Chris Phillibert: "Dominant groups protecting themselves from changing tides" (6)

If a group has a majority share of power, a rational move from the perspective of an observer would be for that group to use its power to make sure that they are able to keep the power they have and maintain relevancy in society no matter how much it changes. This action is how I define "an anticipatory strategy adopted by dominant groups which are threatened with marginalization or exclusion from an emerging nationally-imagined community." With the resignation of Pope Benedict xvi, an event in the Catholic church not seen for centuries, I believe there is the beginning of the Catholic church adopting an anticipatory strategy to combat the threat of the marginalization of their group. Recent statistics researched by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life find that "While those Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion have seen the greatest growth in numbers as a result of changes in affiliation, Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes. While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic." With this dramatic decrease in membership to the Catholic church, many Catholic leaders most likely see the election of a new Pope as an avenue to pursue anticipatory strategy against marginalization.

While the raw data doesn't offer an explanation for events, I speculate that many who have left the Catholic faith in America see it as outdated. Catholic principles have long been associated with conservatism and traditional values. In the film "Amigo", we see another way the Catholic Church asserts itself as an authority in various societies. Before the Americans came into the Filipino village, the Catholic priest was locked up and not even on the social ladder. After the Americans come into the village and the priest is freed, he clings to hegemonic American authority in the village as an interpreter. This action by the priest represents the Catholic faith clinging to hegemonic authorities in various societies to push their doctrine by extension. This applies to modern-day America because Catholic values often are represented in conservative social doctrine in government. This is the Catholic church asserting its own authority by extension of the powerful if not quite hegemonic conservative base of American politics.  In a changing America, especially one put off by the ideas of extremism expressed by some political conservatives in government, a Pope that is unyielding and closed-minded in the enforcement of Catholic doctrine and ideas would most likely be disastrous for membership of the Catholic church in America. The Catholic church would be more likely to avoid rapid marginalization in America if the Cardinals elected a more liberal Pope who acknowledges the more liberal mindset of America at the moment. The Pope might also need to be more liberal with regard to secrecy and accountability in the church as well. Especially in the recent international string of scandals in the Catholic church with regard to priests raping and sexually violating little boys, the new Pope might do well to show the world that the Catholic church is not a hypocrite and holds accountable those who commit these horrible crimes. While not all of these things may happen right away or at all, all of these things are anticipatory strategies that the Catholic church can consider if it hopes to maintain relevancy and influence in the United States.

I think the key factor in determining whether or not groups will survive marginalization is awareness of the situation. If the potentially marginalized group is well aware of the changes underway in the United States and explores all their options in avoiding marginalization and then rationally choose a course of action, they are more likely to avoid marginalization. However, if this group deceives themselves in order to appease their leaders, ignores cries from followers for reform, and doesn't solve conflict or scandal within its organization, then that group will almost definitely experience marginalization and eventually irrelevancy from a society in which they were once a prominent entity.

Kadijah Webster; Blog 5: Women in the Media

First off, I would like to start off with comparing La Noire De to one of my favorite movies Breakfast at Tiffany's.  When watching this film in class, I noticed that Diouana carried herself in a more graceful way.  She liked to be "pretty" and to wear dresses just for the heck of it; it seemed like.  Diouana wanted job and when she finally was hired, she believed it was her ticket to France.  She would be able to roam the streets and observe a new foreign land.  However, she ends up becoming enslaved by her job and never got to explore as she hoped.  Diouana ended up being stuck and the only way she felt she could escape was death.
Although, Holly Golighty was also trapped in a world that she wished to escape to, only Holly did not end up taking her own life.  She used to be a farm girl with an completely different name, Lula Mae Barnes, and left her family to go to New York.  While watching this film, one would think that she was living the life.  This life, however, was only a material one.  You end up learning that she is basically a mistress and survives off of money from different men.  Just like any other typical Hollywood film, love ends up to be her only way off and the audience can guess that she will be fine now that she has found "true love."
These two films were significantly different.  Ousmane Sembene put forth a film that had far more potential of being a true story, while Truman Capote made his story seen more glamorous; at least Blake Edwards directed it to be so.  The films convey women in two completely different ways.  First off you have black versus white.  Holly was able to walk the streets and wear a different dress everyday, while Diouana was stuck in doors cleaning up after others with no freedom whatsoever.  Holly had no job, just her "assets" but she is still a widely recognized woman for her "grace" or "glamour."  Then there's Diouana.  She worked all day nonstop, but was still called lazy by her mistress.  I had never heard of Black Girl until viewing it in class, but I own a copy of Breakfast at Tiffany's.  When comparing these movies, I can't help but to think of reality versus illusion.  Also, I am not bashing my favorite actress Audrey Hepburn.  She did write the film, she was just doing her job.
I would like to end this blog by comparing the two man women we heard from in Who Killed Vincent Chin?.  You have Vincent's mother who was obviously pained at her son's death and did whatever she could to fight for his justice.  On the other hand there was Ron's wife who, as a mother herself, did not even find her husband the least bit of wrong for murdering another woman's child.  She seemed almost naive through the entire documentary and believed that Ron was 100% innocent.  Vincent's mother can be viewed as a strong woman while I believe that Ron's wife seems as a stereotypical housewife who would stick by her husband for anything; not necessarily fight for him, but at least stick by his side.

Rachel Choi Blog 5

A nation cannot be formed without women.  One would think that the development of a nation would put particular emphasis on the women but in imagined communities, they are not given special interest or concern.  The focus is put on men as though they would be the only ones capable of helping form a nation. The few times Anderson addresses women are left short.  For example, he speaks of the new reading public, he adds that women were the least of those who read since they would not have been able to read latin.  He also mentions that women were used for political reasons as monarchs would marry nobility.  I invite you to read this article I found on an interview with Benedict Anderson
(https://www.uio.no/english/research/interfaculty-research-areas/culcom/news/2005/anderson.html(
If you scroll down you will find the heading Invisible Women.   On a question asked about women's role in the evolution he answers "My books give the impression that there don’t exist any women in the world. I have heard and read of women’s role in nationalism, but as yet I haven’t found a way of writing about it."  Anderson admits that women's role in the evolution of nationalism is ignored.  So, what does it take to show that women play a more important role in society?

In Black Girl, main character Diouana takes care of her appearance and appears to be proud to be a woman.  But as she is given tasks like a slave, she realizes that the probability of her reasons for coming to France would not work out.  Diouana speaks back to her employer with non-verbal actions.  She continues to wear clothes that are not fit for a maid.  She puts on a different persona though she is carrying out the duties of a maid.  When Diouana refuses to work, the wife of the family has no choice but to pick up Diouana’s slack.  This solidifies the women’s role in nearly all societies as caretaker.  The importance of being caretaker is often overlooked as it is considered given when in reality, women stand for the roots of a society. 

What I noticed is that a lot of what Diouana is said is shared with the audience through her thoughts.  These thoughts are not actually shared out loud in the film.  The audience only knows what is going on inside her head.  She reiterates the fact that she would lead a better life than the family that she is working for.  Her thinking takes a sharp turn as she realizes that she has her own particular glass ceiling.  And the reality of the position she is stuck in causes her to react in a drastic way.  This brings us to the question of, who is actually listening?

Spivak says that the subaltern cannot speak.  The subaltern’s voice, in this case Diouana’s attempt to speak comes from the scene in which she slits her throat.  One would expect Diouana to take the money and return to Dakar but she does something that is out of the ordinary and doing so, shows that she broke out of the norms of a typical subservient.  But, who exactly paid attention to her action? The film showed people playing by the beach, though I at first thought it was a weird scene to cut to right before showing the newspaper.  I realized that they probably showed that scene to show that no one really paid attention to Diouana’s death.  

In Twilight: Los Angeles, Anna Deavere shows her form of breaking out of the norm as she puts on different personas to shed light on the LA riots.  As she steps out of a comfort zone that many choose to stay in, Anna tackles the riots with several perspectives. Anna’s gender is never forgotten as every time there is a new scene, the audience registers that this is a female taking on the role of a male.  Anna chose to define her own lines in what a woman stands for.  As she plays with the most obvious barrier in mankind, gender, she shows that traditional roles are of the past and gives womanhood a new meaning.   Womanhood is about breaking traditional barriers and making advances in society in order to level the playing field.

What is it to be a woman? By Tamara Middleton

So far we have seen various women who are empowered in different ways. In Twilight, Anna Deavere Smith was very vocal using the power of voice and theatrical talent to convey a very powerful message. I think it takes a very strong woman to accomplish what Smith did, she allowed herself to be a vessel for so many stories and convey the experience of the L.A. riots.

In Black Girl, we see Duoina who is empowered in a completely different way. She doesn't speak. As we have discussed in class Duoina is a subaltern, but I would disagree with the consensus in class and say that she is able to speak. Throughout the entire movie she doesn't speak vocally to the other characters she only narrates for the audience. However through this action she masters the proverb that “actions speak louder than words”. In this film Duoina has enough with being enslaved by the family that she was supposed to be working for. In the end of the movie she slits her throat in the bathtub. I feel that by doing so she sends the message that she cannot be bought, and I believe that the family understands that message at the end of the movie.

Lastly we have, Mrs. Chin in Who Killed Vincent Chin. She is vocal but not as vocal as smith and not as silent as Duoina. Mrs. Chin is empowered because she has the ability to use her emotion to sway her audience and relay her message. I think it is very difficult to be so vulnerable in front of so many people, but Mrs. Chin does whatever she feels will bring justice to her son.

These women are completely different but that is not to say that one is stronger than the other. They are all empowered and they have all touched us in the classroom. I believed that what it means to be a woman is very complex and broad. There is a breath of ways to be a part of womanhood. 

Nathan's Post #5: Womanhood looking for privilege

Every minority has said to themselves at one point or another in their lives "I wish I was white". Especially after going through history and seeing all the accounts of white people getting their way, its unrealistic to not want to be in that position. I thought that, as a black male, that other minorities felt that way too. Until this past week I had never really thought that the subaltern can actually be a woman, even a white woman. Hegemonic feminism created the modern woman, but for women to get more privilege in life they may need to divide and conquer.

The traditional idea of femininity comes from a long line of being subordinate to the male. The idea of feminism grew from print capitalism. The women of the "reading class" before print were just servants, but print allowed them to see others in the same position. After years of print capitalism women were consuming information, and with information comes rebellion. Women spoke against the hegemony. The modern women began to look at her hegemonic position and  speak. The subaltern spoke and rebelled against all the things that typified the hegemonic women. With the globalization of the world through print women naturally felt united in their movement. Third World Feminism allowed me to see that women should not have a united front. Women represent a a slice of the world but their are social and cultural differences. For women to further their feminist movement they need to find their niches and fight for their specific needs.

The modern woman is a function of her past. She is rebellious to certain old ideals. To move on to a more ubiquitous society women may need to acknowledge the difference in the group. Noticing the differences will allow womanhood to create niche groups for each voice that wants to be heard.

I think it’s strange that the week we’re supposed to blog about women and womanhood we watched La Noire De… Yes, the title means “the black girl of,” but just because the main character is female does not make this a film about women. The main issue of this movie is race. It’s about colonization and slavery. In class we discussed the idea of Third World Cinema. When someone in the United States makes a movie about a culture in Asia, it is not Third Cinema. I don’t think Ousmane Sembene, a man, should be our insight into women – even if his main character is a woman. This reminds me of Isben’s A Doll’s House, which I hate. The women presented in The Colored Museum are also a man’s presentation. I think this only emphasizes the patriarchy found in many societies.

None of the films we have watched so far have really been about sex. We’ve been really focused on the race part of sex and race. I can’t help but think of that as a trend in American history. Black men got the right to vote before women of any race. Barack Obama is president, not Hilary Clinton. The class has talked so many times about whether we can actually relate to what other people are going to if we don’t have the same experiences as them. We can empathize, but can we really know? Whose story is this? Whose culture is this? Juxtaposition has been a big theme of this class, and the juxtaposition of this question about womanhood with films and plays created by men only reminds me of the sometimes subtle seconding women face. 

Rachel Fugate: Blog #5 I Am A Woman

I am a Woman...

 

The most recent interpretation that I would have from class would be what we watched from "Who Killed Vincent Chin". I was very drawn to the mother in this movie. I think I was confused by her motivations. To me it seemed like she was being pulled along by everyone else in this campaign for justice. She was a woman that had lost her son and was distraught and did not understand why justice was not being served. She didn't seem to understand why the man who had killed her son was not in prison. I was struck by the wife who I believe was the one who pushed the campaign along. She seemed so strong and determined, while the mother just seemed to want the entire thing to be finished. Something that was mentioned in class that struck me was thinking that they may have been using the campaing for the civil rights and racial reason. I kinda get that sense somewhat when I was watching the movie when I saw the would-be daughter-in-law but no so much with the mother.

The mother also reminded me of the Duana from Black Girl. They both seemed to be in that state of thinking where they wondered why the world was not fair. Why did Mrs. Chin's son have to die. Why was Duana not being treated like she thought she should. Duana found a way out through death and she believed that was the way she could speak out about her situation. Mrs. Chin was a more public voice even though she was apart of that group that was generally under-represented. Like we learned from Spivak, who asked us if the Sub-alterns voice actually is being heard. I think in the case of both these women that when they speak out it is not actually being heard, but the message that is getting across is that they are speaking out not actually what they are trying to say. For Duana, she was a black woman and that was even mentioned but no one actually found out that she was being mistreated by her mistress. The same case with Mrs. Chin, where everyone thought that she was just trying to promote chinese people's civil rights, when all she really wanted was justice for her son.

I found that this idea of womanhood was being the idea of being misunderstood and misrepresented. They turned Mrs. Chin into an icon. A figure that could be put in front of people to create an emotional responce. Anderson always seems to be getting across the point of how the system work for and against certain groups of people depending on how they are viewed in the public perception. Such as the heiarchy that is created by how we are born. I was born a woman and contrary to my previous misconstrued beliefs that when I grew up I could do anything without being subjected to the fact that I am a woman. So has being a woman affected me?

Brittany Liu's Blog #5 Oppression and Womanhood

The original French title of the film Black Girl translates into "someone's black girl."  Already the film targets the degradation and manipulation of someone regarding race and gender.  The lead character Diouana believes she will lead a better life for her and her family by working as a servant for a family in France, but unfortunately she is treated more like a slave.  The wife of the family is Diouana's foil character.  She embodies the original French title by treating Diouana as if she were a possession.  Diouana loses her identity in France, which is replaced by that "black girl."  Diouana's oppression from the wife is reflected in the mise en scene of the frames depicting her life in France.  The high contrast of her dark skin with her white dress show the tension between her and her white master, while the black polka dots on the dress represent Diouana's struggle to hold on to her identity.  The walls are even stark white and the floors have black stripes, perhaps guiding her away from this oppression.  Although Diouana and her master are two very different people, they share the limiting role of a woman as merely the caretaker and breeder.  When Diouana refuses to work, the white mother has to assume her role.  They are the creators and caretakers of the family: the core root of a nation and the strongest bond among humanity.  

A glimpse of the start of a family is seen in The Colored Museum during the "Permutations" scene.  Similar to Black Girl, oppression and assimilation are at the center of the performance.  The young girl has sexual relations with the garbage man, who represents the history of slavery, whom her mamma does not want her associating with.  She is punished and locked in a closet because she wants her to assimilate with the white supremacy.  The egg shell is a symbol of the white supremacy that the colored baby has to break free from in order to be born: to live freely.  Like the still of the baby that was projected in class, birth equates with life and freedom, but the umbilical cord is also a reminder that we are connected to our ancestors and sometimes that leads to immediate oppression.  The question is whether she will actually assimilate better with the nation by marrying a white man?  Similarly, in Black Girl Diouana took the job with the white family in search of glamor and power, but this made her more of an outcast and caused her much pain because her family was not with her.

In Imagined Communities Anderson rarely mentions the role of women in the creation of a nation. But what he does mention regards the arranged marriages between rulers and noblewomen or princesses (Anderson 76).  Women were merely the connectors for political gain.  In a way, the mother in "Permutations" also tries to arrange the young girl's marriage with oppression so that she can gain from society.  In Black Girl Diouana becomes "married" to the white family and in turn is oppressed to the point of death.  I don't believe Anderson intentionally gave little information on the role of women in forming a nation because when nations were forming a woman's role in society was not valued enough for him to write a whole chapter on them.  Thankfully, women have broken free from the stereotype of just the breeder and caretaker and I believe this is reflected in today's cinema, which features one of my favorites, Zero Dark Thirty.     
 
Here's a little side article I found on "Why Women in Hollywood Can't Get Film Financing"

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-21/why-women-in-hollywood-cant-get-film-financing#p1

Blog 5 - Tatiana Bull

          Benedict Anderson describes the wives of reading class as "servant girded" during the 1840s.  Usually during this time, if a woman was poor she would most likely work in domestic service, in a factory, as a governess, or as a maid.  She would work hard for long hours at a time.  A lot of men during this time did not earn enough to support a wife.  We can see the similarities in Anderson's book and La Noire De.  Diouana came from a poor and impoverished family who was given the opportunity to work for a wealthy french family as a governess in Dakar.  But when they moved to a new place, the couple treated her as a house servant, not as the governess she once was back in Dakar.  She is told to cook, clean and serve as an object of fascination byt the couples' vistors.  The female employer however does nothing.  She does not do anything that falls under "what is expected of a woman" during this time... she kind of just sits there. In fact, I don't even know if she has a job So we don't really see any gender bias in this movie, just racism.  However, Diouana still dresses royaly, while doing her chores in attempt to retain some glimmer of hope that she and her female employee will go out and shop.
         It's kind of hard for me to choose another movie that displays womanhood, because I did not really see any of the other movies talk about it or have anything to really do with it.  I noticed a lot of people talking about the sketch with the lady and the egg.  They say that this symbolizes womanhood, but I really took it as symbolism for the future of black America.  But if I had to choose someone who represented a woman well, it would be Vincent Chin's mom. Throughout the whole movie she did not back down and she continued to fight for justice. I think she is a strong woman and an outstanding mother.  Much like any mother, she sought out the best for her son, so she brought him to America. She is a loving and caring mother and she did the best she could for her son.

Sarah Smith Blog 5: Scandalous Women

It's a familiar refrain that most of our history has been written by men. Speaking as a woman, it is a shame. Speaking as a realist, it's just the way things were. Women were rarely the major players in history, so it makes sense that they don't play into history to the extent that men do. For Anderson, women take a backseat role in the formation of a nation. Anderson mentions the genealogy of Jesus according to Matthew, and it's important to note that women are in fact included in this genealogy: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Uriah's wife (Bathsheba), and Mary. It is primarily men, but five women are a part of this history. They are often forgotten in the midst of all of the men--and that is true in history across the board. The women who do make it into the genealogy of Jesus are notable: Tamar disguised herself as a prostitute and tricked her father-in-law into having sex with her after her husband died, Rahab was a prostitute, Ruth was a widow whose story is shrouded in mystery and sexual euphemism, Bathsheba was an adulteress, and Mary claimed to be a virgin despite giving birth to a son. They made history because their stories were exceptional--or, a better word: scandalous.

For all people, but particularly for women, scandal sells. Women make history because they broke out of gender norms, or norms of proper decorum. As Laurel Thatcher Ulrich (and later Marilyn Monroe and Eleanor Roosevelt) said, "Well-behaved women seldom make history." As I considered the role of women in the films we've watched, I saw truth in this. Several of my classmates have already mentioned the woman with the egg in Colored Museum as well as Diouanna in Black Girl. In both cases, there was scandal. The girl with the egg professes to her mother shutting her up in a dark room for her pregnancy, hiding some dark secret. Diouanna goes to France in hope of luxury and glamour, and ends up slitting her own throat in the bathtub as a final attempt to let the subaltern speak. These women stand out because they are scandalous, they oppose the norm. They are not "well-behaved" as the saying goes.

I wanted to focus, too, on women who did not break out of norms. For me, the woman who I was most moved by, challenged by, and who most penetrated my thoughts was in fact Diouanna's mistress. She is by no means the subaltern speaking, but there was something about her that struck me. Perhaps it was the fact that she is oppressed in being the oppressor: to maintain her social standing she oppresses Diouanna. She is not happy, though. Her dissatisfaction is very different from Diouanna's, and I think it is because, at its heart, her dissatisfaction is self-imposed. Diounna needs to work. She needs a job. We know from the many maids waiting on the corner that jobs were hard to come by. For Diouanna, work meant necessary oppression. Her only other option was the uncertainty of hoping for a better job and facing unemployment. Diouanna's mistress, on the other hand, does not have to be the oppressor. Her livelihood does not depend on oppressing Diouanna. She doesn't have to oppress Diouanna. The mistress is in effect choosing to be oppressed by being Diouanna's oppressor. What a mess. It makes me very sad for the mistress, who is so blinded by her vision of what success ought to look like that she chooses misery over joy, and in the process makes others miserable. In the end, though, history paints her as the oppressor. Her own oppression is nothing compared to that of Diouanna, and history, as always, favors the scandal: Diouanna's scandal is the heart of the story, and the woman is painted as little more than selfish and cold. If Diouanna had not killed herself, but returned to Dakar, who would I feel worse for? That is the question I'm left with. The woman has created her own state of misery, and I don't envy that.

In the creation of a nation, women have typically played a small role. In the films we have watched, it is the women tied to scandal whose stories are printed most firmly in our memories. I think of Vincent Chin's mother, and the sadness I felt as I watched her sob at her son's grave. Perhaps the general role of women in the creation of nation has been to stir men's hearts to action: the death of Diouanna calls the master of the house to recognize his failings; Vincent Chin's mother pulls on the heartstrings of racial activists; the flight attendant in Colored Museum gave me the chills as she walked through African American history. It will be interesting to watch and see whether this role shifts as women continue to strive toward a world status equivalent to that of men.

Jessie Ede Blog 5

I have been looking forward to discussing gender and gender representation in this class because I was naive enough to believe when registering that the "sex" in the course title simply referred to gender. Anderson's brief references to women tie both meanings of the word together in his discussion of sexual politics and arranged marriages as a means for power preservation. While not explicitly stated, women have commonly been used as a vehicle for diplomacy in the basest form possible. Anderson's discussion of nation-building up to this point has not focused on the role of women at all and has largely used masculine pronouns. I do not think this connotes disrespect, but I think it is easy for those writing and theorizing about the history of nation-building to focus almost exclusively on men since they hold hegemony in the global system.
In La Noire de..., the title character is female. She is treated extremely poorly, however, and is a silenced woman. I disagree with Mayssa's assertion that Diouana's suicide represents her as weak and vulnerable, however. I think her suicide instead shows not only an extension of the effects of subjugation and colonialism on a person (as Diouana could be a symbol for colonized Africa), but also strength and a commitment to her own conception of herself. By rebraiding her hair and giving back the money because she cannot be bought, Diouana is asserting her own identity in her death even though suicide silences her. She dies herself.
Who Killed Vincent Chin? contains interview pieces with many different women from a variety of walks of life. I find it incredibly interesting that the filmmakers, both female, kept the bits featuring sexism (ex.: the scene where the workers are picking up lunch and sexually harass the waitress; frankness about the strip club after work culture pervading the area) without any commentary - showing those parts is enough to set the scene and also make the viewer just a little bit uncomfortable with what they are hearing and witnessing. The film also juxtaposed Lily Chin and Helen Zia, two Asian females, with Roger Ebens and Michael Nitz or the prosecutor, all white males. Mrs. Chin's grief is palpable, and Ms. Zia comes across as incredibly intelligent and articulate. I think this film does more to place them in a position of power or positive light than it does with either of the dancers interviewed or Mrs. Ebens. Mrs. Ebens is very quiet most of the time, and does seem pained by what happened but still sticks by her husband's story. The dancers provide stories that are somewhat contradictory, but I do not think the film did anything to make them appear less credible due to their profession. I also think it is interesting that the jury that convicted Mr. Ebens and Mr. Nitz was majority female, and the jury that overturned the conviction was majority male - I hope someone in the class has read more about jury trends than I have and perhaps some connection between gender makeup of juries and sentencing exists. I think Who Killed Vincent Chin? portrayed a spectrum of women, though I am at more of a loss to argue for its portrayal of womanhood. Our class should have a discussion about not the facts of the case or where justice derailed, but the representations present of different people whose lives intersected.

Matt Raimondo, Blog #5

In Anderson's Imagined Communities, Anderson seems to rarely touch upon the subject of women or what constitutes womanhood.  He does mention the scenario of women in a political role, such as ruling monarchs taking foreign princesses for political ties, but Anderson says little beyond that.  I know that this has been touched upon by bloggers below this post, but it is interesting to think that a book about nationhood seems to have such little substance on women or womanhood.  I do think that the films we have seen recently address this topic better than Anderson does.  

Over the past few weeks, we have started to explore the concept of women and womanhood through our film experiences as well as our discussions.  I think that the films we have seen have really allowed us to remove ourselves from sitting in a classroom and place us right in the film on the projector.  For example, in La Noire de (Black Girl) we witness interactions between French citizens and a Senegalese woman named Diounna.  We see how these African women lined up in the streets for a simple maid job, and we also see how poorly Diounna was treated by her mistress.  To me, this ties us back into the previous film Roots, where we see how poorly white Americans treated African slaves, particularly in the scene where Kunta Kite is whipped; this scene screams of de-humanization.  I see the same thing when Diounna is serving the mistress and her guests - they speak of Diounna as if she is some sort of animal or exotic import.  I think that this dehumanization not only speaks of racial attitudes present in France in the 1950s, but also of a thinly-veiled lower status reserved for women as well.

Conversely, I feel that women actually play a more prominent role in the documentary Who Killed Vincent Chinn, in part because the directors of the film are women.  I also feel that Chinn's mother plays a huge role, namely because she is featured throughout the film after her son's death.  She serves as a strong contrast to Vincent Chinn's alleged killers, who seem to have little sympathy or remorse for the loss of Ms Chinn's son.  Despite only speaking broken English, I feel that Ms Chinn represents a strong depiction of a woman, especially when viewed in context with the circumstances surrounding the Chinn family.  Ms Chinn came here for a better life with her son, yet she loses him in an act unbefitting of her new home; she is often seen asking, "what's wrong with this country?".  The Chinn family was living in a city hostile towards Asian Americans, particularly with the success of Japanese cars in the American markets; despite being Chinese, disgruntled Americans simply grouped all Asians into this "Japanese" category.  Ms Chinn is also a single mother in a foreign country, vesting all of her hopes on moving in with her son and his fiance which, of course, never occurs.  Yet despite all this, Ms Chinn still asked the tough questions, namely posing a what-if scenario if two Chinese men beat a white man to death.  Ms Chinn basically says, "this happened to my son because he is Chinese", which would not have been easy to say in 1980s America.

It seems that the trending topic so far on this blog post regards stereotyping women, and in some films that may be the case.  Mayssa's piece referencing the disturbing nature of the woman laying the egg is on point: it does seem that women are being painted as reproductive beings above all else.  Perhaps the director is trying to tell us something here, that women are being portrayed in this negative, stereotypical light, and that we should be disturbed by it.  Maybe we are supposed to have this negative reaction to these stereotypical scenes, and in-turn we are better at recognizing stereotypes in our future life interactions.  

John Wang Blog 5

In Anderson’s work women are curiously absent from the formation of nations. Traditionally this may very well have been true. Men made the decisions and carried out the actions. Women served in a support role providing cooking, comfort, and children. This can be seen in Black Girl. Duana is portrayed in a very helpless light. Seemingly strong-willed, she still gave up on life when it was clear there was no shame of taking the money she earned to go back home and try to change things. Instead, she did not see that she could change the situation and committed suicide. Her decision definitely came through years of imprinting that she as a woman could do little to change the way things were.

More recently, women have been shown as able to impact nations. In Who Killed Vincent Chin? although the mother is not well spoken she will not take no for an answer and through her persistence, she started a large Asian American movement that stood together for their rights.

What I believe about women in nations is this: they have always been important, but it is only now they are starting to take the spotlight. Behind every great man, there was probably a loving woman or a complete bitch that broke his heart. Now in our consumerist society, women have gained and will continue to gain more and more power and eventually, women may try to be in total control, but it probably won’t work.

Ashley Murphy, Blog 5

After reading Mayssa's post, I would like to respond to her questions at the end of her blog and raise some of my own, in addition to adding my own personal take on the works we have studied thus far. 

To begin, Anderson's mentioning, or lack thereof, of women fewer times than I can count on one hand demonstrates that even as late as 1983,conclusions could not be drawn pertaining to the role of women in the formation of nations. Like Mayssa mentioned, it seems that women may have the utmost responsibility of producing children, and even better if she can produce a male. But women do so much more than just make babies! Some women don't even have children so does this render them useless? Absolutely not! As I embark on my own journey as a woman to find a career, I am experiencing firsthand how the playing field isn't necessarily level, especially since my major, government, is male-dominated. 

In the montage of skits in The Colored Museum, women did play stereotypical roles. Why not have a women as a doctor or a lawyer, instead of a flight attendant, or some ambivalent young woman getting ready for a date? Why was there not a woman in a role of power? Is it to further demonstrate the lack of control of the colored race during the pieces? Perhaps. 

As I was reading the interview that Sembene, the filmmaker who crafted the first African film, La Noire de..., I was struck by a particular comment.
"There are many such instances [of improvisation on location] with women in my films, and it's often with women that I find myself doing the most improvisation. I usually give them more freedom than I give the guys."
I wondered, could scenes from Black Girl have been improvised? This quote interested me because it seemed to counter what I expected - I would have thought he would give men more leeway in their performances on the screen. Something that I particularly noticed throughout the film was the black and white imagery. Of course the film was in black and white, but many of the textures and backdrops were in these binary colors. For instances, the dress that Diouana wears for most of the film is black and white. I recall a particular scene of a close up of the floor, and the tiles were black and white. Further, there was the color of Diouana's skin compared to her superiors. These contrasts showed how there was and perhaps still is a primary system of thinking. Either you are or you aren't. Black or white. Rich or poor. 

When I think about Spivak's Can the Subaltern Speak?, my answer is no. If a subaltern commits an action or says something, and no one pays attention or notices, were the actions worth it? Was Diouana right to have killed herself? Does that matter? I guess my question is, "So what?" If the subaltern can't really speak, even if dramatic actions are taken and no one listens, what is accomplished  Who cares? If the peers of the subaltern don't do anything, then what can be done? 

Mayssa Chehata, Blog #5: (The deterioration of ) Women in Anderson and our Films thus far

** Sorry in advance for how long this post is

What is woman’s role in forming a nation? I think we can all agree that women do not come up often in Imagined Communities. Some might say this is because Anderson speaks of humanity generally, or that the times when he refers to “man” he is speaking of mankind, but I don’t agree that this is the case. If you look through the book, you find many instances where men are distinguished from women, referring to men in certain professions (“military men” (50), “men of the market” (79)), as well as instances where the term “men” is used in lieu of “man,” clearly marking the difference between referring to all of mankind versus gender. For example, Anderson writes, “These days it appears difficult to put oneself empathetically into a world in which the dynastic realm appeared for most men as the only imagined ‘political’ system,” (19) “unification meant internal interchangeability of men,” (57) or “young men eager to learn,” (81). All of the author’s examples and anecdotes have a man at the focal point, except one which speaks of a man’s wife and his mistress (25).

The word woman/women is only mention twice; once in the sentence, “The coalition between Protestantism and print-capitalism, exploiting cheap popular editions, quickly created large new reading publics – not least among merchants and women, who typically knew little or no Latin – and simultaneously mobilized them for politico-religious purposes,” (42) and again speaking of how only men are mentioned in the Gospel of St. Matthew in the sequence of about 30 men successively begetting one another leading up to the birth of Jesus, and no women are included in this. What I find interesting here is each time Anderson makes a brief comment or insight about women, but it is quickly brushed off. In the first case, he mentions that women typically knew little Latin, but doesn’t explain why this was or the significance of that information. In addition, he mentions that once women could access print they were mobilized for politico-religious purposes, which is an important point and I’d be interested to learn more about their role in this mobilization, but Anderson stops at that. In the second instance, he notes that women are not included in the sequence of lineage from the Patriarch Abraham to Jesus, but again does not go into significance, which is very important since he does decide to mention that no women are mentioned.

However, another important aspect of Anderson’s writing should be mentioned. In three instances, gender is referenced as an entity similar to or in congruence with the nation/nation-ness. The first is, “…in the modern world everyone can, should, will ‘have’ a nationality, as he or she ‘has’ a gender…” (5) Then later he writes, “We are all aware of the contingency and ineluctability or our particular genetic heritage, our gender, our life-era, our physical capabilities, our mother-tongue, and so forth,” (10) and later, in the chapter “Patriotism and Racism,” he writes, “Something of the nature of this political love can be deciphered from [two idioms]. Both idioms denote something to which one is naturally tied. As we have seen earlier, in everything ‘natural’ there is always something unchosen. In this way, nation-ness is assimilated to skin-colour, gender, parentage, and birth-era – all those things one cannot help.” (147)

So what is the significance of all this? I think it is clear that Anderson is not unintentionally excluding women, in that the way he writes about man and men denoting a clear distinction from “mankind” or from “women.” However, I think the exclusion may be subconscious, due to the era he was writing in, the early 1980s. But really, the early 80s is not an ancient time, and many women’s rights movements had taken place, so it is still noteworthy and somewhat disturbing that women are excluded from this seminal work, especially considering their role in society. Women bring life to the world, so it would seem natural that they would be included in a book about the birth of nations. They also play and have played significant roles in the functioning of societies, political systems (as Queens, royal matriarchs, chiefs, etc.), religion, economies, and thus their significant role in nations.

I am really curious as to why people think Anderson made this exclusion, and if people agree with me at all that the exclusion seems intentional as opposed to unintended. Furthermore, on the subject of gender as a distinction for nations, do people think that Anderson refers to gender to try to signify that gender can be a unifier of a nation (that there is a male nation and a female nation), or rather that he mentions gender to give an example of something we are born with, such as skin color or parentage. I am not sure, and am interested to hear what others think.

The question about what is the state of women in some of the films we’ve seen thus far really struck me. I tried to think back on significant female characters, and honestly I don’t think there have been many besides in “La Noire de…” and even then I’m not sure if the film-maker was seeking to make a point about the state of womanhood so much as making a point about race and the homeland vs. the foreign land. I think that a man could have been interchanged for Diouana’s character and the story would have been similar. If anything using a woman for the role may even have been done to make the story more believable in that woman are maybe seen as weaker, more silent, and therefore it makes the idea of someone killing themselves without a word more believable to put a woman in that role. Maybe a man would have been expected to be more vocal or fight back to the mistress.

The next piece then that would come to mind is The Colored Museum in terms of having female roles, but again, and I didn’t notice or think about this at the time but in reflection I think they are all sort of demeaning. We see women in five pieces, six if you include Ms. Roj the drag queen. I will list them:

1. The giddy, Barbie-esc flight attendant is preparing slaves on a “slave flight” for their journey to North America. She is out of touch, working on “Celebrity Slave Ship,” and is obsessed by the sound of drums playing. She is annoying.
2. The girl (and man) who “live inside Ebony magazine.” They live there to avoid feeling pain by escaping reality.
3. Ms. Roj is an alcoholic drag queen who although she starts out on a lighthearted note, she ends on a very dark and serious one, talking about the deterioration of society and her personal problems with family and drinking.
4. The hairpiece, in which a spoiled looking girl is shocked to find that her wigs are speaking to one another. The piece centers on “natural” versus “unnatural,” i.e. an afro wig versus a relaxed wig. The woman choosing between the wigs could be considered obsessed with appearances.
5. In Permutations, we meet the “girl that laid an egg,” after having “sexual relations with the garbage man.”
6. And finally, in Mama-on-the-couch, we see what seems like a criticism of some form of black expression which are considered exploitative, such as minstrelsy and blackface. However, when considering the characters of the man’s wife and the sister, they are both extreme characters.

After thinking through the pieces, my conclusion was that the women throughout The Colored Museam all seem ridiculous. None of them are—nor should they be based on their behavior—taken seriously, as opposed to the soldier or the business man in other scenes. I realize this is partly attributed to comedy or at least maybe the irony of comedy, but I also find it confusing why there are basically no serious women in this 90 minute performance.

Particularly disturbing to me is the Permutations piece, and especially where she says something like, “I laid an egg, and that makes me special.” This makes me think about women’s role in society, and how women are often viewed as vehicles for reproduction and nothing more. I really got the sense from this piece that this girl, who seemed really lackadaisical and frankly quite dumb, had absolutely nothing else going for her, and it was almost like, “thank God she laid this egg, at least she has that,” or “thank God she has this baby, what else would she have done with her life.”

I wonder if people agree with me about the role of women in the films we’ve watched thus far being quite insignificant and where they did have a presence it was generally filling some type of stereotype (mostly negative) or adhering to a gender role in which women have been placed but that we are maybe strived to be taken out of (e.g. being obsessed with beauty, needing to have children to be “special,” being weak and vulnerable in the case of Diouana and her suicide, etc.). I’m really interested in other people’s thoughts on this, and how everyone has viewed women’s roles thus far in the films as well as in Anderson’s book.

The State of Woman and Womanhood by Matt Antezana

The state of women and womanhood is a central theme in  Ousmane Sembene's film "La Noire De," which translates to Black Girl. In the film a Senegalese woman named Diouana from the village Dakar moves to Antibes, France to work for an affluent couple. Things take a turn for the worse for Diouana who commits suicide by the end of the film because of the hopelessness caused by the harsh and slave like treatment coming from the couple. Throughout the film Diouana performs tasks that are stereotypically associated with women instead of men. She performed various house chores and this creates the image of the stay at home wife. This image has led to several negative beliefs, such as that women should stay at home and care for the family, that have plagued the womanhood and equal rights for women. This portrayal of woman in film is detrimental to the desire of women to have a role in society outside that of the housewife. The film also presents Diouana as a submissive figure who must obey all of the commands of her employer. This fits into the gender stereotype that women should assume a submissive role. The portrayal of womanhood in "Black Girl" puts woman back into the stay at home role that has plagued them for generations and that continues to plague them even as Women have greater opportunities in society.

While watching "The Colored Museum" I realized that aside from a various issues relating to race, the role of the woman was also a key issue. The particular scene that centered around womanhood is the scene in which the young African American woman gives birth to a giant egg. This scene displays one of the most prominent roles that women are known for, that of being a mother. The role of being a mother has long been associated with being one of the most important aspects of being a women and has even been used as a way to put women down in the past by some who believe that it should be their only role. Also the circumstances surrounding the woman entrance to motherhood can also be viewed as negative or positive by different societies, in our society specifically believe have negative beliefs towards women who have children at a young age. In the scene the woman is obviously young and appears to be foolish to the audience especially in terms of the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy. She fits into the typical young teenage/adult mother who became a mother because of her carelessness. However she is also displayed as being highly protective of the giant egg thus assuming the natural motherly tendencies.

While woman and womanhood have played major roles in "Black Girl" and "The Colored Museum," so far in Imagined Communities women have not played any specific essential roles. However this does not mean that they play no role in the formation of a nation. In his book Benedict Anderson does not specifically state that his theory only applies to men but instead it applies to all of humanity as a whole. He writes "Human lives are full of such combinations of necessity and chance. We are all aware of the contingency and ineluctability of our particular genetic heritage, our gender" (Anderson, 10). Anderson is informing the reader that he is well aware of the various factors such as gender that affect our lives in the community. Anderson's theory applies to all humans regardless of gender because they are still able to form communities based on nationalistic values and at various times he refers to inhabitants of communities not by a particular gender but as "members".