific support, but also very harmful. One strategy to overcome this wrongness is the idea of androgyny, by which masculinity and femininity are not conceived as opposite ends of one spectrum, but as two separate spectrums: you can be or have both at once (or neither), not only the one or the other. Thus, you can combine the various components of masculinity and femininity in any number of ways, according to your individual preferences, needs and nature. Should we then strive for an androgynous, individualist, highly diverse culture?

One genre of culture that celebrates androgyny is in the fashion world. As society's boundaries have changed, so too have the masculine-feminine boundaries blurred. From ambiguous sexual and physical attributes to a focus on gender-crossing fashion, we look at the changing face of androgyny - and how women's fashion is taking a masculine turn.

“Learn a playful dandyism and you will become the magnet for people’s dark, unrealised yearnings,” 

advises Robert Greene in his book The Art of Seduction. 

The ‘dandyism’ Greene is referring to isn’t prescriptive to a style of dress

 but rather to an underlying ambiguity. 

It’s about mixing masculine and feminine attributes. 

In other words, it’s about androgyny.

Compulsory Heterosexuality

Adrienne Rich argues that heterosexuality is a violent political institution making way for the "male right of physical, economical, and emotional access" to women. She urges women to direct their energies towards other women rather than men, and portrays lesbianism as an extension of feminism. She calls for what she describes as a greater understanding of lesbian experience, and believes that once such an understanding is obtained, these boundaries will be widened and women will be able to experience the "erotic" in female terms.

In order to gain this physical, economical, and emotional access for women, Rich lays out a framework developed by Kathleen Gough (both a social anthropologist and feminist) that lists “eight characteristics of male power in archaic and contemporary societies”. Along with the framework given, Rich sets to define the term lesbianism by giving two separate definitions for the term. Lesbian existence, she suggests, is “both the fact of the historical presence of lesbians and our continuing creation of the meaning of that existence. The other, lesbian continuum, refers to the overall “range - through each woman’s life and throughout history - of woman-identified experiences, not simply the fact that a woman has had or consciously desired genital sexual experience with another woman” . Below are the characteristics in which male power has demonstrated the suppression of female sexuality.

• 1. To deny women their own sexuality: destruction of sexuality displayed throughout history in sacred documents.
• 2. Forcing male sexuality upon women: rape, incest, torture, a constant message that men are better, and superior in society to women.
• 3. Exploiting their labor to control production: women have no control over choice of children, abortion, birth control and furthermore, no access to knowledge of such things.
• 4. Control over their children: lesbian mothers seen as unfit for motherhood, malpractice in society and the courts to further benefit the man.
• 5. Confinement: women unable to choose their own wardrobe (feminine dress seen as the only way), full economic dependence on the man, limited life in general.
• 6. Male transactions: women given away by fathers as gifts or hostesses by the husband for their own benefit, pimping women out.
• 7. Cramp women’s creativeness: male seen as more assimilated in society (they can participate more, culturally more important).
• 8. Men withholding attainment of knowledge: “Great Silence” (never speaking about lesbian existence in history), discrimination against women professionals.

Saussure Semiotics Video

Saussure saw the sign!

Saussure offered a 'dyadic' or two-part model of the sign. He defined a sign as being composed of:
• a 'signifier' (signifiant) - the form which the sign takes; and
• the 'signified' (signifié) - the concept it represents.

Virginia Woolf...

would not have been a fan of Twilight. Based on my research of her, I'm pretty confident in my assumption that she would be ashamed that teenage girls think this series of "books" is acceptable literature. I follow a pretty hilarious Tumblr account called WoolfWriter and my favorite entry is this one.

I'll add more to this, I'm just super tired and honestly, who wants to read incoherent babbling?

The Familiarity of the Unfamiliar

NPR posted an article about music, specifically Adele, and how we as listeners crave a perfect mixture unfamiliarity and familiarity. The perfect mix is called the Goldilocks zone. While reading the article, I couldn't help but be reminded of Freud's argument about the uncanny. Freud hypothesized that people were searching for new and original ideas in every aspect of life, but also craving the comfort of familiar and known ideas.

I've provided the link below if you'd like to read the article. Also read the comments, which are almost as interesting as the original article!

Adele & the Goldilocks zone

Hurston & DuBois

In our readings for today, DuBois urged African Americans to act respectfully when they finally gained equality like their white counterparts. I couldn't help but think of other leaders of similar movements would be happy with the way the latest generations act in today's society. For example, would Susan B. Anthony be okay with the fact that women can now vote, our gender is the least likely to utilize that right? Or would Virginia Woolf be happy that now women writers have the opportunity to be educated and listened/published, women of today admire Stephanie Meyer of Twilight fame? I think not.

I'm not just talking about women. I think everyone should think about our predecessors and how they would feel about the way we're either abusing or our apathy about the rights they worked so hard to achieve...