« James Doak Masculinity in The Woman in White The novel, The Woman in White, "seeks to revise recent accounts of the model of male identity posited by the first ...» Document abstract
$2.95
3 word format
Language : english
literature
school essay
date published
09/11/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : General public
requested 2 times
SummaryThe novel, The Woman in White, “seeks to revise recent accounts of the model of male identity posited by the first sensation novel”(Ablow, Par. 4). In The Woman in White, the author, Wilkie Collins, presents masculinity through the character of Marian Holcombe at a time when femininity was a favorable trait in women. Marian’s sister, Laura, is another female character in the book that is semi-independent. Marian, who is essentially the main character in the story, possesses masculine traits that make her different from not only the other women in the story, but women of society as well. Marian is a conqueror, never afraid to tackle a problem or stand up to a man. To understand what makes up the traits of the characters, it is important to understand the author.
Table of Contents- Wilkie Collins, a Victorian fiction novelist from the 19th century, is very well known, accomplished, and one of the highest paid novelists of his time.
- The Victorian time period is one that is not put into full perspective in The Woman in White as the book shows the good side of the upper class but avoids the reality of the lower class folk.
- These women were often physicians, attorneys, writers and even engineers.
- Marian Halcombe is very different from many women in that present day in age.
- Marian had a good relationship with the character Walter Hartright. Hartright is a drawing master who is an employee of Laura's uncle Frederick Fairlie.
- Courage is trait that Marian uses to her full advantage. One night, Percival and the Count are out on the verandah talking about some matters that pertain to Marian and Laura.
« the major and championed characteristics of our national literature -individualism, masculinity, social engagement The mother in this novel is a white woman. ...» Document abstract
$3.95
4 word format
Language : english
literature
school essay
date published
02/10/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : General public
requested 1 times
SummaryIn Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination Morrison rejects the theory that American literature reflects white male views. She argues that “Africanism”, a term she uses “for the denotative and connotative blackness that African peoples have come to signify” (Morrison, Playing, 6), has had a crucial presence in American literature throughout the years. Morrison writes, “These speculations have led me to wonder whether the major and championed characteristics of our national literature —individualism, masculinity, social engagement versus historical isolation; acute and ambiguous moral problematics; the thematics of innocence coupled with an obsession with death and hell —are not in fact responses to a dark, abiding, signing Africanist presence.”(Morrison, Playing, 5)
Table of Contents- In Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination Morrison rejects the theory that American literature reflects white male views.
- Toni Morrison is one of the most prominent contemporary authors in American literature.
- Toni Morrison was born Chloe Anthony Wofford on February 18, 1931 to her parents, George Wofford and Ramah Willis Wofford.
- Toni Morrison lived through the height of the Civil Rights Movement.
- When she attended Howard University, a prominent historically Black university, Morrison became more aware of the harsh lives of many Black Americans, which had been less noticeable in the North.
- Morrison shows the issue of self-hatred in her writings.
- Everybody in the world was in a position to give [black women] orders.
- In Beloved, mothers are also depicted in various ways. Baby Suggs is the grandmother in Beloved.
- In Beloved, Seethe's family is torn because of the impact that slavery had on them.
« ground, a place traditionally for the white man, by strength and confidence of Sonny's woman while she characters try to regain their masculinity, Charlie with ...» Document abstract
$3.95
4 word format
Language : english
literature
presentation
date published
16/04/2008
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 0 times
SummaryDuring the first half of the twentieth century, the United States, along with much of the world, saw great strides made in the feminist movement. The rights of and respect toward women were beginning to take an upward momentum, and at the same time, traditional ideas of masculine infallibility and superiority were being brought down. Literature, as always, had its finger on the pulse of this social change, and many authors chose to write about not just the women gaining power, but the men losing it.
Keywords: F. Scott Fitzgerald, Babylon Revisited, Bowman
Keywords: F. Scott Fitzgerald, Babylon Revisited, Bowman
« desert island can not say "I am a woman" or "I than in the binary of black and white, except that an identity has meaning in its opposition to the masculinity. ...» Document abstract
$5.95
6 word format
Language : english
sociology
presentation
date published
28/12/2006
review : not yet assessed
level : Expert
requested 11 times
Summary“A subject position is a hard place, we cannot read it ourselves; we are given over to others even as we make inevitable public attempts to read our subject position” (Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak).
Discussion of the complexities of Spivak’s notion of the subject in the context of race and/or class and/or gender and/or sexuality and/or nationality.
The question “who am I?” seems to be an important concern for individuals. They need to understand who they are, to know what their identity is. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “identity” comes from “idem” (“the same”). It comprises two basics meanings: a concept of absolute sameness and a concept of distinctiveness. Like this, identity allows us to situate ourselves in the world in which we live. It allows us to find our position in the society, which gives us the landmarks we need to get ahead. The subject’s identity could be defined as the whole of its characteristics. It is different from its personality and its roles, and can include elements such as nationality, race, class, gender, sexuality, and so on. Answering this question deals with the content of our identity, but also with our way of reading it.
How is the identity built? Identity comes from a process including “internal” and “external” factors. It is shaped by the individual and by the “outside”. The extent to which individuals are able to shape their identities has often been put under question. Some argue that we can speak of “self identity”, giving to the subjects the ability of forming their own identity. On the other hand, a lot of others tempt to say that “what people become, and who they are, are influenced or even determined by other factors, outside their control.” Such factors include economic, social, cultural, and political elements. If they seem to agree on the fact that identity is both constructed from the inside and the outside, the contemporary thesis seem to put under light the importance of the external factors in the construction of identity, like this minimizing the freedom of individuals in the shaping of their identity, and emphasis their lack of control in the process of construction of who they are. Thus, the content of the subjects’ identity seems to be a concept mostly out of their control.
But, if it seems that they can’t really control its content, can the individuals succeed in reading their identity, their position, themselves? In the same way that what we are is, for a lot of authors, mostly out of our control, being aware of what we are also depends on others. In this way, Spivak argues that our position is given to us by the others, considering individuals unable to read it by themselves. In which extent do we rely on the others to read our identity, our position, and thus, to find our place in the society? What are, for the individuals, the consequences of this supposed lack of independency? Do we not have any autonomy in the reading of our position?
Discussion of the complexities of Spivak’s notion of the subject in the context of race and/or class and/or gender and/or sexuality and/or nationality.
The question “who am I?” seems to be an important concern for individuals. They need to understand who they are, to know what their identity is. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “identity” comes from “idem” (“the same”). It comprises two basics meanings: a concept of absolute sameness and a concept of distinctiveness. Like this, identity allows us to situate ourselves in the world in which we live. It allows us to find our position in the society, which gives us the landmarks we need to get ahead. The subject’s identity could be defined as the whole of its characteristics. It is different from its personality and its roles, and can include elements such as nationality, race, class, gender, sexuality, and so on. Answering this question deals with the content of our identity, but also with our way of reading it.
How is the identity built? Identity comes from a process including “internal” and “external” factors. It is shaped by the individual and by the “outside”. The extent to which individuals are able to shape their identities has often been put under question. Some argue that we can speak of “self identity”, giving to the subjects the ability of forming their own identity. On the other hand, a lot of others tempt to say that “what people become, and who they are, are influenced or even determined by other factors, outside their control.” Such factors include economic, social, cultural, and political elements. If they seem to agree on the fact that identity is both constructed from the inside and the outside, the contemporary thesis seem to put under light the importance of the external factors in the construction of identity, like this minimizing the freedom of individuals in the shaping of their identity, and emphasis their lack of control in the process of construction of who they are. Thus, the content of the subjects’ identity seems to be a concept mostly out of their control.
But, if it seems that they can’t really control its content, can the individuals succeed in reading their identity, their position, themselves? In the same way that what we are is, for a lot of authors, mostly out of our control, being aware of what we are also depends on others. In this way, Spivak argues that our position is given to us by the others, considering individuals unable to read it by themselves. In which extent do we rely on the others to read our identity, our position, and thus, to find our place in the society? What are, for the individuals, the consequences of this supposed lack of independency? Do we not have any autonomy in the reading of our position?
Table of Contents- The relevance of Spivak's approach of the subject's position
- The difficulties that it implies for the individuals
« But I Shame to Wear a Heart So White It is is wont to carry the valence of masculinity, while pleasure in As a woman, more adept at manipulation, at verbal and ...» Document abstract
$8.95
9 word format
Language : english
literature
school essay
date published
12/10/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 0 times
Summary“Dyke,” hiss the schoolboys, to the girls with grass-stained knees and dirt-streaked cheeks. To the girls who run faster, throw further, tackle harder than the prides of fatherhood manifest. A word, but so much more a performance. A stereotype, but so much more an expectation. Sometimes, these girls are wronged. Sometimes, these boys are right. Playground dykes: a first acknowledgment of sexual beings, independent of sex, distorting the being.
I find it impossible to live separate from the homosexual lifestyle. To pass as straight is to deny gay culture, but to embrace gay culture for the sake of camaraderie is to perpetuate a false image. Sexuality and gender are not interchangeable ideals, nor do they obey the certain analogous formula of normal is to normal as abnormal is to abnormal. I can be gay and still be female.
I find it impossible to live separate from the homosexual lifestyle. To pass as straight is to deny gay culture, but to embrace gay culture for the sake of camaraderie is to perpetuate a false image. Sexuality and gender are not interchangeable ideals, nor do they obey the certain analogous formula of normal is to normal as abnormal is to abnormal. I can be gay and still be female.
Table of Contents- To the girls who run faster, throw further, tackle harder than the prides of fatherhood manifest.
- But I Shame to Wear a Heart So White
- I can easily paint a portrait of Lady Macbeth as a lesbian, victimized by the ultimately homophobic culture of the Renaissance.
- The conventional split between masculine and feminine in psychology and culture, that is, the contrast masculine/feminine, speaks also to pleasure, activity and passivity.
- Freud believed homosexuality in women to be caused by an unsuccessful resolution of the oedipal complex.
- Much of Lady Macbeth's masculinity is forged from the natural analogy between sex and violence.
- This idea of creating an other, a foil, is integral not only in the formation of Lady Macbeth's masculinity, but in her careful maintenance of it as well.
- What seems to be at the end of the play Lady Macbeth's downfall, the fall she shares with her husband from the invincible to the vulnerable, is not a fall at all.
- Ironically enough, not only does her masculinity forbid the return of feminine traits, the lack of those feminine traits does not allow for her to admit her changes.
- I Am Not from Your Tribe
- The qualities Lady Macbeth adopts to become a man, her journey toward her dreams of unsexing, become the qualities expected of lesbians.
« affirmative action takes jobs away from qualified white males and The idea that a woman can take care of he can protect them because of his masculinity is a ...» Document abstract
$3.95
4 word format
Language : english
social sciences
presentation
date published
03/05/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : General public
requested 2 times
SummaryA few weeks ago, I joined a protest on the quad against the “Conservative Coming Out Day”, which was organized by the Orange and Blue Observer and a conservative student group on campus. The conservative group held a “coming out day” because the members say they feel oppressed on such a liberal campus; they said professors and textbooks all have a liberal bias, and therefore, their views are underrepresented. By using the phrase “coming out” this group trivialized the incredibly personal and painful experience a homosexual faces when saying aloud, “I’m gay”. What really upset me was the fact that this group looks down on homosexuals; the members believe that homosexuality is wrong. Thus by co-opting the symbol of the closet, the conservatives made the closet a joke, something to be mocked. Furthermore, this group wanted to auction off derringers, and they encouraged females and homosexuals to enter the raffle because they wanted these supposedly defenseless groups to have equal access to guns. The fliers they handed out said, “anything that carries a purse can win”. Anything? Are women and homosexuals no longer human? The rhetoric of the speaker appalled me, not only was he dehumanizing women and homosexuals, but he implied (not so subtly) that women need to realize that they need men to protect them. His entire speech was blatantly sexist and homophobic, and it made me feel angry because I wanted to believe that most people had moved past the traditional image of women and marriage.
Table of Contents- To follow up this rally, the Orange and Blue observer held another protest against the university
- After this rally, I began to notice parallels between the way this group talked about the 'other', and the readings for class
- The view of women as the 'second sex' represents a very strongly gendered discourse that exists in American society
- While the theme of pollution was not overtly discussed in reference to women at the rally, de Beauvoir does discuss the idea that women were seen as dirty
- While homophobia and discrimination against homosexuals were not touched on in our reading
- At the second rally, Buchignani spoke about the breakdown of Black and Latino families as reasons for their problems in American society
- Furthermore, at the rally the speaker only mentioned the disintegration of minority families
« harassment is just as unclear as what constitutes masculinity. the movement, as if being a woman is synonymous This refusal to see beyond black and white is a ...» Document abstract
$9.95
12 word format
Language : english
social sciences
school essay
date published
19/10/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 10 times
SummaryOn June 28, 1998, Ally McBeal graced the cover of Time magazine; not in the name of television or Hollywood or fashion, but in the name of feminism. According to The American Century Dictionary, feminism is the advocacy of women’s rights and sexual equality. So how does an upper-class woman who complains about her weight and puts dating before all else qualify as a feminist? Simple: in the misdirected world of the modern women’s movement, Ally McBeal is as much an icon of feminism as the women who shared the cover with her, women like Susan B. Anthony and Betty Friedan, two of the most celebrated founding mothers of feminism. The prior successes of the movement have been overshadowed by these new, ludicrous ideals and haphazard ventures into the mainstream media. Feminism, which at is core strives for a higher quality of life, is one of the main opponents of progress in the United States. As necessary as the feminism was in the past, its continuing presence is completely counterproductive in today’s society.
Table of Contents- Introduction
- Feminism as a successful philosophy
- First wave feminism and the right to vote
- Second wave feminism for equality in the work force
- Second wave feminism for equality in education
- Third wave feminism for women's choice
- Feminism as an unsuccessful philosophy
- Backfire of feminism's successes
- Reasons behind the backfire of feminism's success
- Feminism as an untruthful philosophy
- Feminism as an anti-family philosophy
- Feminism as an anti-gay philosophy
- Lesbians a threat to feminist movement
- Feminists a threat to lesbian movement
- Lesbianism assumed to be a feminist tool
- Feminism as an exploited philosophy
- Feminism in music
- Feminism in television and theater
- Feminism in pornography
- Conclusion
« drawers were like featherings of soft white down. He covets no woman sexually before this moment; even the bitter taste of his sinful masculinity: the thoughts ...» Document abstract
$9.95
10 word format
Language : english
social sciences
term papers
date published
19/10/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 4 times
Summary(King James Bible, Psalms 34:1)
With patriarchal systems prevalent in most societies, masculinity is often exalted as a source of universal power. Critics, often focused on the issues of political correctness and moral integrity in such sexist assumptions, never object to the actual existence of beliefs in male dominance. But the strength of men born into these earthly patriarchies is meaningless before God, reduced to the weakness inherent to any subordinate group. Just as Eve was formed of Adam’s rib, so did “the Lord God [form] man of the dust of the ground, and [breathe] into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (King James Bible, Gen. 2.7). Men are entitled to the control of the carnal bodies of women but are not themselves in control of their eternal souls. Women, taught to follow since birth, fulfill their Christian roles naturally; Mary is idealized throughout the religion for her acquiescence and the literal contentment she feels when obeying the formative power of God (Podles 36). However, men can only be forced into obedience, feminized by their forfeiture of leadership and autonomy. They can only be controlled through fear.
With patriarchal systems prevalent in most societies, masculinity is often exalted as a source of universal power. Critics, often focused on the issues of political correctness and moral integrity in such sexist assumptions, never object to the actual existence of beliefs in male dominance. But the strength of men born into these earthly patriarchies is meaningless before God, reduced to the weakness inherent to any subordinate group. Just as Eve was formed of Adam’s rib, so did “the Lord God [form] man of the dust of the ground, and [breathe] into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (King James Bible, Gen. 2.7). Men are entitled to the control of the carnal bodies of women but are not themselves in control of their eternal souls. Women, taught to follow since birth, fulfill their Christian roles naturally; Mary is idealized throughout the religion for her acquiescence and the literal contentment she feels when obeying the formative power of God (Podles 36). However, men can only be forced into obedience, feminized by their forfeiture of leadership and autonomy. They can only be controlled through fear.
Table of Contents- With patriarchal systems prevalent in most societies, masculinity is often exalted as a source of universal power.
- Men fear sin because as sinners they relinquish their rights to Heaven.
- This Christian conviction that sin resides within the innate savageness, inseparable from the defining characteristics of masculinity, is best proven by the popularity of missionaries during the years of British Colonization.
- Missionaries took quite seriously the calling of Jesus Christ to spread the teachings of the Lord, but this brash goal for universal Christianity
- Based on conversation and action alone, Othello appears as Venetian as the other characters.
- The authority of his family is replaced with the authority of his teachers.
- A girl stood before him in midstream, alone and still, gazing out to sea. She seemed like on whom magic had changed into the likeness of a strange and beautiful seabird.
Similarities and Differences in Men’s and Women’s Cooperative Speaking Styles: An Analysis of Book Club Discussions
« Talk and the Construction of Heterosexual Masculinity by Deborah The participants are white, middle-class women in is initiated by one woman introducing the ...» Document abstract
$9.95
11 word format
Language : english
linguistics
research papers
date published
07/12/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 0 times
SummarySome of the most frequently referred to but potentially erroneous stereotypes regarding gendered speaking style differences involve dichotomies. Men are competitive – women are cooperative. Men focus on impersonal topics – women focus on personal topics. Men’s speech is to report – women’s speech is for rapport. The problem with these stereotypes is that language styles are not mutually exclusive to individual genders. Much of the past language and gender research has been based on analyzing these perceived dichotomies in an effort to challenge or corroborate the stereotypes. This research has shown that language styles are not exclusive to gender and more importantly it has brought to light the fact that language and gender cannot be studied in isolation from other social factors.
1
knowledge network
Sort by
Subject :
Type :
Extension :
Language :
Size :