GWSS 3307: Feminist Film Studies, Fall 2008

Bound opens with Corky being bound physically in the closet of Caesar’s apartment. The location of the binding is significant because we know that the issue of being “out� of the closet plays an important role in the way the characters interact with each other. Violet and Corky are clearly “out� to each other, but Violet chooses to keep Caesar in the dark so she can continue to use him for his power and lifestyle. Caesar uses Violet to mark himself as desirable – he isn’t married to her, but she is his symbol of status. In this way they are “bound� to each other, not by marriage or love but by mutual need and desire.

Corky and Violet are bound first by their lust for each other, then by their shared identity, and later by their plot to steal the mob’s money. In the end, it is not just that they are bound by circumstance; they are also bound by love for one another. We see through the fate of the characters and relationships that the only positive thing that binds us is love and not money. The relationship between Caesar and Violet ends because they are bound by something replaceable – money. In fact, all of the relationships that centered on money end in bloodshed or loss. The mafia men all die because they are connected by their job. Due to the nature of their business there is no room for human emotion or compassion. Violet and Corky escape with the money because they truly cared about each other and didn’t lose sight of that fact even when Caesar offered Violet a way out.

Posted by joh02629 at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In terms of heterosexuality and male panic, one of the ongoing concepts in the film is being “fucked.� For example Caeser says “Johnnie ain't going to fuck me!� and Johnie says “Nobody fucks me!� While the word “fuck� is applied generously throughout the film in variety of contexts, we can also see how being “fucked� in the hypermasculine context operates to illustrate constructedness of heterosexual regime and fragile nature of masculinity. (The sex scene with Corky and Violet clearly subverts this idea.) Being “fucked� signifies simultaneous failure of heterosexuality and masculinity. It also refers back to idea/function of “roles� – the “real man� should never be “fucked�/penetrated/bottom/passive/etc. What Caeser fears, despite obvious outcome of being killed, is to lose his masculinity and the place in the symbolic order of heteropatriarchy.

What aggravates this potential of failure is that the danger in the end comes not from another male competitor, but from women who simultaneously a)render comfortable position within mob hierarchy fragile/dangerous; and b)destabilize gender/sexual order/fiction that Ceaser is so invested in. This creates existential (literally and symbolically) crisis that Caeser is forced to confront.
It is possible to look at the male characters of the film as “bound� by their masculinity and heterosexuality and not simply as “natural� identities. The fear of failure, or being “fucked,� is only one example of male characters’ self-policing behaviors. Heteromasculinity can be seen as performance, as well as hard work (through language, behaviors, symbolisms, etc). Through character of Caesar we can see how fragile the identity is and how little it takes to destabilize it. While being bound by it might seem as effortless and “natural� there are signs that it is also self-conscious, actively pursued and constructed.

Posted by Arnoldas at 3:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the opening sequence of Bound we hear Violet’s voice whisper, “like a part of me..� when the camera shows Corky for the very first time. This is just the first of many literal and figurative references that pertain to the idea of being bound by a person, place, or thing. Through out the film we see many people bound to one another through the element of sex. An obvious example of this would be Corky and Violet’s relationship. Right after the sex scene between the women, the girl are constantly seen together and never leave each other, even in moment of danger. Many of the men in the film also appear to be bound to Violet and it is known that she has sex with many of the characters as part of her job. These men are shown as dangerous with no emotions in most of the scenes however when Violet is around they seem soft and appear as if they would do anything for her. It is as if they are trapped by her beauty and sex appeal. A good example of this is in one of the last scenes, when Mickey is saying goodbye to Violet. She kisses him and he lets her go with out asking any questions about Caesar’s murder or the money. I also saw a confinement between Violet and her heterosexuality lifestyle. This confinement could be seen through her relationship with Caesar.

Although she told Corky that she was a lesbian, she was bound to her heterosexual lifestyle because of her overall fear of Caesar. In one of the last scenes we see the moment that allows Violet to be released from her heterosexual life is when she has a gun in her hand and kills Caesar. His death meant that Violet was no longer bound to be with men and could go on feeling free with her sexuality.

Posted by woul0006 at 2:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Many of the characters in the film Bound are, in fact, “bound� in some way. Violet is bound to her relationship with Caesar for 5 years. She can no longer stand the confinement of Caesar’s oppression and his connection to the mob. She recognizes Corky as her ticket out. Corky spent 5 years in prison, legally bound to time behind bars. She is fairly guarded and continues to isolate herself even after she is released from prison. Violet provides an opportunity for Corky to trust again and challenges many of her boundaries. Corky is also bound to society’s idea of what it means to be a queer woman. She is very masculine and therefore is almost automatically “outed� as a queer woman. Violet is also bound to her sexuality and seductive nature. She uses her body as a tool to get what she wants (with both men and women). She also does a very convincing job of appearing helpless and incapable. This tactic has worked for her for so long that it is difficult for her to give up. In the end, however, the way she is perceived by men allows her plan to be carried about flawlessly. Ironically, it also grants her freedom from Caesar and the mob. Caesar and his mob buddies are bound to each other in a tangled web of distrust and fear. There is always suspicion and accusation, even among family and long-time friends. These bindings eventually lead to Caesar’s demise. Violet is also bound to her heterosexual façade. She has to put on a performance in the bedroom and in her relationship with Caesar. She must hide her encounters with Corky and cannot publicly reveal her true self. Through the death of Caesar, severing ties to the mob, and lasting relationship with Corky, Violet can finally remove her mask and be seen.

Posted by herma216 at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Throughout the film Bound there were several references of the characters being metaphorically bound in someway or another. Many of them seem to be bound to stereotypes. The two that seem to be most bound are Violet and Corky both feel the need to escape so much that they try to rob the mafia. Although they get away with it they would have faced severe consequences.

Violet was bound to the assumptions made about her because of her looks. Her femininity made many of Cesar as well as his co-workers see her as someone with looks but no brains and someone who was very non-threatening. In “Bound Together� Kelly Kessler states that, “In general, the butch was though to be aggressive while the femme was perceived as passive� (17), this idea is what Violet is bound to throughout the film. However her actions do purpose that much of the opposite of that is true for her. Violet, after all, was the one who came up with the idea to rob the mob; she was the one pursuing and coming on to Corky. Violet was anything but passive and quiet. Although she felt bound to this life she did not like she was able to use others ideas of her to pull of her escape. The viewer finally sees her freedom as she shoots Cesar at the end releasing her from her past and lets her move on with her new life with Corky.

Cesar is another character that is metaphorically bound. His obsession with money, greed, and his paranoia/ hatred of Mickey makes Cesar go crazy in the end of the film. It is also what makes him a manageable target for Violet and Corky, who are able to manipulate him with the idea of Mickey trying to set him up. He is bound to his hatred and paranoia of the others in the mob, because of this after Violet tells the lie of Mickey and money he becomes untrusting of anyone in his “family� and ends up shooting many of them. This same paranoia is seen in the other mafia characters that are very careful about who they trust and how they are so easily persuade that someone has gone against them, such as when Violet calls Mickey and the lie that Cesar actually stole the money. Cesar is also bound to the way he sees Violet making it hard for him to believe that Violet is a lesbian. This can be seen with his comment blaming Corky for Violet’s actions and not her own. He can not believe that Violet would choose by herself to be attracted to women and not be truly attracted to him.

This film showed many forms of characters being bound both realistically and metaphorically. This allowed for the characters to be viewed as much more in-depth giving them more personality and history to all of them. This also allows for the characters do what they do throughout the film allowing the story to go through.

Posted by lars2805 at 2:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found the sex scene in the film Bound to be feminist because it challenged stereotypes that society may have of butch/femme, relating to patriarchal sex. During the scene the stereotypical gender roles of patriarchy were challenged. The distinction between butch/femme is important because the scene “stages a struggle over hegemonic interpretations of female sexual iconography�. (Noble) Violet is portrayed as a femme; she wears high heels, short skirts and make-up. Corky, on the other hand, is butch; she wears boots, men's underwear, has tattoos, and does manual labor. These characteristics would lead many to believe that Corky is the "man" and Violet is the "woman". However, these characteristics are only physical, in reality the identity of the character is more complex. Violet is femme, but she is not submissive (she mainly pretends to be submissive and weak to the men around her), she can be seen as more "masculine" through her sexual advances to Corky, and her dominance in the sex scene. Specifically, during the sex scene we see Violet in control and on top, while Corky is submissive and is on bottom.

Posted by conlo027 at 4:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The sex scene in Bound could be considered feminist, although you must read into the characters to come to this conclusion. Corky is considered to be butch because of how she looks; she wears work boots, short hair, no make-up, has dirty hands, and big pants, and Violet is considered to be femme because she wears make-up, tight dresses, high heels and has fixed hair all the time. But beyond their appearances, a bigger statement is being made in this film, one that blurs the boundaries of gender role stereotypes. This is because Violet, although femme, acts aggressively towards Corky, and truly plays a major role in the plot of the film. Corky is somewhat passive when Violet is so aggressively pursuing her sexual interest with Corky. The sex scene shows two people making love and changing between them the roles of “masculine� dominance and “feminine� subordination. They both pleasure each other, although one is more on top of the other, it’s not clear dominance the entire time. After all, Violet is the one that makes the moves on Corky in the first place and asks if Corky has a bed somewhere... Like Kessler talks about in her article “Bound Together,� the sex scene gives lesbian sex some visibility in mainstream media, which is very important. This is not very common, and the fact that there is no man involved and no phallic object really makes the scene eligible to represent accurate lesbian sex. It is a Hollywood film, so of course, the women are both beautiful and have great bodies, but besides that, I think that their exchanging of gender roles throughout the film, and specifically in the sex scene, illustrate that it can be considered a feminist film.

Posted by AJ at 1:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think that this scene is feminine for 3 reasons. One is that there are obviously two women and no men in the scene. Another is that the women seem more sensual than if there was a male involved, except for the first experience. The final reason is that I feel most people, specifically men, invision lesbian sex as using sex toys or things of that nature. I think that the use of those actually makes the sex between the two women more masculine. As far as butch and femininity goes I feel both characters demonstrate aspects of both. Just based on the physical appearance Violet is clearly more feminine than Corky. However, Violet does make the first move on Corky and is more dominant making Corky more feminine when it comes to stereotyped sexual roles. Also, in the end of the film Violet is calling the shots further conflicted who plays the more feminine role in the film. If the roles of the women were switched around and Corky appeared all girly and Violet was butch I think it would be a lot easier to tell who was more feminine. I feel like as a whole we tend to judge people more based on their appearences rather than their actions. Until the it was brought up in the class discussion I wouldn't have even thought as Corky being feminine simply becasue the stereotypes are really set for me. But if the women fit their physical appearances and were not conflicting than the film wouldn't be so interesting to interpret.

Posted by bergm154 at 1:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The sex scenes in Bound are definitely feminist. In the first sex scene, Corky pleasures Violet. In the second, Violet pleasures Corky. Until Violet returned the favor, I was going to label the film non-feminist. Towards the beginning, we see an image of Violet’s legs behind Corky. I was inclined to think that that was a move meant to attract the male audience, but as time went on, I didn’t see it that way at all. The camera didn’t gaze up and down her legs; it was simply (un)focused on them to give us an idea of what Corky was seeing/thinking about.

The fact that they were each given a scene to please the other really showed how equal the two women were. It didn’t matter that one of them was butch and one was femme. They were passionate for one another and truly wanted to satisfy each other’s needs. I wouldn’t even say that one of them played the dominant role while the other played the submissive role, because that would place them in a hierarchy that I simply don’t think they participate in.

Kessler discusses the lack of need for the phallus in the intimate scenes. There were no penis-like sex toys or women spreading their legs in a stereotypical heterosexual way. The sex scenes were not meant to appeal to the male audience, and Corky and Violet don’t use their lesbianism as a way of attracting men. At one point, Violet says she doesn’t have sex with men; instead, she calls it “work.�

There is a romantic love story behind it all; these two women were showing how much they cared for one another, which the camera angles showed well. The camera gazed from their hips up to their faces in an innocent sort of way, with emphasis on certain body parts, like the mouth and hip. The women were able to reveal their powerful sexual stances.

Posted by Bute0023 at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While watching the lesbian sex scenes in Bound, one is enlightened into a realm of homosexual unknown with regards to the media. Besides in pornography, lesbian sex is not regularly displayed in the media today. I can not easily place these scenes under a feminist ideal. I can place them as homosexual activism, making homosexuality portrayed in present media like heterosexuality already is. In her article Bound Together, Kelly Kessler stated, “I do not deny that it provides images to titillate heterosexual men, but at the same time I believe that it creates much needed empowering and erotic images for lesbians.� Although outward appearance immediately categorized Corky as the butch lesbian and Violet as the femme lesbian, these images were obsolete during the sex scene. Violet did lead for the majority of the sex scene but I do not think the scene would have been significantly different if Corky was the leader. Frequently, the camera angles made identification blurred regarding who was doing what. Throughout the film I think that the women shared power in the relationship contradicting the hetersexualized

portrayals of femme and butch lesbians. The obvious imagery depicting them as butch and femme was a way to relate to the audience of all sexual preferences. Kessler stated, “Stereotypes allow audience members to conjure up quickly an associative meaning and value system of the character in question so that they can then compare it with their own.� Although Corky and Violet were categorized in their appearance, they brought an enlightening view into the uncommon portrayal of lesbian sexuality in the media resulting in homosexual activism.

Posted by Katherine Jonas at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The sex scene in Bound is feminist because of what Kessler calls the “non-phallocentric� nature of the act. Kessler writes that the “scene presents a type of lesbian sexuality not often show in heterosexual films: lesbian sex without the need of any phallic object.� The Watchowski Brothers refusal to concede to either “hyper-feminine trashiness� or “fuzzy romanticism� makes the scene feminist. Men and the phallus seem to be the last thing on either woman’s mind.
The scene is also interesting in its portrayal of masculine and feminine. Up until this point, Corky has been strongly associated with the masculine, from her name and her clothing, to her profession and the way we identify with her gaze.

However, it is Violet, the femme, who takes on the dominant, “masculine� role during the sex scene. This scene works both to question our notions of masculine and feminine as well as foreshadow the dominant role that Violet will occupy later in the film. Noble calls it the “desire for female masculinity�- the reappropriation of the both feminine and masculine. By having the butch Corky suddenly in a submissive role to the femme Violet the Watchowski’s once again demonstrate that they are not interested in typical heterosexual displays of lesbians. Their characters are not ‘bound’ by traditional stereotypes, but instead are able to simultaneously appeal to both the masculine and the feminine.

Posted by thur0139 at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The sex scene in Bound is feminist because of what Kessler calls the “non-phallocentric� nature of the act. Kessler writes that the “scene presents a type of lesbian sexuality not often show in heterosexual films: lesbian sex without the need of any phallic object.� The Watchowski Brothers refusal to concede to either “hyper-feminine trashiness� or “fuzzy romanticism� makes the scene feminist. Men and the phallus seem to be the last thing on either woman’s mind.
The scene is also interesting in its portrayal of masculine and feminine. Up until this point, Corky has been strongly associated with the masculine, from her name and her clothing, to her profession and the way we identify with her gaze.

However, it is Violet, the femme, who takes on the dominant, “masculine� role during the sex scene. This scene works both to question our notions of masculine and feminine as well as foreshadow the dominant role that Violet will occupy later in the film. Noble calls it the “desire for female masculinity�- the reappropriation of the both feminine and masculine. By having the butch Corky suddenly in a submissive role to the femme Violet the Watchowski’s once again demonstrate that they are not interested in typical heterosexual displays of lesbians. Their characters are not ‘bound’ by traditional stereotypes, but instead are able to simultaneously appeal to both the masculine and the feminine.

Posted by thur0139 at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The renowned portrayal of “real� lesbian sex portrays both butch and femme lesbians engaged in sexual intercourse which is primarily dominated by the femme lesbian, Violet. Corky and Violet are set side by side, in a way that depicts a more equal sharing of power. This egalitarian placement in their lovemaking is significant, because although Corky wears her sexuality “on her arm� whereas Violet’s sexuality is questioned by Corky, who initially insists that they are “different,� (inferring that her commitment to lesbianism is greater because Violet sleeps with men) they are at this point put on an equal sexual plane with one another. Further, the fact that Violet is the one penetrating Corky “troubles� societal notions of patriarchy as it applies to sexuality. That is, the male dominates sexual encounters. This is translated into notions of lesbian sexuality as Corky, who is butch and is more commonly associated with the male role due to her manual labor job as well as her mode of dress, is expected to dominate the situation over a more “femme� mafia-girlfriend Violet, who dresses in a way that is more commonly associated with females. If these roles were reversed, and Corky had been penetrating Violet, this would have been more in line with this patriarchal and heteronormative idea of lesbian sexuality. Jean Noble identifies this approach to the scene as a confrontation over sexual and identity politics in the way that the two seemingly different women are synchronized for the first time in terms of their sexual orientation, imprisonment, and power. The way in which this scene, as Noble puts it, “ruptures� these patriarchal notions on sexuality is decidedly feminist, as it distributes power in a way that is much more equal and applies it to sexuality, gender and choice.

Posted by J Kriegs at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The sex scene in Bound is definitely feminist. Kessler states “it creates much needed empowering and erotic images for lesbians,� which was very true. Since Bright choreographed it, it was definitely not intended for the heterosexual male to derive pleasure from, although they may. The scene instead focused on the complete lack of the male/phallic presence. Especially with its lack of the stereotypical view of lesbian sex involving all kinds of toys and dildos. These women were able to please each other completely without a phallic presence. This sexual power in itself is threatening to heterosexual men, because it shows that they are not necessary. The first encounters of Violet and Corky establish them as femme and butch, respectively. Violet is all dolled up, tight dress, thigh highs and heels, while Corky is in a leather jacket, unkempt hair, men’s briefs, and boots. This is further reinforced when Caesar walks in on Violent and Corky, and perceives Corky to be male and is relieved when he sees Violet is not

“cheating� on him. However, the two women subvert the idea of butch having to be the “masculine representative� in their parody of heterosexism because Violet takes charge sexually in both experiences (when she takes Corky’s hand and puts it between her legs, and when she is “on top� when they have sex), subverting the idea of the “feminine� being submissive and “masculine� being dominant.

Posted by Mel at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I completely believe that every part of bound is part of a feminist film. The sex scene is offers us something that most other lesbian sex scenes do not: reality. While the characters in this film are often displayed in stereotypical fashion (butch and femme) they often break out of those roles. This is apparent in Corky and Violet's sex scene. Violet is seen as the aggressor and Corky is the one being pleasured. Kelly Kessler says it best when she writes, "In the bedroom scene, it is Violet who is on top and controlling the sex while Corky is the passive receiver." Most people who buy into making overall assumptions of others would not expect this placement. Because Corky is the more "masculine" character they would expect her to take on a typical movie male role. But in this sex scene she is seen for what she is- a woman. They are both women and they both are sexual beings. Male and female "roles" have no part in their sex life. This is what makes the scene believable. While many people can fit into stereotypes they also have more moments where they go against said stereotypes. This film helps acknowledge this.

Posted by Tina Fey at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Masculinity and Femininity are depicted in this movie like the typical stereotypes of what masculinity and femininity in the way that men and women are suppose to look. For example Corky is dressed like what a "man" who is doing construction work and Violet is dress like a "feminine women" is suppose to dress with dresses and fitted outfits. But something that was different with this movie in my opinion is the characters that are supposedly suppose to be playing these stereotypes of masculinity and femininity act as the other one would. Violet initiated to have sex something supposedly a "man" is suppose to do not a women and Violet is the one on top in the sex scene and taking charge again supposedly what a "man" is suppose to do. While we see Corky acting how a "women" is suppose to act with being more passive in the scenes we see. Jean Noble talks about in her essay about the movie that in the beginning of the movie it is setting up you to think Corky is a "masculine" by what she is wearing the boots, pants, the tattoos she has etc. So with the movie setting up in the very first scenes for us to already think Corky is a suppose to be masculine without giving us the chance to decide that for ourselves. I just think it is really too bad that we have these stereotypes of what a man and women should be and it is hard to break that sometimes and that is what this movie falls victim too.

Posted by breme071 at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Besides being a highly entertaining film in its own right, Bound addresses the issue of femme invisibility and the limitations of gender 'roles' in making them visible. Violet is portrayed as highly feminine yet equally aggressive and initiatory, while Corky, with the typical butch appearance, is the receiver of Violet's affections. This flipping and mixing of perceived gender 'roles' confuses the heterosexual viewer and helps give queer women a more realistic portrayal than is usually rendered in film. I don't know if it is necessarily feminist, though I can't see why not, but it is definitely female-queer-friendly. In the sex scenes between the two women, there is no man waiting for his turn, and there is no phallic object used. This takes lesbian desire out of male fantasy and into reality, showing how women can love each other as women, not as pseudo-men. The film does overlook, however, female bodies that do not fit into mainstream ideas of beauty: neither woman is hairy, plump, disfigured, plain..but, alas, one cannot expect everything to be addressed in one film. Femininity and masculinity, as social constructs, are challenged here because of Violet and Corky's refusals to conform to it, and because of the ease with which they vacilate between 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits and behaviors.

Hetero-normative codes are rendered obsolete. (As well they should be!) If Corky had been the initiator of sexual liasons and had been on top, giving Violet stimulation in the sex scenes, this would not have been accomplished. It would have simply upheld categorized ideas of 'proper' gendered behavior.

Posted by Ms. Chevious at 11:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Just as Kessler writes in the article Bound Together, I did find the sex scene between Violet and Corky in the film Bound to be one that was decidedly feminist. Kessler writes that “Bound portrays the intimacies and technicalities of lesbian sex without the fuzzy romanticism of other lesbian love scenes or the hyper-feminine trashiness of heterosexual pornography� (16), straying away from the image of the lesbian as heterosexual male fantasy. Instead of the women being portrayed as underwear models playing the role of queerness, the scene is extremely sexually charged and passionate. Additionally, in breaking with another norm often seen in lesbian fantasies or narratives, it is not Corky, who is placed squarely in the role of butch, who initiates their first sexual contact. Violet, who oozes a stylized retro sex appeal, is the first to express her desire by coercing and seducing Corky under the guise of needing a sink unclogged.

Stereotypical visual signifiers factor in to this discussion heavily, with Corky’s masculinized dress, short hair and tattoos – particularly that of the labrys on her arm, a lesbian symbol which Violet comments on, stating that she didn’t need to advertise her identity as Corky does – to Violet’s curled hair, perfect makeup and manicured hands, and her beautiful, tight-fitting dresses. Despite the fact that these are common stereotypes, the personalities and actions of the two characters keep the film from falling too deep into the trap of fictionalized stereotyping.

By the time the second sex scene occurs, Violet is positioned on top of Corky’s body while the camera “continues in one uninterrupted shot that starts as a long shot from the head of the mattress, closing in on one side of their bodies which are just shielding Violet’s hands between Corky’s legs� (Kessler 16), and so on and so forth. The power dynamic between the two is troubled here, for the stereotypical notion of the lesbian sex act seems to generally involve the butch on top. There is a distinct feeling of equity between the two in their lovemaking. While the viewer is invited into the scene by the way in which it was filmed, it does not exploit the act of sex as many other films so commonly do. The viewer is drawn in a way that does not make it seem like a peepshow, but far more intimate.

Posted by allison at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is in the movie Bound that I have realized for the first time how many lesbian sex scenes reminded me of and reified the conventional ideas of heterosexual sex acts. With the combination of the Kessler and Noble reading and watching Bound after that, I was able to complicate my own understanding of queer sexuality in a heterosexually dominated film industry. It is for this reason I believe that the sex scene is definitely feminist in many aspects. Throughout the movie Both Corky and Violet are consistently placed into the typ

Posted by Nami at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

There is no doubt that Bound asks us to place Violet and Corky within the categories of either butch or femme, as the film is full of signifiers which code their bodies either way. Corky can be seen as butch, as evidenced by her leather jacket, tattoos, and boots, while Violet is portrayed as femme in her short skirts and high heels. Kessler claims that Bound's use of these recognizable roles allows the viewer to place the characters in comparison to oneself, alleviating "discomfort caused by cultural uncertainty". I tend to find black/white divisions like these uninteresting. It seems too constricting to place people in one category or the other. I was relieved to see that Bound's sex scene allowed for the characters to redefine what is normally thought of as traditional butch/femme roles. Violet's placement on top is significant in that it allows for a femme lesbian to be seen as the sexual aggressor. There were no real signs of masculinity or femininity within this scene, and instead we see them as equals engaging in a truer portrayal of lesbian sex.

Posted by allora at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I would say that the sex scenes in Bound are very feminist. There are several reasons why I believe that these scenes are feminist. As Kessler points out in her essay, the scenes avoid phallocentrism. Although there is penetration occurring it is done in a way that does not lend itself to the power of the phallus. The focus of the scenes is not done around the actual action of penetration but the expressions of pleasure on each woman’s face. Both scenes also show both women in each shot which avoids any specific points of view especially a male gaze. Also Corky and Violet switch positions of masculinity and femininity. The first scene Corky is seen as a masculine as she pleasures Violet but in the second scene the roles are switched and Corky is seen in a feminine way. This shows how masculinity and butch are not concretely linked together as the butch Corky and the femme Violet can switch who has the role of masculinity and who has the role of femininity. As Kessler discusses in her essay, voyeurism is what lends this seen to be a feminist display of lesbian sex. The viewer is allowed to watch the scenes from a view that excludes phallocentrism and the male gaze and allows them to follow the movements of each character and their pleasure which does not produce a notion of one character having more power over the other. So in my opinion, using Susie Bright in the choreography of these sex scenes helped to bring the screen a truly feminist lesbian sex scene.

Posted by Faith Kolstad at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think the movie Bound depicts lesbian sex in the most positive way I've ever seen it. Both the women were actively engaged in the act, and though there may have been masculine and feminine characteristics assigned to the women, I saw them as completely equal in the sex scene they shared. I believe the scene to be feminist, because the depiction is not about domination, but intimacy and passion, unlike that of Basic Instinct. Because Corky is seen as the butch, and Violet as a femme, I expected the scene to show Corky in a more dominant role, but the opposite was true, when Violet was seductive, and even a bit more aggressive in bed. If Corky and Violet were to trade positions in the scene, it would have been more typical of heterosexual sex, due to there characteristics they emit. The notion of masculinity and femininity in lesbian relationships has changed for me after seeing and discussing this particular scene. I think I just assumed what lesbian sex was, but now have a better grasp on what it is, and how it should be viewed.

Posted by ande4840 at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bound’s main sex scene does strike me as feminist in many ways, although as addressed in Kelly Kessler’s article it seems to appeal to a male heterosexual audience as well. The panning shots up and down their bodies during the scene definitely carry a voyeuristic quality which fall in line with conventional sex scenes, but as Kessler also mentions in her article- there are no masculine symbols and thus it seems to me there would be no really strong way in which a man could envision himself as part of the action. Yes, both the women are beautiful and that will appeal to the male hetero viewer. However, the scene ends up on Corky’s face as she orgasms- and in this moment the camera sticks with her and her expressions are not the typical breathy, half screaming Hollywood woman orgasm. Violet is in the active position during the scene and because of this Corky’s masculine qualities and Violet’s feminine ones seem less rigid than they might have appeared at first. Up to this point in the film each character has been presented with stereotypical symbols which identify Corky as “butch� and Violet as “femme,� but Violet as initiator and driver of the sexual encounter and then later as the one driving the action forward serves to remind us that she should be viewed on (at least) equal terms with Corky and the men in the film. If Corky and Violet had switched positions in the scene, it would have seemed over the top in characterizing Violet as the ultra-feminine, passive receiver and Corky as the “stand in for the man� role. As it is, the women seem to be more equal opportunity partners and lovers.

Posted by kafka at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In my opinion the sex scene in Bound is what I would consider feminist because it is a woman, and in this case women, taking control of the situation that is stereotypically controlled by a male character. In the movie both butch and femme are seen in the characters of Violet and Corky. Violet plays the part of the seductive woman which leads the audience to label her as femme. Then to reinforce the fact that Violet represents femme and Corky represents Butch: in their first sexual encounter it is Corky who is pleasuring Violet. In the longer sex scene the roles are reversed and it is Violet who is pleasuring Corky. This switches the masculine and feminine roles (which originally were Violet feminine and Corky masculine), since it is Violet who is now doing the penetrating she takes on the masculine role and Corky is seen as feminine.

The two sex scenes show the difference between their relationship and a heterosexual relationship. (In a heterosexual relationship it is stereotyped that the masculine individual is the on doing the penetrating and the feminine individual who is being penetrated.) If Violet and Corky switched positions, Corky would be seen as the butch and masculine individual of the relationship and therefore be seen as the dominant one. The sexual encounters reinforce the ideas of sex and gender and the differences between the two as discussed in our lecture. Looking at the sex of both characters the audiences sees two women in a relationship. However, it is their actions during sex that depicts their genders based on their actions and the roles (masculine and feminine) that they play. Since both characters took turns playing the masculine role of the relationship they also share the role of being dominant which is seen throughout the rest of the film.

Posted by robes002 at 9:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I viewed the love scene in Bound to be a feminist scene. It shows two females being intimate with each other and not attempting to fulfill a “man� role and a “female� role, which society feels more comfortable portraying with queer couples, according to Kessler. Susie Bright’s assistance with the choreography, allowed the directors to avoid placing the queer couple into the mold of a heterosexual couple. Violet was more dominant in the pleasuring throughout the bed love scene, but corky was in the first intimate scene, while performing the same act. This creates for an equal portrayal in love-making by each of the women. If corky would have been shown in the bed love scene as the dominant pleasure, this would have shown more or a patriarchal relationship between the two women. Corky is presented with short hair, tattoos, and laid-back dress. She is an ex-con and enjoys fixing things (handywoman). Corky could be labeled as “butch� by society, based on her appearance and personality. The directors then chose to have Violet shown quite the opposite in appearance and personality.

In comparison, this allows her character to observed as “femme�. In the love scene I feel that the “butch� and “femme� labels dissolve from the characters’ identities. This permits them to be shown as two females engaged in an intimate moment---free from the “gender roles� which society has wrongly classified as normal. These labels, as the-more-masculine-partner and the-more-feminine-partner, have been removed from the scene because the women are not being defined by their appearance or interests. The emphasis is on Corky and Violet’s female sexuality and their strong attractions towards each other.

Posted by kerli006 at 8:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The sex scene in the film Bound is feminist. Because of the excessive usage of sex scenes in many meaningful, ordinary, and stupid films, the over-exposed audience may simply watch the sex scene without any thought it being feminist but they will definitely get a “voyeuristic pleasure� from this scene. As Kelly Kessler states in her article “Bound Together: Lesbian film that’s family fun for everyone�, the sex scene in Bound “provides sex totally independent of male symbolism� meaning it “excludes phallocentrism� and there is no feeling of a male character present or watching them as they indulge in each other.

Violet’s character takes on a role of femme fatale. Although she has a quiet demeanor, she is the one pulling all the strings and the central character of this movie. She is attractive to both men and women and wears attractive skirts. Her daily job seems to be Caesar’s wife or girlfriend. On the other hand, Corky assumes the butch character in this film. Her job is to fix up the apartment next to where Violet lives. She is always wearing a tank-top, wears a construction or working pants, and doesn’t hang out with men.

In the sex scenes, Violet who is femme fatale, seems to be in control and this is somewhat conflicting as we would think Corky, who is more masculine, will be one taking control over Violet. It also become apparent that Violet is the one who ends up saving both herself and Corky by shooting Caesar. If Violet and Corky traded positions in the sex scene, we might feel a presence of phallocentrism as Corky is masculine.

Posted by dorje003 at 8:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the the second sex scene of Bound the expected stereotypical behaviors of butch and femme are reversed. However, it could be argued that it does not go far enough to challenge sexual “roles� and control. Kessler appraises sex scene and its departure from mainstream Hollywood/pornography representations of lesbianism where sex between women is not as “real� as hetero-sex, therefore it requires male presence or phallic objects to be worthy of interest.

According to Kessler film has been designed to appeal to all audiences, which might be a strength as well as limitation. For example, both characters are quite within the normative standards of body shape, age, attractiveness etc. Even if the bar scene represented its patrons as “stereotypical to the point of humor� nevertheless they showed much wider variety of body types. Although both Violet and Corky challenge gender norms and normative sexuality, Violet’s potential in destabilizing gender and sexual order is higher since she is not as easily identifiable the way Corky is.
Overall the scene and the film demonstrates that identities are not so easily definable and rigid as stereotypes would suggest. Kessler states that “Bound visually adheres to historical stereotypes while revising/transforming then through a reversal of behavior expectations and connotation.� Bound serves as illustration of how bodies do not need to align with cultural ideals of masculinity and femininity but can be adopted and performed by anyone. For example, Violet despite her femme appearance displays traits that typically are considered as masculine, such as being rational and sexually assertive.

Posted by Arnoldas at 7:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The writings of both Kessler and Noble, are indicative of a consensus that Susie Bright's ability to allow for a sex scene that intentionally avoids Hollywood's conception of Lesbian sexual relationships, complicating butch/femme divisions of submission and aggression, “avoid phallocentrism, in that it focuses on the expressions of pleasure on Violet's face…rather than penetration or actual genitalia�, among other markers of authenticity, is a very real talent indeed. This being said (and said), by so fully committing to such a universalized erotic sex scene (the cross-over Kesslers speaks of) that allows a spectrum of sexual identities to enjoy and identify we see the same problematic beauty standard upheld and highlighted.

It could be argued as Kessler does that (among the above reasons) by physically marking the bodies of these actresses as femme/butch the director is able to appeal to both audiences. This may be, and I believe is true, the reproduction of flawless skin, thin bodies, full breasted women, which is by no means inherently masculine/feminine or heterosexual/queer in terms of enjoyment. Placed back into the larger white-supremacist and patriarchal society that produced such imaged of beauty should be acknowledged for its influence. Admittedly, I enjoyed both scenes, the subtlety of the first encounter between Corky and Violet --which could easily be read as addressing the concerns I expressed about the scene in Corky's apartment-- where the actresses are fully clothed and the emphasizes is on the seduction, intimacy, and pleasure of Violet (which allows the second scene to serve as the [much appreciated] climax)

Posted by Sofia at 1:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Lesbian sex on screen is often done with the male viewer in mind. I find it very interesting that Bound was directed and produced by the Wachowski brothers, but they consulted with notorious feminist sex instructor, Susie Bright, on how to accurately portray lesbian sex. Since Bright directed the sex scene I definitely read it as feminist. since it was directed with a feminist mind. As stated in Kessler’s article, the second sex scene in the film shows “lesbian sex without the need of any phallic object. It provides sex totally independent of male symbolism. The scene is not heterosexualized and the women are not wearing sexy teddies and they do not look like they are playing slumber party games.� The film portrays sex as passionate and a shows a true intimacy between the two women. It portrays sex just as it would be portrayed between a man and women in any other film.

The camera angles don’t make it seem pornographic, but more arousing to the viewers to show the true bond that these two women share. Kessler also states that, “Bound portrays the intimacies and technicalities of lesbian sex without the fuzzy romanticism of other lesbian love scenes or the hyper-feminine trashiness of heterosexual pornography.� Since Corky was considered butch and Violet was considered femme in the film, it is interesting to see the roles these two played in the sex scene. Violet ended up being the aggressor in the situation. She seduced Corky and ended up “on top� or in control throughout the sex scene. This is the role you would normally see a male take in heterosexual sex. If this were the opposite then people would have read it more as heterosexual sex, rather then sex between two women, which is different and shouldn’t be compared to the sex between a man and women or read as having to be pornographic in order to please a male audience.

Posted by sulli396 at 12:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I agree with the Kessler reading in that the sex scenes in Bound between Corky and Violet allow for approval from both heterosexual male and lesbian audiences. However, every person's opinion on this matter is going to be influenced by their experience with viewing sex scenes and pornography, which makes the situation more complicated. So in the instance where the Kessler reading compares the Bound sex scenes with scenes from both movies made for lesbians audiences and girl on girl pornos intended for straight males, the comparisons won't really hold much practical meaning for someone with limited experience in both or either of those film genres. So, to some extent every person is limited in their perspective in arguing what the Bound sex scenes do and do not allow for. On the other hand, with every person having a unique experience and therefore perspective, the scenes most likely allow for any number of interpretations. Again as in the Kessler reading, the camera's pov doesn't make hetero males the exclusive audience, because the filmmakers opted for "objective" framing of the women.

There is no man to bust in and "enhance" the action, but the straight male audience is not excluded either as the 'goods are on display' so to speak. In this way I think the sex scenes allow for a wide variety if not infinite inclusion of audiences. Also, out of all the films I've seen in this class, I rate Bound up there with Persepolis as one of the more feminist films. The fact that the Wakowskis sought out the help of a top notch lesbian sex expert not only points to their integrity as film makers, but also (whether they care or not) makes the film that much more authentic and therefore empowering to any woman. Not to say that Corky and Violet aren't stereotyped. However, the fact that those stereotypes didn't permeate the sex scenes (as far as I can tell they didn't, it was just hot sex) was quite remarkable. I'd say Corky's representations in both the scenes is definitely more submissive than Violet's. In the first scene Corky's is being bossed around by Violet in a kind of tame dom/sub interplay where Violet is all like "you shall be my slave, etc". In the second scene Corky stays in the passive role, but Violet is the outright pleasurer. So Corky steps into even deeper passivity one could conclude. HOWEVER, I haven't decided whether Corky plays an active role in Violet's pleasure from pleasuring, or not. Because really, Violet is still the pursuant, the one who actively has been and is still seeking out Corky. And we really haven't seen Corky do anything but appease Violet. Somehow it seems to me that Corky actually holds more of a dominant role over Violet, because it was Corky's prerogative to accept the sexual advances. I think that interplay informs the butch and femme representations in the scenes, because it seems like neither Corky nor Violet's appearance do much other than to create an immediate bias as to which is more butch or more femme. If all we saw of Corky and Violet were photograph stills, the butch and femme labels would be easy to pin. But because they speak, breathe, and sleep together, the whole dynamic is utterly disorienting. I honestly think that if the characters had switched positions, the film would have lost a layer of depth. In the film Corky submits to Violet's trust in the cash heist, and so it was kind of a nice little foreshadowing and thematic mirroring of that in the sex scene. Also Violet needed to further substantiate her position as the mysterious and powerful femme fatale, which I think was aptly portrayed in the sex as well.

Posted by CrazyOldMaurice at 12:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I do think that this scene between Corky and Violet was feminist. It allowed for the blatant sexuality that both these women sought and embodied with little to no objectification. The little that remained I think was mitigated by the “voyeuristic� nature of film and its appearance as otherwise “really good sex� that Kessler discussed. I also agree with her statement that Gershon made a lousy butch. Other than that I thought the subtle ambiguity of a “dominating� gender role made this movie all the better. As for if Corky were on top, my first thought was to say yes it would be less empowering or feminist, and maybe even a little less sexy.

I really didnt like the fact that it almost seemed as if Violets femme-ness almost seemed to belittle her character (especially in our discussion). These stereotypes seemed more to reinforce hetero-normativity or to be ameliorating homosexuality for the comfort of the heterosexual audience then to actually make any sort of character development. She was still as strong intelligent and at times dominating as any of the other characters, only using a her imposed feminine wiles to manipulate the misogynistic and unsuspecting males in the film (Jennifer Tilly is so great <3 ). Unlike basic instinct, (which I thought was one of the worst “queer� representations) their sexuality was complete with the two of them and not a caricature created to subvert, castrate or other wise dis-empower men. As Kessler also points out this also made it far more sexual as they weren't waiting for the “real� heterosexual sex.

Posted by spiek010 at 8:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Looking at the sex scene within Bound I believe overall that it was very pro-feminist. The fact that the directors turned Susie Bright I think shows that they were serious about making this scene as realistic that as they could. In this scene the audience sees the femme taking charge and being the more aggressive female even though stereotypically one would assume it would be the butch who would be making the sexual advances. Even the positioning put Violet, the femme, “on top� is a very “masculine� role/position. Had the position of the two changed it would have looked as a “typical� heterosexual couple with the “man� on top and the woman on the bottom. That characteristics of the two where fairly prominent with Violets perfectly manicured nails and Corky’s “masculine� looking tattoos which adorned her body, yet this is thrown when the camera finally moves up the body to show their chests.

Not only do they have gender signifiers and the various stereotypical roles challenged but it also leaves one main component out that is often seen in so many lesbian scenes within film, and that is a male participant. This is one of the reasons that make this scene so different from every other movie with a lesbian sex scene. In Kessler’s Bound Together she states that, “This scene presents a type of lesbian sexuality that is not often shown in heterosexual films: lesbian sex without the need of any phallic object� (16). The only people in this scene are the two women, they also are not using any type of dildo or anything that simulates a penis, and there is no presence of a male there whatsoever.

Overall I found this scene to be feminist. The directors seemed to genuinely want a realistic lesbian love scene. I think that having the consultant helped as well not only did it make it more realistic but I think that having someone come in to consult also made it more reputable. This scene mixes the stereotypes of both male, female roles, and butch femme and question what we consider normal and not normal within ones role in relationships.

Posted by lars2805 at 8:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is a feminist scene because challenges the traditional, patriarchal notions of sex. As Kessler points out, the sex scene manages to “avoid phallocentrism in that it focuses on[Violet’s pleasure]…not penetration.� The butch/femme distinction is important here because the scene “stages a struggle over hegemonic interpretations of female sexual iconography� (Noble). As the PowerPoint notes, one critique of such labels said that they replicated the gender roles of the patriarchy, where the femme took on the traditional feminine traits, and the butch took on the traditional masculine traits. While Bound certainly addresses these stereotypes, it goes further than that.

Yes, Corky is portrayed as the butch with her boots, pants, tattoos, and men’s underwear, but she would be considered the submissive/passive partner in the sex scene. Violet, on the other hand, with her short skirts, make-up and tights, is portrayed as the femme but also as the sexual aggressor. She is one who initiate both sexual encounters, and she is the dominant one in the bedroom scene.

This is what Kessler calls a “reversal of behavior expectation,� and it uses the stereotypical notions of butch/femme to show that people cannot be so easily labeled. The placement of the characters in this scene is important because Violet is the dominant character. Had Corky been the one to initiate sex, she would have adopted the “masculine� trait of being sexually aggressive, and then the scene would have simply reinscribed the traditional patriarchal notions of sex.

Posted by Katie Green at 8:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Bound has successfully drawn favors from both heterosexual and lesbian crowds by “visually adhering to historical stereotypes while reversing/transforming them through a reversal of behavior expectation and connotation� according to Kelly Kessler. The girl-on-girl action engages in activities that are heterosexually tailor adheres to male audiences, while the actual depiction and details of the lesbian sex is tailored more towards the lesbian audience. The two sex scenes appeal to both straight and lesbian audiences by shooting the scenes in such a way that “they would appeal to a heterosexual male audience, while providing ‘steamy’ lesbian sex, targeted at lesbians� (Kessler).

The lesbian characters in Bound are clearly defined and aesthetically constructed to fit the stereotypical butch and femme roles in history. Corky is dressed to portray the butch with a leather jacket, boots, men’s briefs, and tattoos. Violet wears short and form-fitting dresses, heels, has a perfectly made-up face, and long fingernails to portray her as the femme. While Corky is physically stronger and more masculine, Violet is the sexual aggressor. She initiates the action in both sex scenes. She calls Corky over to fix her plumbing, and she is the one who puts Corky’s hand under her dress. She is also the one who goes to Corky’s truck to prompt her for a second round. During the second scene in the bedroom, Corky is receiving while Violet, the femme, is pleasing her. In heterosexual sex, missionary position is most common. This scene challenges that accepted normality by reversing the positions. As the butch, Corky would be expected to be in control and be on top, while Violet should be the passive receiver. If their positions were reversed, this scene would fall into the category of heterosexually conceived notions of lesbian sex and wouldn’t be as notorious or have the impact it does to viewers of all sexuality it does today.

Posted by savor004 at 8:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By placing Violet’s character in control in this sex scene, the stereotype or heterosexually conceived notion of butch=masculine=aggressive and femme=feminine=submissive is undermined. As described in Nobles’s article, “Bound and Invested: Lesbian Desire and Hollywood Ethnography,� Violet is the “sexual initiator,� reinscribing her role as a femme. I think that another important aspect of this sex scene is the exclusion of phallocentrism, which Kessler points out is rare in heterosexual films.
If Violet and Corky changed positions in this scene, I don’t think the scene would be true to the characters. It’s important that we see Violet not just as a seductress who enjoys pleasure, but as a strong woman who loves women and wants to give pleasure.

Posted by Natalie at 8:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In my opinion I think the sex scene in Bound does not make the two characters explicit in any way. I believe it accurately portrays two women enjoying being together. Unlike many other lesbian sex scenes this scene seemed based more upon the love dynamic and showing two women engaging in this sex act that truly enjoy the other sexually. In so many other insistences we see lesbian sex scenes as being explicit and they don’t focus at all about the passion, but just the act itself. I believe both of the characters are represented as equals. I don’t think the butch/femme role is present here. Both of the characters are naked and when trying to decipher the butch/femme role, it is usually based upon clothing. Neither of them looks like either stereotype. When clothed, Corky would be seen in the “butch� role and Violet would be considered the “femme.� In most of the movie Corky is seen as the dominant character between the two, but in the sex scene Violet is depicted as the dominant one. If the two characters had switched positions in this scene the butch/femme roles could have possibly been more dominant because we would see Corky being in the dominant “butch� role that she is seen as throughout the rest of the movie. I think this sex scene got so much praise because it does break the stereotypes that were normally seen in movies and it helped portray the two women as equals and it didn’t exploit the two characters as lesbians, but helped better portray them as lovers.

Posted by jcareykc at 8:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Realistic lesbian sex is in short supply in films. Bound, by having its sex scene choreographed by Susie Bright, can be considered to be pretty close to what "real" lesbian sex is like. The sex scene can be perceived as feminist to a certain extent. The scene is interesting as the visibly butch character is not in the dominant position; stereotypically, butch would be considered to be dominant over femme, due to concepts of heteronormativity (one partner "must" be filling a "male role" and the other a "female role"). However, this scene very obviously differs with that concept, by placing the femme character in the dominant position. If their roles had been switched, the scene could be perceived to have been simply fulfilling stereotypes and not realistic. It also would not have indicated the complicated nature of the characters' relationship.

The scene complicates the idea of femininity. In a traditional, patriarchal sense, to be feminine is to demur to men, to be seduced and not be the seducer. But in this case, the femme seduces the butch; Violet is the "aggressor", and takes the dominant position. What this suggests is that visible cues of stereotypical femininity are not necessarily indicators of actual "femininity" (in the stereotypical, inaccurate sense).

Posted by seitz057 at 7:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Although I can’t claim to be any sort of an expert on what “real� lesbian sex looks like, I thought the scene between Violet and Corky was distinctly different from most representations of queer love on screen. Kessler gives a few examples of this: the scene lacks of any sort of phallus, but it is clear that this is sex. In addition, the two women are portrayed as somewhat ordinary people, not just stereotypes. Finally, there is very little romanticism involved- no teddies- it’s really just sex. I can imagine that for these reasons this scene would be far more appealing to queer viewers than the “chicks kissing each other is hot� Hollywood attitude.

The conceptions of butch and femme are really played with in this film, to a degree where it becomes complicated to tease apart. On the surface, it’s clear who is butch and who is femme. But when it comes to the sex scene(s) this is challenged. I think the positioning of the camera says a lot about the sort of egalitarian, give and take sexual relationship this is. The camera pans around the whole bed, concentrated on Violet and Corky’s bodies together, not as individual pieces. Also, as Kessler points out, there is a lot of attention paid to the pleasure this elicits- emphasis on faces, breath, toes curling, etc. I also found it interesting to look at how the stereotypes were played with and occasionally mocked- like when Violet says “Of course� to Corky owning a truck or when she asks, “Are you surprised you know what it is?� By mocking these stereotypes they show that they are not encompass them as individuals and don't necessarily define them.

Posted by happyfeet at 6:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The sex scene in bound is not one that we have seen in the movies that we have watched so far. It is feminist in that it shows women enjoying sex, not being exploited by it, used, or apologizing for it. It does not simply focus on the nudity and focus on the actresss’ bodies in it. It represents passion and emotion in their sex while only showing what is needed to portray this feeling. I don’t see much significance of butch and femme in this scene. Without their clothing they are both shown as equally feminine. The only thing that sets Violet out as the femme one in this scene are her long, painted nails. Although Violet is pleasuring Corky in the scene, it does not seem as if she is dominating her. Instead they are both equally enjoying the act.

If Corky and Violet traded positions, given our preconceived knowledge of them as butch and femme, it may seem that Corky is more masculine. But, if one were to watch just this scene, I don’t think that they would be able to identify them as butch and femme. By having Violet pleasure Corky, it takes away any masculine feeling to the scene, instead just showing two feminine women enjoying themselves in an act of passion for one another.

Posted by Jolene Lewis at 6:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

May I begin with stating that the main sex scene displayed in the film, Bound, was one of the most passionate and meaningful lesbian scenes I have viewed thus far.
I believe this scene is depicted as feminst while at the same time contradicting lesbian-feminist assumptions of the butch and femme culture. The scene overall represents Violet and Corky as strong, deep, and passionate in their sexuality. The significance of butch and femme is important to examine in order to understand how the scene contradicts the misreadings people have formed about lesbian-feminists. It was stated in the 'Bound Together' article by Kelly Ressler that by the 1980's butch and femme roles had become less strict and it was considered by others to be unhealthy to follow the roles and rules that went along with them. The sex scene grasps onto the realization that society recognizes these butch and femme stereotypes and visually supports them while transforming them into modern unexpected behaviors. Butch is typically associated with being sexually aggressive

while femme is perceived as passive and quiet. These assumptions are significant because the film portrays Violet as being femme and Corky as butch. Violet is the sexual initiator constanly seeking out Corky to engage in provacative flirting. She communicates her sexual desire and interest toward Corky the second she slipped Corky's hand under her slip and seductively said, "You can't believe what you see, but you can believe what you feel." The infamous sex scene further challenges the butch and femme stereotypes by having Corky on her back and Violet sexually in control of Corky's orgasm.
Femininity is depicted through Violet. With her hoarse whisper of a voice, her well put on make up and her beautiful curly hair she represents the femininity achieved by many heterosexual women and femme feminists. She wears sexy dresses and slips that show off her womanly curves and her nails are perfectly painted. It is her long, gorgeous nails that are very noticable during the sex scene. They are wrapped around Corky's face, brushing over her lips and half open mouth as she is in sexual bliss. Masculinity is depicted through Corky. She wears boots, pants, a motorcycle leather jacket, men's underwear and has tattoos. Although Corky is masculine she is marked as a female when her and Violet have sex. An intriguing remark made in the article 'Bound and Invested' by Jean Noble stated that a "femme's desire for female masculinity was evidenced by Violet's ability to read and deire Corky as both female and masculine."
If Violet and Corky traded positions in the scene it would give it a more heterosexual perspective. The scene would be surrendering to the butch and femme stereotypes assummed by much of society. I highly respect and applaud the director for venturing into gay communities to give this amazing sex scene more meaning and a sense of reality.

Posted by hendr324 at 5:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Both women were enjoying themselves, and even though Violet was the initiator, she was the one pleasuring Corky. Violet, the femme was concentrating on Corky “the butch.� While Corky just kind of laid there. Neither character was on top of theother. They were both kind of beside each other; neither one being over-dominating. I feel like this scene wasn’t exactly realistic because both characters had typical bodies of Hollywood stars and not of regular person. It was interesting to see how the traditional roles were reversed in the sense that Violet, the initiator and dominator, was the feminine one. If one were to watch the scene, where they are naked and you can’t see the “butch� signifiers like the leather jacket, wife beater and boots and only look at the bodies, one would not be able to tell which person was the butch or the femme. I noticed how it seemed strange to me to see Violet cradling Corky’s head in a dominant way but her long, painted fingernails signified that she was the femme. This

scene was also different because, as Kessler discusses, a lack of a theme of phallocentrism (4). I cannot say for sure whether or not this scene is feminist. I think it’s probably more realistic, and I found it interesting that they hired “Susie Bright, the self-proclaimed “sexpert� and editor of the lesbian erotica magazine On Our Backs� (Kessler, 4) to aid in the production of the film. One thing that I did notice and that Noble discusses is how Violet’s character is still portrayed as that of the “figure of powerful and potentially dangerous female sexuality (4), and this is similar to the portrayal of the lesbians in Fatal Attraction.

Posted by Alias at 5:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found the scene to be a little confusing. Before this we saw Violet coming on to Corky but Corky engaging in the sexual relations. Later, we see Violet going into Corky’s truck and wanting to pleasure her which we later saw happening at Corky’s place. I do not think that the scene is very feminist. I see two women having sex, but it does challenge the typical femme and butch roles. Violet we see as a seductive femme woman and Corky a strong butch woman. Although during the sex scene their “identified� roles are switched. It shows Violet as the more dominant lesbian. This shows me that there is not a whole lot of significance to butch and femme. The only difference is the way they act and dress but when it comes to a relationship or sexual experience they are both using different roles. Masculinity is troubled from this because it is now diminished. It places the characters in all different positions not only in the sex scene but throughout the movie. As Kessler would explain, the roles of butch and femme are now considered to be “unhealthy.� Although they still exist, Bound educates us that these roles are “recognized in both heterosexual and lesbian cultures.� The placements of the women in the sex scenes are really important. If Corky were to be giving pleasure to Violet in both scenes the roles of butch and femme would be a little bit more correct but that is not the case. Violet surprises us by being very dominating and witty. She proved that she is just the same as Corky (butch). They are capable and enjoy the same things.

Posted by lemme021 at 4:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

These scenes allow for the audience to move away from the idea of heterosexual (male) sexuality and move toward the notion of female sexuality; its existence without a man being present and possibly even more prominent in this scene is the absence of a phallus. Yet this scene does not completely pull away from the idea of heterosexual sex, Corky and Violet’s Butch/Femme personas reinscribe this concept. Unfortunately along with the Butch/Femme characteristics there is an association with masculine and feminine placement, or stereotypes. As great of a job that I believe this film does to represent lesbian relationships and sexuality, it could have progressed further from our society’s idea of heterosexual normalcy.

With that being said, this scene does still inscribe to feminism. This definitely expresses female sexuality, as well as the fact that this comes in different forms. This illustrates that women are dynamic in their “femaleness�, yet we see that their needs and wants are the same.

In the first scene the Butch/Femme representation seems to have more overt significance. Violet’s seduction is reminiscent of a Femme Fatale. The viewer questions Violets sincerity, whether she has an ulterior motive. In the second scene we see the film differentiates from the underlying patriarchy that flows through the film; Violet is in the dominate role that is often associate with the male in heterosexual relations. If they were to switch places the viewers may not give this a second thought, for it would fulfill the heterosexual belief system that so often dominates our society.

Posted by luco0005 at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I feel that the film Bound employs a high-quality of feminism. Although, Corky was considered the “butch� lesbian I feel that it was forced. I feel that the film does somewhat exclude other lesbians because Corky and Violet were both feminine therefore not allowing more masculine “butch� lesbians to identify with the characters. Corky and Violet were portrayed through classic “femme� and “butch� images. This reinforces the lesbian stereotype and thus shows them to be “in their place� (Kessler pg 18). Typically the butch was thought to be the aggressive one and the femme was perceived as passive, but this film challenges these roles because Corky is the passive receiver. “Bound visually adheres to historical stereotypes while revising/transforming them through a reversal of behavior and connotation� (Kessler pg 19). The placement of Corky and Violet is important because Violet is the femme sexual aggressor which is not anticipated. I anticipated Corky to be more of the aggressor because she is “butch� and more “masculine.� Masculine roles are generally viewed to be more dominate in our society. Therefore, if Violet and Corky traded places the sex scenes would not go against the “standard.�

Posted by thoughts at 2:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The question during the after movie discussion is class about, "why is there butch and femme," and the questions about masculinity and femininity seemed to me like we were asking, "why do we stereotype?" We can speculate but no one really knows why. I guess so we can generalize and make things more consistent. That way it is easier for is to talk about and to understand. Generalizing too much about anything can cause issues when talking about topics in depth. But I guess that's what makes butch and femme important is just that, that it needs to make more sense to the general public. They can understand that these are two lesbians having sex, but I feel like maybe that isn't enough for them. They need more roles to be filled for them to understand the scene better. They need something they can identify with. Men will identify with Corky and women will identify with Violet. As for masculinity being represented in a scene where two females are having sex, we could probably argue that the tattoo you see helps Corky seem more masculine. Also, we see Corky has a lot more muscle definition where Violet is more "round" and soft. I think the character placement and the way the camera moves enhances that this is a lesbian scene.

The trucking/panning shot that runs up their bodies helps the audience a lot. We see Violet's hand in Corky and when the camera moves further up we see breasts on top of other breasts. If they were in a different sexual position that maybe a man and women would be in, we might not see these shots. But I think the way everything was composed really enhanced it.

Posted by leex2356 at 2:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is clear that this scene deserves the respect that it receives from the queer community; it goes beyond mere accurate representation and instead accomplishes a near reality. It does this by refusing to include heterosexual (and incorrect) stereotyping of lesbian sex, as well as refusing the popular 1970’s lesbian ideas of strict butch/femme roles. The union and completeness of the scene erases the need for any phallic presence (as lesbian pornography usually depicts). By having Violet on top doing the pleasuring, and Corky on bottom, Violet can be seen as inhabiting the typical male role of the initiator and sexual aggressor. Corky can be seen in the typical feminine position. This counteracts the early lesbian standards of the butch (which Corky depicts through her leather jackets and boots) being the masculine and the femme (which Violet demonstrates by her airy voice, longs nails, and tight dresses) being the feminine. If they switched positions I don't believe the scene would have been as effective as it would have played into this stereotype. Rather, these roles are not even an issue in this scene, as both women are naked. This renders them as equals. For example, in the previous sex scene, while Violet was once again the initiator, it was Corky who pleasured her. Both women give and receive.

These women share a bond of equality, as well as one that looks beyond the typical binds of stereotyping. As Keller claims, “Bound portrays the intimacies and technicalities of lesbian sex without the fuzzy romanticism of other lesbian love scenes or the hyper-feminine trashiness of heterosexual pornography.� Truly, this scene undermines the title and allows these women to experience sexual pleasure freely and completely. The scene then does not only validate Corky and Violet as lesbians, but as women. By putting their equal and complete satisfaction first, this scene glorifies these women's sexuality rather than demeaning them through it. This, therefore, makes the scene feminist.

Posted by lenth006 at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The sex scene was interesting because right before it, there was the short little sexual encounter between Corky and Violet where Corky was the one who was doing the pleasuring. Both sexual encounters were initiated by Violet in a seductive way. The main sex scene shows Violet doing all of the pleasuring and Corky being the one who is on the sole recieving end. I think one of the problems with the scene is that both women are not recieving while giving. I don't see the scene as feminist, I simply see it as a lesbian sex scene. Violet appears to be the dominant one but I wouldn't consider her the masculine character and Corky dresses Butch but isn't necessarily the masculine character either. I think this film and the sex scene did an excellent job of showing the equality between the two women in their relationship together. Neither one was solely dominant and both had something to give to the relationship. I think with Corky being on the "bottom" in the scene, she was seen as the female of the sex scene, because in heterosexual couples, the woman usually recieves the pleasure while lying on the "bottom."

If Corky were on her side and recieving the pleasure, I would probably consider Violet to be the feminine character, so the positions did help support the roles. As far as butch and femme goes, during the sex scene, both the women were completely nude so I don't consider either one to be butch or femme, they are simply the couple as a whole during the scene. The masculinity and feminity does come out during the scene because of their positions but Corky isn't the butch one and Violet isn't the femme one in this particular scene. In the rest of the movie, it is obviously clear that the women vary greatly in the way they portray themselves to the public, but in the bedroom, all of those stereotypes go away.

Posted by postx072 at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The sex scene was interesting because right before it, there was the short little sexual encounter between Corky and Violet where Corky was the one who was doing the pleasuring. Both sexual encounters were initiated by Violet in a seductive way. The main sex scene shows Violet doing all of the pleasuring and Corky being the one who is on the sole recieving end. I think one of the problems with the scene is that both women are not recieving while giving. I don't see the scene as feminist, I simply see it as a lesbian sex scene. Violet appears to be the dominant one but I wouldn't consider her the masculine character and Corky dresses Butch but isn't necessarily the masculine character either. I think this film and the sex scene did an excellent job of showing the equality between the two women in their relationship together. Neither one was solely dominant and both had something to give to the relationship. I think with Corky being on the "bottom" in the scene, she was seen as the female of the sex scene, because in heterosexual couples, the woman usually recieves the pleasure while lying on the "bottom."

If Corky were on her side and recieving the pleasure, I would probably consider Violet to be the feminine character, so the positions did help support the roles. As far as butch and femme goes, during the sex scene, both the women were completely nude so I don't consider either one to be butch or femme, they are simply the couple as a whole during the scene. The masculinity and feminity does come out during the scene because of their positions but Corky isn't the butch one and Violet isn't the femme one in this particular scene. In the rest of the movie, it is obviously clear that the women vary greatly in the way they portray themselves to the public, but in the bedroom, all of those stereotypes go away.

Posted by postx072 at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The sex scene was interesting because right before it, there was the short little sexual encounter between Corky and Violet where Corky was the one who was doing the pleasuring. Both sexual encounters were initiated by Violet in a seductive way. The main sex scene shows Violet doing all of the pleasuring and Corky being the one who is on the sole recieving end. I think one of the problems with the scene is that both women are not recieving while giving. I don't see the scene as feminist, I simply see it as a lesbian sex scene. Violet appears to be the dominant one but I wouldn't consider her the masculine character and Corky dresses Butch but isn't necessarily the masculine character either. I think this film and the sex scene did an excellent job of showing the equality between the two women in their relationship together. Neither one was solely dominant and both had something to give to the relationship. I think with Corky being on the "bottom" in the scene, she was seen as the female of the sex scene, because in heterosexual couples, the woman usually recieves the pleasure while lying on the "bottom."

If Corky were on her side and recieving the pleasure, I would probably consider Violet to be the feminine character, so the positions did help support the roles. As far as butch and femme goes, during the sex scene, both the women were completely nude so I don't consider either one to be butch or femme, they are simply the couple as a whole during the scene. The masculinity and feminity does come out during the scene because of their positions but Corky isn't the butch one and Violet isn't the femme one in this particular scene. In the rest of the movie, it is obviously clear that the women vary greatly in the way they portray themselves to the public, but in the bedroom, all of those stereotypes go away.

Posted by postx072 at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The second sex scene between Violet and Corky is feminist because it does not reinforce patriarchal stereotypes. Kelly Kessler writes, “[The second sex scene] excludes phallocentrisim…it provides sex totally independent of male symbolism.� The lack of a phallic object sets this scene apart from most other lesbian sex scenes in films (Kessler). The film also breaks heterosexual stereotypes of lesbians by showing the femme in a dominant sexual position, as opposed to passive. Corky, the butch, plays a passive role during the sex scene as Violet, the femme, uses her hand to stimulate Corky. The placement with Violet on top and Corky on the bottom helps illustrate the difference in their roles as active and passive. If Violet and Corky traded positions, the scene would be different. Violet would lose some of her qualities as the seductress. This scene helps debunk the 1970s critics’ belief that butch and femme identities and relationships replicate heterosexual conceptions of “masculinity� and “femininity� by reinscribing gender roles which allow for the persistence of patriarchy...

The second sex scene closes with a shot of Corky’s face as she is being pleasured and the camera does not linger on the shot of Violet’s hand which would be typical in a lesbian sex scene created for a heterosexual male audience. “[The scene] portrays lesbian sex without the fuzzy romanticism of other lesbian love scenes or the hyper-feminine trashiness of heterosexual pornography� (Kessler). This scene is about the pleasure of the women first and foremost thus making it a feminist scene.

Posted by Da provida at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The sex scene in Bound could be considered feminist. It definitely challenges the typical notions of butch-femme lesbian couple. In the first sexual encounter between Corky and Violet, Violet (the overtly feminine character) is the initiator. She takes Corky’s hand and puts it on her breast and under her dress. In Hollywood films, this sexually aggressive role is typically embodied by male/masculine characters. In the second sex scene, Violet is shown pleasuring Corky. This inscribes a give and take relationship between the women, and a sense of equality. This is reinstated at the end when they refer to themselves as a team. Kassler mentions that these scenes are inclusive to audiences. They are fairly accurate and accepted by the lesbian community, while also arousing for heterosexual men. The butch and femme concepts are depicted in very physical ways. Corky is perpetually leather-clad, with dark tattoos and severely rugged boots. Violet is hyper-feminine: breathy voice, heels, cleavage, mini dresses. However, in the women’s behavior we see a different dynamic. Violet’s presence in the film as a femme fatale changes her demeanor. “Though Corky, the butch, is physically stronger and more masculine, Violet is the intellectual superior and sexual aggressor.� (Kessler, 18) Violet is smart, engaging and mysterious. In the end, she is the one who outsmarts Caesar and ends his life to protect Corky. She is successful because she was trusted and not seen as a threat. If the positions were reversed during these sex scenes, it would seem more hetero-normative: the masculine character initiating sex and the feminine character passively receiving sex. Bound definitely represents lesbian relationships in a more accurate manner.

Posted by herma216 at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have to let it be known right away that I thought Bound was one of the best movies that we have watched in class this semester. It is smart, funny, and full of action. What puts this movie so high up on the list of films we have seen, is how it portrays lesbians. What is different about the film is that the two lesbian characters are not put against the heteronormative backdrop. Many films are guilty of doing this, and we as society fall into this labeling game over and over without even realizing what we are doing. It was very easy for us as a class to label Violet the woman and Corky the man of their relationship. It was obvious from the get go that Violet was the femme and Corky was the butch, but what we have to understand though is that doesn't mean that just because these two women have these personas, they are automatically given heterosexual roles. What they wear and how they act is just them being who they really are. They are just being themselves and just because they wear clothes that make them look a certain way, it is unfair for us to label them. These are just two queer women who are beyond the heterosexual, or for that matter homosexual way of labeling sexual orientation and roles. The movie shows both of these women being in charge or "dominate" at one point of the film.

I think they greatest example of this is the sex famous sex scene that we were asked to discuss. As we saw it was kind of a two-part event. Both scenes though showed each woman being in power and "fucking" the other one. This was not because one was trying to be more dominant than the other, they were just trying to pleasure one another sexually. If you remember we see Violet sucking on Corky's finger and then shoving it up her skirt. It was Violet who allowed Corky to have the dominant role not just Corky on her own. And then in the next scene after they get caught we see Violet in the dominant position show that these women just enjoy sex and a "power struggle" is the farthest thing on these women's minds.

Another thing this film did that Kelly Kessler pointed out is the directors ways of filming the sex scenes were very well done. Kessler writes, "Bound portrays the intimacies and technicalities of lesbian sex without the the funny romanticism of other lesbian love scenes or the hyper-feminine trashiness of heterosexual pornography." This isn't some sort of fantasy we are watching, this is real thing. After writing all this I still am not sure how the question, "Is this scene feminist?" works. I will say this though, it shows two women having passionate sex, while at the same time not exploiting them. It was fair and only right for the directors to have it this way. They were respecting all lesbians by not exploiting these characters. Maybe all of this makes the scene feminist after all.

Posted by keilh004 at 9:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In an interview the Wachowski brothers say that the film Bound is about how people become imprisoned by the “boxes [they] make of their lives�. And it is true that throughout the entire film there is evidence of physical and metaphorical confinements imprisoning characters. In the opening scene Corky is bound at the feet, hands, and mouth, locked inside of a closet by Violet’s homophobic boyfriend, Caesar. Not only does this scene provide evidence of physical confinement (feet, hands, and mouth tied up), but also metaphorical confinement (inside of the closet). By having the opening scene show Corky locked in a closet, it is able to “stage the performative act of ‘coming out of the closet’� and therefore it is also able to “establish the desire to come out as Bound’s subtextual femme quest narrative� (Noble 3).

It can be argued that Violet does a lot of trapping herself – primarily with her body; however, at a couple points in the film Violet becomes trapped by her own body. This happens when she is trying to prove her sexual preference to Corky because Corky “wants to read her as a heterosexual and merely curious about lesbians, or as bisexual� (Noble 4). Corky does this because Violet doesn’t “look� like a lesbian. Another time Violet becomes trapped by her own body is with Caesar. This happens when Caesar says to Corky “your kind disgust me�, but then addresses Violet as a heterosexual simply because Violet doesn’t “look� like Corky. While the film is full of physical and metaphorical imprisonment of characters, there are also moments of freedom. The most memorable moment of freedom is one of the very last scenes when Violet kills Caesar. By killing Caesar, Violet is able to “get out� of the mob family and she is also able to shed her heterosexual façade and “get out� as a queer woman.

Posted by Eleanor Roosevelt at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Understandably, the sex scene in Bound received a lot of positive feedback. I found the scene particularly well done because of the way it played into the rest of the film. On the surface, the two women are clearly marked with stereotypical butch and femme roles – Violet is a voluptuously feminine woman and Corky wears the Hanes and tattoos that mark her as butch. Just past this skin deep level our knowledge of the characters is challenged by the way the two characters interact sexually. There is no focus on penetration or identification with one character or another indicating that the audience should identify or assign a gender role to either one. We get the impression that there is a balance of power, that this is truly a match – of power and interest. As the camera pans over the two women in Corky’s dingy apartment, we see that Corky is not the dominant figure as we might expect from the stereotypical roles of butch and femme, rather she is the one pleasured by Violet. This scene would work if the roles were reversed, but the significance of Violet’s role wouldn’t tie into the rest of the movie. By seeing Violet take control sexually, we see that she is really the driving force of the plot. She is the instigator of the relationship with Corky and also the initiator of the robbery.

Posted by joh02629 at 3:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the film Bound we are introduced to two lesbian characters who supposedly are clearly coded as butch (Corky) and femme (Violet). However when viewers are introduced to the sex scene between the women we see that there is in fact a, "reversal of behavior expectations and connotations" that are supposed to be held by Violet and Corky. In the readings it says "in general the butch was thought to be aggressive while the femme was perceived as passive." In the sex scene we see Violet, who was previously portrayed as the femme, taking on the role of the aggressor and Corky is shown as the passive receiver. The girls positioning is vital to the portrayal of this as Violet is shown to be on top and has the overall control of Corky's pleasure. If the girls position would have switched we would see a completely different picture, as Corky would be continuously thought of and shown as the butch and Violet would be continuously seen as the femme. It is also important to note that by the use of the camera, this scene can be read as feminist. We do not watch this scene through the point of view of one character, but are shown the shots objectively through the camera and therefore can identify with both characters in the scene.

By doing this we are allowed to see that this specific lesbian sex scene is one that is not focused on a phallic object and the women are both physically and mentally happy and fulfilled with out a man at the center of their lives.

Posted by woul0006 at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Throughout the entire film there is evidence and constant proving that Corky bears the more “masculine and dominant role� between the two women. Corky wears the combat boots, cargo pants, and tattoos. Corky is also the one who devises the plan to steal the two million dollars from the mob. By being marked with these overt physical characteristics, it is easy to say that Corky is portraying the “’butch’ signifier of lesbian� (Noble 5). Violet is constantly being marked as the more “feminine and less dominant role� between the two women. Violet styles her hair, wears the dresses, high heels, and lacy undergarments. But by being marked with these overt and ambiguous physical characteristics, it is not as easy to label Violet as the “femme lesbian�, but as the “suspect ‘lesbian’� (Noble 5).

However, in the brilliantly choreographed sex scene, it is evident that Violet is, sexually, the more dominant and in – control of the two women. This is evident in the positioning of the two women. Corky is positioned below Violet - completely submissive to her. This positioning is important because it instates a sort of balance of “power� between the two women. While Corky seems to be in control throughout the rest of the film, Violet seems to be the one who is in control in this scene and any other sexual scene (she usually is the initiator). I have not decided yet if this scene is feminist or not. Part of me believes that it is not feminist as (I think) it objectifies both of their bodies (framed by the bed during an ariel camera shot). However, part of me also believes that this scene is feminist as it represents the balance of “power� and equality between two people in a relationship.

Posted by Eleanor Roosevelt at 1:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While watching the film Bound, I noticed the title was very relevant because throughout the film each character was getting trapped or bounded into something by other various characters and objects. Violet signifies doubly as film noir's powerful, dangerous femme fatale but also as femme, thereby outing femme as a lesbian subject (Noble 2). Violet almost traps all the male characters alone with Corky by using her sexuality and body as her trap. She trapped Corky into the plan of stealing money from the Mafia; something once you get yourself into you must not turn back. Violet also manipulates Caesar’s quest in this film to second guess Johnnie’s supposed play against him in order to recover the money and restore order, when in reality when it really was Violet and Corky who took the money.

We also see the character Shelly being trapped into a situation with the Mafia as well. There was a time in the movie that he was shouting “I want out, I want out�. But as we all saw getting out after being so far in is impossible. Violet not only trapped a lot of characters in this film but she also gets trapped as well. First off she is trapped in a relationship that she never really wanted from day one. Then she gets trapped with Corky when Caesar finds out the two stole the money and once again is under the control of Caesar until the two find a way to overpower him, which in the end are the only two that get out alive and survive. Historically, cinematic representations of transgender characters are notorious for their portrayals of their transgendered psychotic acts, which creates a tradition of representations for the depiction of female masculinity. The threat of masculine women is linked to her manipulation and co-optation of masculine gender characteristic (Rigney 182).

Posted by bues0040 at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the movie Bound you go back and forth when it comes to who is more femme and who is more masculine. The sexual geometrics and features of the films metonymically reconstitute Corky as the reiterative figure of masculinity in the narrative. You witness her masculinity by her gaze, tattoos, men's underwear, undershirts, boots, pants, etc. But, Corky is also marked as female by the camera when she is making love with Violet. Femme's desire for female masculinity, evidenced by Violet's ability to read and desire Corky as both female and masculine, both reorients female masculinity as a productive contradiction between a female inscribed body and a masculine gender performance, but also as the privileged site of masculinity in the film (Noble 3). With the sex scene that does take place in the movie, I do think this is a feminist scene.

In this scene I feel that it shows through Violet being able to pleasure Corky that women equal to those of men. I also think this scene is a feminist as well because Violet has finally somewhat escaped from her relationship with her husband Caesar after a long five years of a bad relationship. In this scene you may recall the music that was being played in the background to enable this metonymic slippage: Aretha Franklin sings "I never loved a man the way that I love you". Sedgwick also suggests that same-sex desire has been understood as an impulse of gender liminality or transitivity, where the appropriate gender crossings produced (Noble 3).

Posted by bues0040 at 8:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Visibility and invisibility are interesting topics in the sex work world. There are a couple of different ways I see the two interacting, but the strongest example deals with being seen, but not heard. The girls in the film, Live Nude Girls Unite! are very well heard in other aspects of their lives, such as education, family and friends, and socially, but it is their work lives that is not giving them the opportunity to be viewed as people, not just things. The girls have chosen the filed of work they want to be in yes, but so do other people who have had the same issues with benefits, holiday, sick leave, and pay. Who's to say that sex workers should not be seen as any other union worker? Another example of the girls being seen and not heard can be seen in their area of work. The peep show the women perform in is a viewing box only. The girls have no ability to confront someone doing something wrong, and or inappropriate, causing the women to feel very uncomfortable. I also noticed most the women wore some sort of wig or outfit to mask themselves for the purpose of not being seen for who they really were, which is another form of being invisible.

Posted by ande4840 at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Visibility for sex workers varies as the setting for each is different. A prostitute on the road side has to be careful when to be visible or not. The phone sex worker shouldn’t reveal any personal information to maintain her invisibility whereas a strippers and dancers can try various disguises to be less identifiable.

From watching the Live Nude Girls Unite!, it is apparent the peepshow workers are concerned with keeping themselves invisible from being known of their real identity. They have to juggle between playing a “bad girl� image at the Lusty Lady Peep Show and then being a real person outside of their jobs. The paradox here is that being able to be more visible, longer duration of performance, than their peers would allow them to earn more money. The peepshow workers who perform on stage are hypervisible as they are visible from all sides. They can try different wigs, make-ups, and other makeovers to maintain certain amount of annonimity.

Priscilla Alexander in her article “Feminism, Sex Workers, and Human Rights� states that woman will “never have the rights, opportunities, choices, work options, or an income equivalent to men’s unless we can stop being afraid of being either raped or called “whore�. The author supports more visibility for these sex workers in order to not only educate the general mass to end discrimination but to have equality for. The author thinks being more visible and raising a voice can possibly lead to equal treatment of the woman sex workers.

Posted by dorje003 at 7:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Selective "seeing" and "ignoring" virtually defines questions of sex work literally and theoretically. One of the central questions of the text we encountered was the ways in which society, the feminist movement, the state, governments, and divisions between sex workers themselves selectively see or ignore questions around sex-work. This makes it virtually impossible to write an essay tackling the question of 'invisibility and visibility' and even begin to tackle the ways in which hierarchies of sight/ invisibility are enacted within different contexts(as within the film between dancers of color and white dancers, or between the peep show dancers and the women who Query's mother work with that are among the most scene for larger society and also most vulnerable and likely to be “victims� of sex work as opposed to being empowered by it). In Priscilla Alexander's piece names many areas of invisibility, (e.g society has cast the prostitute as woman--not seeing male prostitution, how rape is seen or ignored in society)

A tension that underlies both the readings and the film Live Nude Girls Unite, is the privileged space and bodies for which the theorizing of sex-work happens and is possible. It is out of this privilege that the demand for changes towards pro-sex and pro sex-worker's rights are launched. The texts we read are dominantly put in conversation with so called anti-sex feminist theorist, who have allowed no space to theorize the empowering aspects of sex work, or through conceiving of sex as labor- defending a basic human rights platform for those involved in the sex industry. On page 131 of Carol Queen's work and the film explored some ways in which the environment for sex workers is problematic and oppressive (some episodes of threats of violence, lack of protection, lack of support from
management for maintain safe conditions) it did not seek to explore the difference between those women who chose sex as labor, and those who felt no other option available to them.

At a level of theory, we can understand sex-work as selling one's labor similar to any other laborer might under capitalism. And thus, not only the moral crusades end under such logic, the comparisons of bad working conditions and the need for collective action and feminist support take on an incredibly important role. Any yet other factors aren't as carefully dealt with, as perhaps this theorizing can obscure or fail to address the ways in which race and patriarchy operate under capitalism. As example, Nagle addresses racial privileging with as a question, insisting that feminists must ask "how does white supremacy inform the very terms of this debate?" But importantly, she then suggests that to do justice to this question an entirely different book would be necessary. It can be argued that many sex workers of color, and those at the lowest economic bracket, are not fully visible to the theorists who seek to talk explicitly about stories of empowerment and enjoyment, nor basic questions of security, harassment, mental health, and choice under capitalism.

Posted by Sofia at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A sex worker is a person who works in the sex industry. There is a variety of jobs a sex worker could have; they may be a prostitute, stripper, peepshow worker, dominatrix, go-go dancer, escorts, etc. The nature of sex work is for the customer, viewer, to get pleasure from the worker. The difference between the levels of sex work is largely dependent on the visibility of the worker. For a phone sex operator she is completely invisible to her client, and she remains anonymous. In contrast, a sex worker who performs in a peep show has hyper-visibility. She is raised above the men, with mirrors all around her. Being in the peepshow was even described as being in a fish bowl, she is on display for all to look at. These sex workers do not have the advantage of invisibility, so they try and achieve it in other ways. For example, in the film, the women of the Lusty Lady would wear wigs, put on "disguises" (make-up), use a coy voice, and even go by alternate names to hide their identity. The majority of the women have not even told their family that they are sex workers, keeping their true identity to themselves.

Visibility can also describe the amount of time the women were allowed to "be seen" at work. For example in the film white, blond females were the "prime" product for the customers, or so the management believed. Therefore a non-white women would not even be scheduled for the private booth, and they were given less time on stage. One dancer was labeled as exotic, as soon as she started wearing a blond wig she gained more time on stage. In addition, the only way you could get someone to pick up your shift was if they were the same skin color, height, breast size etc. The employer had complete control over the women, and they used that power to either increase or decrease the amount of visibility the workers had. Ultimately this would affect the well-being of the women because there is a reason they are doing this work, they need the money.

Feminists have been divided over issues of sex work for years. The anti-sex work feminists believe that sex work is degrading and there is no possibility of women gaining agency. On the other hand pro-sex work feminists believe that sex work is just a job, and it is only an exchange of sexual pleasure. Jill Nagle discusses the divide in feminists due to sex work in her article. In the past, sex workers have been ignored and given no agency because “excluding sex workers from feminist discussions seemed reasonable�, their work seemed to undermine the feminism. However, it is more complex than that, which most feminists are starting to realize. Feminist sex workers have become more visible, and are breaking down misconceptions society has of sex workers. The women of the Lusty Lady were leaders for sex workers around the US, their union inspired other strip clubs to form unions and the creation of the Exotic Dancers union. Sex workers are making their voices heard, and through these unions they are gaining agency.

Posted by conlo027 at 1:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In the documentary, Live Girls Unite! The concept of visibility and invisibility are inextricably linked to the politics of language and expression. Throughout the film, the women of the Lusty Lady work to organize under the umbrella of the term “sex worker� for safe, non-exploitive and legal work. The problems they encounter, both in their decision to organize and on their journey, are indicative of a patriarchal dominated culture; setting the tone for the way in which the women who struggle to unionize are seen and heard. Carol Queen discusses the negative societal stigma of a female sex worker, in her work, “Feminist Thought, and Whore Stigma.� Queen points out the need for women to work together; that one of the reasons for the lack of sexual freedom lies in the discomfort with sexuality in feminist orthodoxy. She calls on women to work together in a similar way these women who recognized an injustice organized among themselves—not just for workers rights, but for the bodily agency and sexual sovereignty that sex work encompasses.
In the film, the women recognize injustice when they realize they are being hierarchically categorized by race, hair tone, and breast size. Instead of falling apart and competing for schedules, they subscribe to Queen’s view of working together. The rhetorical discomfort with female visibility is apparent when sexualized term “pussy� is used and workers are told by the male opposition that the term is offensive because they wouldn’t let their children speak that way. This infantalization of the female sex workers displays the way in which women should be seen as sexual objects, with the offensive term used for them, but politically and they must be invisible and not claim agency over such words.

Posted by J Kriegs at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In America, we live in a society whose Puritanical roots cause us to turn our noses up at women who work in the sex industry. Around the world, as Alexander writes, prostitution has been seen as something vile in patriarchal societies since the writing of the Torah. The taboo of sex is then clearly problematic in that it creates a situation for the sex-worker wherein she is supposed to stay hidden. Those who are proud of their vocation, as Nagle writes, often categorized as whores. This boundary between the visible and invisible manifests itself in many ways. The women we saw in the film are simultaneously hypervisible, visible, and invisible. They are hypervisible in that they strip in a room laden with mirrors, their image reflected infinitely back at them, allowing them to see their body as well as the bodies of their fellow strippers. They are also hypervisible during their protests, picketing their unfair work environments proudly for passerbys to see. These instances of hypervisibility give the women a sense of agency-something a sex-worker is not supposed to feel in patriarchal society.

However, their invisibility is often what comes to the forefront. Alexander writes that women will never have sexual equality if they feel fear or shame attached to sex. Our culture shames women who feel a sense of pride in their work. This was demonstrated in the documentary when Julia finally confesses to her, by worldly views, “appropriately� successful mother who works as a doctor. The line is drawn between what society feels is an appropriate measure of success for women and what is not when her mother asks her to please not speak at the same conference for fear of her career being linked with that of her daughters. As the film and readings demonstrated, while these women make money by being visible, they are often invisible in that their rights, freedoms, and humanity is stripped of them for their choice of profession.

Posted by thur0139 at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the article by Carol Queen she mentions the pitfalls of the stereotypes that surround sex work. In particular, there is a common belief that any women doing sex work have a “damaged history�, thus implying that in order for someone to do sex work they would have to be driven by forces deeper than will. This is obviously not the case and is really problematic for how these women are viewed by our culture. In the movie the women that were on the job stripping were “in character�. They put on a show for men that is not a depiction of who they truly are. As one of the women said in the film, they talk in a higher voice when at work, “it’s the same voice you would use to talk to an infant.� So it is clear to me that these women see this as a kind of game, or a role that they play.

How the men view the situation is somewhat more problematic in my thinking. If the men were asked point blank, “do you think the stripper at your window was turned on by you?� My guess is the majority of the men would answer no, realistically speaking. However, even though they realize it’s a game, there is still “baggage� that comes with this objectification of women. Men may begin to view women as less serious or just sexual play things because of the habit of feeling that way while at a strip club. It is possible that the men may see these women only as sex objects and that ideal has the possibility of spilling over into everyday thinking.
So it can be argued that because of the “sexual circus act� going on, the real women beneath their bodies are invisible to the men despite the fact that they are more physically visible than normal circumstances. I do believe this invisibility of the real woman beneath the body being “invisible� works in the woman’s favor because she can separate work with real life and not allow herself to be objectified outside of her own authority.

Posted by Revolutionary at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the film, Live Nude Girls Unite!, and in the readings by Carol Queen (Sex Radical Politics, Sex-Positive Feminist Thought and Whore Stigma) and Jill Nagle's introduction to Whores and Other Feminists, I am able to apply the concept of "visibility" to understand some of the struggles and injustices sex workes face. Visibility is a major part of sex workers existance because of the nature of the work. There is a performer, the sex worker, and the viewer, the paying customer. The benefits and losses vary depending on what kind of work and who is involved. As Nagle describes the binary of women's sexual roles (good girls/bad girls) renders sex workes (bad girls) visible and all other women who conform to sexual norms (good girls) invisible. In this case, the visibility is not beneficiary because there are only steroetypes at play, without challenge or blurring of boundaries. The good girl maintains her virtue, which is important to be a good girl, and the bad girl exhists unaximned. This stereotype insinuates that all sex workers are women, which is problematic too because there are many other types of people involved. This invisibility of nonnormative sex workers, as discussed by Queen, creates dangerous work conditions that are potentially violent and abusive because they go on unexamined. Queen discusses, as the film illustrates I believe, that if people (feminists) want to actually help sex workers, instead of just wanting the sex industry to disappear which creates horrible -invisible- situations for the sex workes, then they should work on creating a sex-positive mentality amongst the public. This would be a way to improve conditions of sex workers by not denying their exhistance, and realizing that they have a choice in the career they choose. In finding justice in the sex industry for its workes, visibility is key. The film shows how successful the women were when they picketed and shouted chants outside the theater. They made their voices heard in the long struggle for unionization. Visibility is a delicate issue for sex workers because their very work depends on the performer/viewer binary, improvements for their work conditions and they way they are treated need visibility to call to attention their problems, but stereotypes are so easily reinforced and heteronormativity is so easily reinforced by high, mainstream visibility created by mainstream media.

Posted by AJ at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The stigma attached to the world of sex work is deeply rooted, dividing even the most hardcore feminists. Within our society, sex workers are continuously ignored and made to feel invisible, despite the physical visibility which their job entails. Yet, as we have seen in "Live Nude Girls Unite!" and in the readings, there are different levels of visibility in the field of sex work. Obviously the location of sex work affects the notion of visibility. The job of phone sex operator allows for complete invisibility for the worker, where stripping on a stage does not. "Live Nude Girls Unite!" showed both the benefits and disadvantages of becoming visible within their field. The more active they became, the more rights they received, however this often led to a disconnect with their families. Many of them felt shame and chose to keep their occupation a secret. The identity of the sex worker also influences their visibility. Non-white women were given less time in the Lusty Lady, illustrating how employers control visibility and Carol Queen's article even mentioned how male sex workers are completely ignored.

Sex workers are rarely ever recognized as having agency, instead the law decides that they are simply "incapable of consent", as Alexander's article reminds us. This oppression and lack of visibility seems to result from a lack of sex-positivity in our culture. If the attitude surrounding the work became more positive, perhaps their line of work could be perceived as "a job like any other job", and the injustices surrounding it could be brought to the forefront.

Posted by allora at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In both the readings and in Julia Query’s film “Live Nude Girls Unite!� notions of visibility with regard to sex workers are treated within the context of woman’s right to an oppositional viewpoint on sex work and the rights of those involved to greater visibility as a means of destigmatizing the industry. In her introduction to “Whores and Other Feminists� Jill Nagle addresses how post 1980 too often sex worker’s voices are left out of the debate on sex work and feminism. In the “good girl/bad girl� dichotomy of feminism which resulted, sex worker’s visibility as empowered feminists making the choice to participate in the industry is marginalized. It would seems since that time, feminist sex workers have worked tirelessly to gain visibility in the public space to challenge the notion that sex work is inherently victimizing and degrading. Conferences such as “Challenging Our Images� in 1985, the numerous writings of feminist sex workers and feminist documentary film makers all work to create the visibility needed for their cause. Invisibility, as the writings of activists suggest, would only marginalize sex workers further.

On a more intimate micro-level we see the efforts of the women in Query’s documentary as alternately seeking public visibility in their quest for basic worker’s rights, but also seeking anonymity or invisibility in their workspace through the use of wigs and make-up and in their personal lives as most of them confess that they have not told their families about their work. The glaring contradiction which sex worker feminists identify in their relationship with their non-sex worker, feminist counterparts described in the readings is paralleled in Julia’s relationship with her feminist mother. As her mother is an activist advocating for greater visibility on the plight of the downtrodden, voiceless prostitutes, it would seem that she would be proud of her daughter’s activism and not judgmental toward her choice to work in the industry. Clearly Julia has freely made the choice and her mother’s initial condemnation of it and disavowal of the visibility Julia has achieved are the product of societal conditioning that suggests these women should not risk visibility. Her reactions confirm the deep seated, yet obviously false belief that all women working in the sex industry are victims and that by being a part of it you will be identified as such. In thier quest for greater recognition and understanding, Julia and other strong women like her, are working to empower sex workers and to dispel stereotypes like these, and in doing so they also open up new avenues for women in the industry who have been victimized.

Posted by kafka at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It can be dangerous for sex workers to be visible for various reasons. For one, there is a negative stigma attached to sex workers, so many sex workers try to hide their career in the sex industry from their loved ones. As we learned in the film, being a sex worker is not always meant to be “fun� or even liberating. It may strictly be a means of bringing money in. Sex workers may also want to stay out of the public eye as much as possible in order to keep existing/potential jobs that are not involved in the sex industry (like the woman in the film who worked in both the sex industry and social work).

A prostitute, for example, can be visible and invisible at the same time when trying to find customers; if she is too visible, she will end up in jail, but if she is not visible enough, she will not get any work. Alexander talks about laws where simply loitering is enough reason to believe that a woman is prostituting (if she had been arrested for prostitution in the past).

A sex worker is physically visible. She is not emotionally/mentally/spiritually visible. Her true, whole identity cannot be revealed through her work. She only displays her body/sexuality. The rest of her is false: her hair, name, voice etc.

Because sex workers only reveal their physical attributes through their jobs, employers can easily take advantage of them. In the video, Lusty Lady’s management treated the girls as though they were worthless. It was almost assumed that they would have no dignity and shouldn’t care, for example, if men took footage of them to distribute online. Their job required them to be seen by strangers, so why not let the entire world see?

Posted by Bute0023 at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the documentary Live Nude Girls Unite, the question of visibility is deeply rooted. Even though the sex workers sell and market the visibility of their body, there are limits to this exchange which were addressed in the film. Just because they make their body available to their audience or clients it doesn’t mean that they merge their private and public. Visibility in the public is very different than visibility in the private. This is one of the most important and detrimental aspects that I want to discuss about In/visibility.
When the issue of the two way mirror came up that caused some of the sex workers to find images of them on the internet without their permission the visibility of their body became a concern since it now moved to an area that wasn’t controlled by them. This was an issue because the dancers weren’t able to manage the separation between the private and public at that point.
After the dancers decided to fight their management for better working conditions their private and public life started merging by far more. Suddenly the visibility of their private life was very important to their public life(jobs). One of the strippers showed her son at the rally and even introduced him to one of the frequent clients. It is interesting that as a union that was striking they were working with the visibility of their real life and their private by far more than they ever connected to the job usually. Even though a lot of the girls were proud of their jobs and believed that it was worth fighting for, many tried to hide their occupation from their family and relatives.
It is interesting that when the sex workers wanted to pursue normal standards or just better working standards they were ridiculed for it. Since working in the industry is perceived as wrong in the first place, society many times believes that there shouldn’t be a standard set. The socially constructed idea that sex work must be dangerous and must be degrading makes it easy for management to use these low standards and keep them in place. The hyper visibility of the negative stereotypes prevents many sex workers to fight against the conditions. This is why I felt that the workers had to make their private life visible and show that they weren’t crack whores living on the street but rather mothers, students, and daughters that paid rent and supported a normal life.

Posted by Nami at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Throughout both the articles and the film, the most prevalent concept is that of woman's relationship to sex. In the article by Priscilla Alexander, she raises the idea of sexual equality - that as long as women feel fear or shame as attached to sex, they cannot attain equality. Additionally, the idea of being lesser is connected to this idea of visibility. Sex workers are culturally shamed because of their involvement in the industry, and many individuals who work within the sex industry, making visibility have destructive or negative impacts on their lives. I found that this was an especially telling idea when considering it in terms of the film. Throughout Live Nude Girls Unite!, there was a precarious balance between the desire for visibility - because through visibility, respect can be gained - and the neccessary invisibility to survive their personal lives. In the case of the women at the Lusty Lady, the workers are caught between knowing that they deserve rights and protection and the neccessary nature of protecting their work identity from their familes and from those who might harm them. It is in this way that they are simultaneously visible and invisible, having to conceal their hypervisible identities from the rest of the world while they perform these constructions of desire to survive.

While it would be too obvious to discuss the struggle that the actual film chronicles, it is interesting to think about the idea of controlling one's presentation in the spheres that actually matter; that though they embrace their own sexual power and identities, they could risk losing their families or other relationships by revealing their participation in sex work. Julia's own struggle with her mother and her revelation that she is working in a peepshow, the emotional gravity of it seems similar to when Julia revealed her queerness to her mother. While she could not control her mother's reaction if and when she did find out, Julia was able to control and protect her own life by hiding the truth. She knew she ran the risk of compromising her relationship with her mother; at the same time, her ease and comfort at being a visible body was heavily contrasted by her fear of being interpreted poorly because of the identity that the sexual visibilty connotes, further reinforcing these tropes of patriarchal power.

Posted by allison at 9:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Being seen and unseen is different in the lives of sex workers than in non sex workers, because society has labeled them as morally depraved and therefore they risk much more in being visible than do non sex workers. For example, at least since the writing of the Torah (as in the Alexander reading) prostitutes have been classified by patriarchal society as bad and required that they be separated from non prostitute women. In today’s society there are codes of dress that distinguish and separate sex workers from non sex workers. Prostitutes that walk the streets are very visible. In the Sex Wars reading they mentioned that just dressing like a hooker or walking around by yourself was risky because of the way law enforcement will perceive you, because of the binary of sex worker women and non sex worker women. In the “Whores and Other Feminists� reading it said that ‘whores are the dykes of the nineties� in that it is accepted that they should be excluded, which informs the idea of visibility for sex workers.

For sex workers who work inside (strippers or prostitutes in brothels or phone sex operators) the visibility issue changes to become mostly about the magnitude of onlookers, and the characteristics of the job. In the film there were mirrors every where which made it so that the women could be said to be hypervisible, because in some cases they can’t see who’s watching them so they can’t hide anything. The consumers actually are on the main reasons for a sex worker to be visible, simply so they know what they are buying. If the consumer wants less expensive sex, then usually the worker they pick will be easy to find, probably walking the street: highly visible. If the consumer is looking for expensive sex, then he/she would probably be more likely to call an escort service or the number for a “high class joint�. So really, it doesn’t matter who the consumer is, just how much he/she wants to spend. Employers play a large role in visibility because they decide the format of the sex work they can choose to use blind windows or mirrors for peepshows, brothels or street walking, dress codes for prostitutes and stage configurations for strippers to name a few things which add and detract from visibility. A sex worker can at once be invisible from the public if they are inside, but at the same time be visible to an audience. So you could say inside workers benefit from not being seen by the public. However, for a prostitute that gets business on the street to not be visible to customers would probably be bad for her/his finances. If sex workers can get around employers they can alter the way the dress and perform to become more or less visible. I like how in the film one of the strippers wrote on her hands to protest her employers without them knowing. That is an example of how a worker can become more visible and gain agency.

Posted by CrazyOldMaurice at 9:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In/visibility is a difficult factor that sex workers have yet been able to control for themselves. In the documentary Live Nude Girls Unite!, visibility is the issue at hand that they are fighting for. As sex workers they wish to be able to be visible as legitimate employees and be able to have the same rights as employees of other fields. They form a union and battle with their employer to sign a contract. This contract would give them visibility and therefore agency. In/visibility in the lives of sex workers is a very broad topic. It includes one-way windows in peep shows to the exclusion of the entire field of sex workers when discussing sex work itself. Jill Nagle discusses the topic of the invisibility of sex workers especially in feminism. She first discusses how “the voices of feminist sex workers themselves have been garingly absent in such discussions� (1). These discussions are around the topic of sex work. She uses the article “Roundtable on Pornography� that was published in Ms. Magazine as an example. Sex workers have been invisible and given no agency in the work of feminism because “excluding sex workers from feminist discussions seemed reasonable� because their agendas seemed to be the exact opposite of feminists but as Nagle states “the reality is more complex� (4). In/visibility in the field of sex work is a very difficult topic to understand. As in every aspect of this culture there are binaries that even sex workers feel the need to fall under. Nagle describes two, “good girl/bad girl� and “lesbian/heterosexual.� If the sex worker does not fall into either of these then she/he feels even more invisible to the world because taking on too many identities that do not fit into these binaries creates no place for them in our culture. It is also difficult for sex workers to fight for visibility or invisibility because while working some sex workers put on such a costume or take on a different identity as to not be visible to their clients but still wish to be visible as employees to gain agency. And although they want to be “invisible� to their clients by creating a new identity, some do not want to be put behind one-way windows, like in the documentary, because this puts them into a position that creates even less agency. Sex workers fight in/visibility on several fronts from their in/visibility to their clients to the visibility to their employers and also to feminism.

Posted by Faith Kolstad at 9:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I observed that visibility and invisibility manifests itself differently in the lives of sex workers. I also think that invisibility and visibility differs depending on the type of sex work performed.
Phone sex operators are physically invidible to their clients. This absence of physical presence allows the woman to be who she wants to be the the given time without worry of feeling exploited and victimized.A woman's views can also influence wether she is present or absent at the time of her work. Her feminist views can make her more presence and powerful. A woman is able to shine throuh expression and sexuality and if she lacks the cabablity or esteem to communicate her opinions and strength, she is absent emotionally and mentally during her performance. According to the Sex Radical Politics, Sex Positive Feminst Thought, and Whore Stigma, "when meeting with a client the presence or absence of respect has much to do with how sex postive the person is and the person's self respect of sexual shame." If a woman experiences sexual shame and devalues the beauty of her body her respect for herself and others will be absent. On the other hand, If a person is open in their sexuality

and appreciates the power and beauty her body has to offer she will shine with presence and respect for herself that will reflect ontis was noted the o her clients.
Women can alsomake theirselves visible by being seen and heard for what they believe in. In Live Nude Girls Unite the women were on the street protesting for their rights and communicating that their place of business mistreated the girls. While doing this, the women were heard and visible by the many people walking by and later, by the news and papers and conventions that were held. In the Intro To Whores and Other Feminists article it was noted that many women use their working environments to educate men about thier and other 'women's bodies, desires and issues of bounderies and consent.' In the same article Shaun, a female prostitute, was said to demonstrate proper condom usage and safer sex while teaching the female anatomy and biology. Women that are able to express thier feelings and views freely and strongly and are able to progress and make a difference in their life as well as others are more than ever visible physically as well as spiritually.
I believe a sex worker can be visible and invisible simutaneously. As shown in the film, the dancers wore wigs and alot of makeup. In doing this, thier real self and identities are invisible, but they are visible to their clients as how they want to be seen. One of the strippers in Live Nude Girls Unite was asked what she thinks about while dancing. She responded that she thinks of what she's going to do that night or she looks at the other girls. Analyzin this response, it can be perceived that she is visible to her clients but invisible by the sence that mentally and emotionally she is absent. From a different angle, if a girl is sexkually asheamed or doesn't express herself in a powerul manner while dancing or performing work , she is both visible and invisible.
The ability to be visible and invisible simutaneously interweaves with how sex workers play with visibility in order to control how they are seen and when. Like noted before, the women wear wigs and makeup to manipulate how they want to be seen. Their outfits and costumes they wear can accent the curves of a woman's body and control what the women want to be visible. Other Sex workers, such as dominatrics or S & M workers tend to wear masks diverting more visibilty to their bodies. In a different perspective on controlling visiblity, in the film the women protested and went to conventions to be heard and seen thus making them visible.
Being seen definetly benefits women of all types and professions. It allows people to see and understand the views and struffles that sex workers have to deal with on a daily basis.
Being present and playing with visibility is not oppressive to the woman. It is all women's right to explore and define themselves as individuals and determine their own sexuality. It is about choice and freedom of expression that make s a woman feel whole and if the individual wants to express herself sexually and use her beauty through her body than she should be allowed without question of her devaluing herself. Sexuality and exposing the beauty of woman's body is a constant struggle with women sex workers. An impacting quote from the Intro to whores and other Feminists article that expresses this struggle wonderfully; "How do we value our sexuality when 'to be valued for our sexuality' is a primary instrument of our oppression?"

Posted by hendr324 at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I would like to center my discussion around a thought from the Priscilla Alexander’s article. She states that women will not be equal to men, until women stop worrying about being raped or labeled as a whore. This is difficult to overcome because women are punished when they initiate sex on the street, and they are poorly supported when denying sex. Women also must constantly be aware of the way they act, dress, and communicate; for they could easily be mistaken as something they are not, mentions Priscilla. I see this paranoia as a form of invisibility. Sex-work, for the most part, is considered inappropriate and hidden from discussion in public (outside of the sex-work setting). Being categorized as a whore or showgirl is looked down on in the American society, and not taken seriously as a career. In Live Nude Girls Unite!, the women discuss how customers will ask them what their “real� profession is. They proudly answer, “A stripper!�, while they are in the strip club and performing . When the women are outside of the strip club, and not with their stripper friends, they appear slightly hesitant and ashamed to discuss their career choice.

The women in the film shared with each other that their families were not informed about their sex-work. Sex-workers can often times be oppressed from showing their true identity (as a sex-worker), because they are concerned with falling in to a stigma . An example of this is when Julia went to great lengths in the documentary to conceal her identity from her mother. This brings me back to the Priscilla message, women should feel comfortable with expressing and showing themselves, whether they are sex-workers or not. Specifically with sex-workers, they “usually� do not want to be seen as a stripper, outside of the work place, as a result of this oppression. It seems to be easier for them to remain invisible as a stripper, when outside of the work place.

Posted by kerli006 at 8:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The life of sex workers are mostly visible when they are in the spotlight, i.e. on stage, or performing their sex work, but they are only seen by those who want to watch them. For example those that come into the strip club and pay money to watch girls dance. Any other time they are invisible to the world because their job is not a “respected� job, so who cares. The sex worker can be visible and invisible at the same time, for example, when the ladies were protesting and asked everyone to honk, only the males that were alone honked, not when they were with their “wives�. This is extremely important in that, it can be assumed that women, especially feminists would stick together, support other women. Actually, the men supported these women because they were the clients; they received their “sex� from these women and are not ready to give that up. “They deny us the right to signal an interest in sex, initiate sex, or agree to have sex if we set economic terms for it� (Alexander) This quote caught my eye in that because these women that are denied what they do shows that there is no benefit to being seen or not,

for as long as I can remember sex work has always been “frowned upon�, yet it still exists, or women still do it. Alexander also stated that women will never be free or have rights if they don’t get over being scared of getting called a whore or being raped. Also, this grabbed my attention because this exemplifies those women who do sex work are only seen as whores that do their work or they get rapped and try to prosecute the crime. There is something that they do lose; the right to have benefits, the right to respect etc. Because they are invisible denies them of these rights, and that their job is not worthy of being known. Sex workers can play with this notion of visibility or invisibility because they know that the only time that they will be seen, mostly by men, is when they are taking their clothes off or ready to perform sex act. It can be used to gain agency, I see it as a super power, and they can turn it on and turn it off. It also can be oppressive, for constantly being degraded. By no means is it ok to deny a person/sex worker of rights because of their job, it does not define who they are therefore it should not define how we see them, if we even see them at all. Also, what was interesting in the movie was that when they were protesting, I did not see any cops, normally when you see protesting there is cops to keep “peace�. This seemed odd, do they think that it will end shortly because it will not go that far? Or did the cops just not see them? Or care enough to protect those “type� of people? I think it is all of the above.

Posted by Abbie Weeks at 8:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Women who are sex workers are for the most part in control of how they are seen and when. Times in which this is not the case may involve women who are coerced into sex work, as the readings addressed. Since sex workers are able to control this, they can be visible and invisible simultaneously. They are able to be visible to consumers but they only show the physical parts of themselves that they want to. They are able to keep what they want to themselves. This is done various ways, but often through costumes and makeup. In the beginning of the video we saw the girls getting ready for their peep show and putting on their masks of makeup. It really is just like they are actors in a show. One girl mentioned how she disconnected herself from the acts by thinking about different things while she performed. In this way the girls are able to keep their personal selves invisible while still be visible physically to the customers. The level of this visibility is different with different forms of sex work. Prostitutes are going to give much more of themselves to consumers than the girls in the peep show who were in

the video. Sex workers are able to be confident in the person they portray and confident in their sexuality. Jill Nagle states in her introduction to her book, “those who publicly wear the label become de facto spokespeople for the rest, who can remain comfortably invisible� (4). Sex workers act out things that other people may desire but feel to embarrassed or shamed to admit or be open about.
This idea of shame as it relates to sex work was very interesting for me. Jill Nagle mentions how often it is thought that “those in the sex industry are only ever powerless victims,� and “pornography is inherently degrading to women� (4). In reality, a majority of the women who are sex workers choose to do what they do. In the video, the women in the peep show seemed proud to fight for their rights in public as sex workers. It did not seem as if they felt shame for the work they do. Instead, this stigma of shame for these girls is put on them and felt for them by society itself.

Posted by Jolene Lewis at 1:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is difficult to comment on an issue as observers because we can’t form opinions based on actual experience, we can only infer what those experiences might be like. As a person outside of the sphere of sex work and the associated issues, I find myself forming unfair opinions about the people who choose (or are forced into) sex work much like the people who make laws that govern prostitution. Priscilla Alexander writes in Feminism, Sex Workers, and Human Rights about how the laws passed to govern prostitution became more oppressive as men began to take over city states almost 4,000 years ago and have gotten progressively worse over time. The point Alexander makes is that sex workers don’t speak for themselves – they are spoken for. Often the people doing the talking are the people who aren’t affected by the issue and those people who should be the focus become invisible. In Live Nude Girls Unite!, the workers at the Lusty Lady took a stand against their owners because they were being poorly treated and made their voices known by protesting and unionizing.

By making their issues public, the workers at the Lusty Lady increased their visibility but also brought up controversy. All of the women working at the Lusty Lady used stage names and almost none told their families about their work. The double life of sex workers inhibits their ability to stand up for their rights. The documentary enforces the idea that for change to happen, you must take action for yourself rather than allow a person who doesn’t have firsthand knowledge of the issue to speak for you.

Posted by joh02629 at 10:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Street prostitutes might be physically most visible and occupy public space (street) as opposed to a confined space of theatre, brothel, or peep show. At the same time they are often most invisible in terms of social visibility. They are at the bottom of the sex worker social status hierarchy. The hierarchies of stigmatization, privilege and power/lessness among sex workers are somewhat addressed in Nagle’s Introduction and other readings. Although racism was partially addressed in the film, it was talked about in terms of management and workplace relationships and not in terms of racial hierarchies among sex workers. Potentially productive conversations about the contradictions, dangers, and issues of privilege in the sex workers’ world could have been explored in the subplot of the filmmaker and her mother’s relationship, but did not. It rather became personalized and overly focused on generation as main marker of difference. What does it mean that Query’s mother invests her life into helping street prostitutes which in the film briefly represented as voiceless/invisible/non-white, as opposed to largely college-educated, subculturalist sex-workers that even if poor and/or marginalized in some ways, posses social capital, are part of communities and networks that constitute certain amount of power.

The thoughts above does not by any means disprove that sex-workers’ activism in terms of visibility, recognition, and restructuring of cultural and political climate in which sex work takes place is not crucial. The questions of privilege, consent and choice, information, safe working environment are all part of sex workers’ activism and sex-positive feminism. However, it remains to be seen to what extent this movement is successful to those most in need of better conditions and if it really can bring margins to the center and destabilize not only feminist discourses but society at large. There is a danger that more glamorous forms of sex work and its increasing visibility instead of helping to dismantle hierarchies of stigmatization might further polarize sex workers along old lines of marginalized identities.

Posted by Arnoldas at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

When you think about sex workers and feminism it is hard to try to relate the two. However, after reading “Whores and other Feminists� by Jill Nagle I began to think differently. Women who are sex workers are just like anyone else, they work to make money. Yet sex workers have always been mistreated, objectified, and used to point where their human rights are being violated.

In the movie “Live Nude Girls Unite,� the workers have very few rights. These women are not allowed to call in sick, only one colored dancer is allowed per shift, and the boss takes complete advantage of them by trying to pimp them off on rich clients. Their employer also continually threatens to get rid of them once they reach a certain salary level and they find they are getting paid less to do more. The film then moves in the direction where the women begin laboring to be treated fairly in the workplace.

I believe that these women are clearly visible in the eyes of the men they are satisfying; but feel invisible as human beings because they are on stage or on the street as a different person with a different identity and they are also invisible to their employer who provides the unsatisfactory working conditions. These women are entitled do what they want with their bodies, but when they are visible as an object more then a person and are given very few rights by their employer, then they become invisible as a human being.

I agree with Priscilla Alexandra when she talks about the working conditions of prostitutes. The working conditions of prostitutes are often ignored, which is unfair seeing as they are working just like anyone else. These working conditions could be considered oppressive to these women; yet at the same time they choose to have this job, which makes me think it is not very oppressive. Even though there job is very different then many others, they still deserve some respect and dignity.

Posted by sulli396 at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sex workers may exist in mainstream society as both visible and invisible. The sex industry as a whole is continually dismissed by traditional sex-negative feminists. In Carol Queen’s article, she mentions that lawmakers and police officers are only concerned with the criminalization of prostitution, rather than the safety of prostitutes themselves. Priscilla Alexander states that many lawmakers don’t consider forced sex with a prostitute rape. These victims are inherently invisible. In the film Live Nude Girls Unite!, however, the strippers were extremely visible. But they had control over when they were seen, how they appeared and for whom they danced. This is why the men videotaping the peep show caused such an uproar among the dancers. They were losing power over who could see them dance and for what price. The girls featured in this documentary also went to great lengths to hide their true identity. Wigs, gaudy make-up, high boots and aliases transform a Jewish mother of three into a blonde go-go dancer. One dancer described her job as a “weird pajama party.� Ironically, who these women truly are becomes invisible as they become more visible before men. The male customers, on the other hand, can be as visible as they desire. Phone sex encounters allow anonymity for both parties, while peep shows provide dark booths for men to view dancers from behind tinted glass. The dancers complained when the glass was removed and private rooms were installed for customers. This allowed more access to the dancers than they wanted. Escort services and soliciting prostitutes provide a more visible role for men. The main point to be made is that like any occupation and any human being, these sex workers deserve rights. Their experiences, whether good or bad, need to be visible in our society.

Posted by herma216 at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I now realize that the issue of sex work is not so black and white. As Jill Nagle discusses, sex workers often are not given a voice. They are spoken for. Sex workers have not been visible in the debate. One interesting aspect is the life that the sex workers have at work (work usually meaning public) is actually very private in the sense that their work gives them a disguise, a different name and a different character; whereas, in their private lives many sex workers have to hide what they do for a living. The sex workers only became visible as being part of a profession once the media recognized the union work. It is also interesting to consider the power that the viewer has. The media, the viewer at the peep and strip show, etc. The media has power over whether or not the sex workers struggle is legitimate and the viewer in the peep show has power when she/he cannot be seen.

I personally struggle with the issue of sex work, but I realize that I have never heard the views expressed by sex workers themselves (until watching Live Nude Girls Unite!). After reading these articles it is
clear as to why sex workers need to have more rights and have the ability to unionize and be recognized. Women’s sexuality and rights are being determined by men and structures in our society when women can be arrested for “appearing to intend to exchange sex for money� (Nagle, 5), and when they are charged stage fees up to $150. Carol Queen talks about how we have a “sex negative law enforcement� and that sex workers are victimized by the law (129).

Posted by Alias at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Within the context of sex work the idea of invisible and visible is constantly changing between the worker, the client, and the management. In the film Live Nude Girls Unite! the girls, although very visible to the client, were very invisible to the management, who seemed to ignore the women’s needs and safety. Sex workers are also invisible to those who do not participate within the business and those who are not clients. They are merely part of society that many choose to forget about. Their rights as citizens/employees/human beings are often ignored by the authorities and the law. As Priscilla Alexander writes in Feminism, Sex Workers, and Human Rights “The laws reinforce age-old conventions regarding female display and behavior� (85, italics theirs), keeping the idea that women are only allowed to be sexual when committed and married to a man, and either blaming or victimizing any other form of women being sexual. They often disregard women’s needs, such as often times when prostitution is legal and they pay taxes they are denied benefits and do not try to improve occupational safety or working conditions (Alexander, 90). Like the women in the movie while working they become both visible and invisible, the client sees them, but only sees them for their body and not as an actual person.

The idea of whether becoming a sex worker is oppressive is not as black and white as many people believe it to me. Carol Queen in her writing Sex Radical Politics, Sex-Positive Feminist Thought and Whore Stigma and Jill Nagle in Whores and Other Feminist both discuss the “sex-positive� women, those who are very sexual and open with their sexuality, these women who choose to become sex workers I believe are not oppressed. It is the women who are forced, whether it be by other people, society, etc. are oppressed, it is not something they chose because feel they are “sex-positive� but because it they may see it as their only option. These women were left out of the conversation within these readings. No one should be forced whether it’s others or society in to a sex workers job, no one who is not “sex-positive� would find this kind of work empowering or enjoyable.

Posted by lars2805 at 8:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Live Nude Girls Unite really brought to life the concepts of visibility and invisibility in sex work. One of the readings talks about the “good girl, bad girl� binary and how in reality we should think more in terms of a continuum, creating space for alternate kinds of sexuality. Because the binary exists, those who “publicly wear the label� allow others to be invisible, and perpetuates the notion that there are only 2 types of women. The women in Live Nude Girls Unite challenge this view by changing the way in which they are visible.

Sex workers are obviously visible in society, however their identities as people are somewhat obscured. This is demonstrated when the dancers talk about putting on a “mask of makeup�. When the Lusty Lady dancers break through as real people demanding real rights for their work, they are met with dismay from their employers. The employers seem to have the impression that their employees are in it for fun, not money. This de-legitimizes the work of the dancers which makes it easier to brush them off.

By making themselves visible not as "good girls" or "bad girls" but something in between- real women who CHOOSE their work- the dancers risk rejection by their employers and the general public. People often feel that sex workers are "bad people," and therefore don't deserve the same rights as others. It's difficult for people to comprehend that an exotic dancer might actually be a very intelligent woman who has chosen that line of work. The readings emphasize that although we can't ignore the problem of women being forced into sex work, it is extremely important to make this distinction.

Posted by happyfeet at 8:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

An essential element in discussing sex work is choice. As Jill Nagle pointed out, choice defines how we approach sex work, and most anti-sex feminists have ignored choice in sex work entirely. To them, it is only done through an act of desperation and nothing more. For the sex workers that do choose to enter that line of work, they are also choosing to be visible, and (in the case of dancers/peep show workers,etc.) to be hypervisible. Many times, it is those that have chosen to enter sex work that are most vocal about their experiences, making those who lacked that privilege of choice essentially invisible. Perhaps they are threatened with violence or embarrassment. Either way, such women should not be ignored in a sex-positive discussion.

These visible/invisible roles are not set in stone, however. As can be seen in the opening scene of the film, many, if not most, sex workers, when not working, are seemingly invisible within society - they are able blend in with the "good" crowd. Being seen also creates an interesting dilemma for women. They choose to be seen, and seen in a sexual way, and in this way they appropriate their sexuality/sexualness. However, they are essentially on display for a mainly male audience, thereby becoming objects of their audience (in a similar way to the "male gaze" of cinema). Some sex workers are able to play with this duality, using it to teach their customers the proper way to treat women (as described in Nagle's article), but I can't imagine that this is common for most sex workers. In this way, while I do believe that it is possible to be feminist and a sex worker or to be feminist and embrace sex workers, I also believe that the reality for many sex workers remains a poor and possibly abusive one.

Posted by seitz057 at 8:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Live Nude Girls Unite!" did a great job of breaking many stereotypes and cliches when it came to the kind of women that do sex work for a living. We were able to see smart, sophisticated, and strong minded women doing something that is looked down upon by many. Most of the depictions of women who strip in the movies or television portray them as sleazy, low-life, down in the dumps type ladies, but this film showed us that there is all different types of women who do sex work. For all of these women though, whether they liked it or not, the issue of visibility came up. Because of what they all did for work, they were basically all living double lives. One life was out in public among you and I, the other life was on stage. I believe that this had to be extremely hard for some of these women.

There "real" life off stage, seemed to be the hardest life to live out of them all. Many of them lied about what they did to their family and friends, putting strains on many of their relationships. Not being able to be completely "out" about what they were doing for a living really made things difficult for these women. They may have been visible to the ones they love, but there is something each of them were hiding and that that was a problem for many of them. Only a few people were able to really know the majority of these women, because of their choice to keep their life and work private. While the women were able to have fun backstage with each other and hanging out as a crew after work, being on stage was another struggle in itself. Once again they were not able to be visible. What I mean by that is while they are literally "letting it all hang out", they are wearing lots of makeup, all sorts of wigs, and they are using voices not even close to their own. Knowing that many of these women are hiding so much and trying to protect their "image", after all of that do they even have one? I think in this film we were able to meet many of the "real" people after getting to know them and also with them opening up to the camera, but it is only one movie, with one strip club. There has to be about a million strip clubs in the U.S. alone and you have to wonder how many many of the women working at these places are hiding who the truly are. Visibility as a stripper both on and off the stage doesn't always seem to be an option.

These women were smart and very open about their sexuality and love of everything that is sex. This is something that Carol Queen would really appreciate. To see feminists who were sex workers, was something that I would have never expected to see. But they are there, and I am sure there are plenty more out there, so I am with Queen when she says that all women and feminists should accept these women for who they are and what they do. By confronting what Queen calls "whorephobia", all women can come together and get more done for a cause that they all believe in.

Posted by keilh004 at 8:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sex work has the ability to render people visible and invisible at the same time. When the dancers in the film went on stage, they were highly visible. However, they don lots of make-up so they are unrecognizable. They are visible but have no identity.

This is the case with all sex work, not just the peep show workers shown in the video. Priscilla Alexander notes the history of sex workers, how the “wise women� of Sumerian days were housed separately, how prostitutes in medieval France wore clothing distinguishing themselves from the “acceptable� population. These measures make sex workers extremely visible to society, but they are also invisible in that no one knows who these women are. Their only identity is that of prostitute/whore.

Some sex workers/activists, like Jill Nagle, argue that they should be allowed to be seen. Carol Queen notes that a huge part of the feminist movement is being able to do with one’s body whatever one wants, including sex work. These women make themselves visible even in their line work, and they are fighting for equality and for respect.
By doing so, however, they are taking a huge risk. When Queen points out that “the whore stigma attaches itself more viciously to women,� she draws attention to society’s fear/hatred of sexually assertive women who know how to use their bodies to benefit themselves. When these women make themselves visible, like Julia does when she “comes out� to her mother as a stripper, they risk losing respect.

Posted by Katie Green at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some women the sex work industry needs the money to support their children and debts, some need money for bad addictions and others enjoy the job and find it to be a stress reliever. I think that the women on Live Nude Girls Unite are much different than prostitutes and strippers who are not behind glass. The role of the employer in all cases should focus on the protection of their employees. It baffles me that they would rather have a sick girl on stage than one than does not have the same breast size or hair color. In every sex work situation, I think that they all have grievances with race discrimination. It depends where the club is located and who their main consumers are that decide which kind of women they like the most. The role of the employer is really just to keep the audience happy and the show the best it can be.

Being invisible occurs right as they get on stage with their make up on, wigs in place and new names. They use the attire to cover their real identity and slip into their new identity. Like Jill Nagle explains, these women, along with all women, do not want to be known as “whores� or even be mistaken as “whores.� Being invisible to the customers, general public and even their family gives them a way to live a normal life. A sex worker can be visible on stage through their body’s actions but hide behind a costume and altered voice to make them invisible. Location really emphasizes whether the dancer wants to be hyper visible. Some clubs have posters of them on the outside, for everyone going by to see. You can choose to be hyper visible or not. Priscilla Alexander emphasizes that hypervisibilty occurs from the “origins of civilization.� I think that the dancers who wish to be visible are the ones that do it for the fame and who treat sex work as their main focus. They benefit by becoming very popular on stage and make a lot of money. The others who want to be invisible benefit by having their privacy and other life. They just want to make money and hopefully have a good time.

These women are clearly smart and driven to go and fight their bosses for equal rights. Management wants them to think of the job as “fun.� But they do not want that, most of them need the job, not want it. They like the industry and they know a lot about it and believe that they can do a much better job than their managers. Which I agree!

Posted by lemme021 at 6:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think that the extent to how visible the worker is really depends on the type of sex work they do. For me a highly visible sex worker is someone who prostitutes themself or some other form of media where the individual person is actually for sale like pornography. On the other side I think that jobs like phone sex operators where you are not visible at all is the other end of the spectrum. Doing the kind of work that the women do in the film is pretty conservative when it comes to being visible. I say this because although they are on a stage dancing the only people who sees them are the consumers and the other dancers. Also, it sounded to me like not many of their families even knew what they did so in a way it was like they were trying to hide their work. Being seen can be very beneficial but I think it is highly correlated with how sexy a person is or perfoms. I also think that it is why many of the girls wear wigs and elaborate makeup so they can hide any imperfections they may have in order to please the consumers, which are generally males, in order to make more money. One thing I found surprising about the film is that one of the managers was a women. I pictured some guy just sitting back drinking cognac and when she came out it was a little bit of a shock because I thought she would be fighting for the women and not trying to oppress them.

Posted by bergm154 at 6:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think sex work while not invisible has been previously avoided or otherwise viewed as bottom of the barrel. Assuming these women are down on their luck and need to be saved from the patriarchal oppression that has left them no other option. To be honest I had heard of legalized prostitution and sex workers rights but never to the extent of this feminist argument. Pornography is generally viewed by most feminists I have discussed it with and obviously in the readings as objectifying, demoralizing and abusive to to women. But as Nagle expresses in her piece the true demarcation of this is consent, that while forced prostitution or pornography is unquestionably wrong there are many women who opt into these professions for one reason or another. Alexander reiterates this in her talk of WHISPER and anti prostitution groups. These arguments remove any “agency� of the woman to possibly make this choice, which I would say is markedly sexist and representation of the internalization of the patriarchal system.

The real inequality I think inherent in this argument is the double standard of female sexuality that Alexander elaborates. As in Basic Instinct Catherine is threatening and masculine by her blatant and unforgiving sexuality, so are many of these women. Why is mildly frowned upon for a man to utilize the sex industry but overtly wrong for a woman to do the same? The avoidance of the world of sex work in modern discourse is one of the things that makes it so dangerous for women. Perhaps f it was demystified by the acceptance of fellow feminists, instead of sexuality beyond gender equality being nonexistent, it would likely greatly improve the lives of the women that they feel are being oppressed. It seems the issue of sexual visibility is really important here, that for some reason it becomes the right or the duty of others to control what they view as sexual deviance,(Queen) It is interesting to see that even amongst progressive and supposedly open minded movements there can still be such broad divergence of thought as in the feminist movement. It is also refreshing to see that such an unconventional and unexpected group can be successful in socially legitimate unionization despite the opposition of not only the bosses and lawyers, but that of their supposed sisters in female rights.

~Michelle S~

Posted by spiek010 at 6:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think that being a sex worker is very ignored as an actual job by society. One woman in the film discussed how some customer asked her what she did for a living, like she was just dancing for fun. It is a job that usually gets somewhat pushed under the rug or people just avoid the subject. I think that most sex workers can be considered invisible and visible at the same time. For example, everyone knows that they are there and available but they are rarely discussed in public. It seems like acknowledging their work as a “job� is not regarded at all and nobody is ever comfortable recognizing it as so, unless it’s a sex worker themselves. In my opinion I think that not being seen is a benefit for the worker and the customer. For the customer it could be better not to be seen, perhaps they are embarrassed that they are going to these places for entertainment. For the worker, I think it could be better not to be seen because seeing a customer at the location is one thing, but what would happen if they saw them out in public? The worker and customer could both benefit from not being seen as some sort of privacy policy. Perhaps by not being seen the worker and customer never have to truly expose themselves to each other. I think that if the workers are seen and they can see the customer the workers are more in control. They can change what they are doing to change the reaction of the customer. I believe that if only the worker is seen and not the customer, the customer would have control in the situation because the workers don’t know who or how many people are watching, and they also have no idea what reactions the customers have to them. No matter what type of sex job someone has, I think that they are always going to be half visible and half invisible to society.

Posted by jcareykc at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Carol Queen notes, “Our culture carefully and narrowly circumscribes what is acceptable, much of the sexual world gets left on the wrong side of the fence.� This is fueled by the notion of visibility, invisibility, and hypervisibility. The dancers at the Lusty Lady clearly wanted to be visible to everyone not only inside the Lusty Lady, but outside as well. They started protests and rallies to gain more rights, equality between them, and to unionize. Before their protest, the dancers were physically visible, but as an actual person, their needs were invisible. They were only seen as an object with visible features—dancers were classified, scheduled, and discriminated against based on race, body size, breast size, and hair color. The type of sex work engaged in at the Lusty Lady is peep shows. The peep show room had 13 one-way windows so the customers could visibly see the dancers while being invisible to the dancers. This made the dancers more vulnerable because they couldn’t see what the customer was doing (ie videotaping, masterbating). Their rights and protections as a person were invisible.

As in the case with other types of sex work, personal needs and protections are invisible to others not engaging or participating in the act itself. The needs of the dancers at the Lusty Lady were invisible to management. It seems to appear that the more a specific sex work is hypervisible, the more it is unaccepted by the public and therefore, more importantly, has the least rights protected. Prostitution is hyervisible because it is much more than just a visual show through a window. It involves intense physical contact and sometimes even sexual intercourse. This forces the women who chose to participate in this type of behavior extremely invisible because they are desired purely as objects, while their body is being sexually exploited and used. Not between the parties engaging in the act, other people also exploit sex workers’ rights. Priscilla Alexander quotes, “Police, prosecutors, and judges all too often believe that a prostitute, by definition, cannot be raped, and refuse to enforce the law when one is. When prostitutes are murdered, police make little effort to find the killer unless or until he kills someone who is not a prostitute. Far too often, the murders go unsolved, even unacknowledged�. No matter what occupation one has or what one does to make them invisible, every one’s human rights need to be visible and supported by the law.

Posted by savor004 at 5:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There have been many arguments for and against sex work in America. Before doing the readings and watching the film I had only heard the fight of anti-sex work, where people and feminists in America think that sex work and sex workers are people that allow themselves to be used in a degrading manner and are “props in the service of that desire.� However after focusing on the notion of visibility I opened my eyes to see the other side of the story and that the man looking through the one way mirror is not always the one with the control. From watching the film I saw that a sex worker can be visible and invisible at the same time. They let their bodies be shown physically but the dancer’s interior is never shown to the client. There true outward appearance is even masked by make-up, wigs, and changed voices. In the film one of the dancers even shared that mentally while performing she is thinking of other things. This is the way that sex workers find control, never fully letting the client see who they truly are. Another thing that came to my attention through the readings and the film is that different sex jobs expose women to different levels of visibility.

For example sex writers and phone operators can control everything the client hears/reads and not give anything about her real self away, while prostitutes are physically allowing themselves to have a man touch their body, so there is only so much control over their visibility they can have. The control of visibility by sex workers shows the message that the readings held, that many of sex workers want these jobs and benefit from negotiation. And overall, “most whores are available and sexually active on their own terms.�

Posted by woul0006 at 5:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It seems that by the very principles feminism prides itself on, the rift that sex work has created within feminism must be mended! Feminism seeks for equal rights and agency for all groups (racial, sexual, class, etc.), so I cannot fathom anti-sex work feminists’ long refusal of support for sex workers rights. By projecting a demonizing quality to all prostitution, or worse, ignoring the important differentiation between consensual/forced sex work, revokes the rights of many women who hold the same feminist ideals. By refusing to listen, they revoke these women’s agency (something they claim to fight for). These opposing feminists become equally responsible for the mistreatment as the man from the state department in the film, who claimed that he would have been willing to work harder and use more of the state’s resources to protect these workers if they had been from a more “respected� working class. One’s own principles are not reason enough to allow the abuse of another person (and make no mistakes these women are very real people)! This denial to see sex workers as equal people gives rise to their invisibility. As Priscilla Alexander states, “The desire to isolate the prostitute, to wall her off from the rest of society, goes back almost to what we call the origins of cilivization.� And so it remains, that despite their almost hypervisibility (demonstrated in the film by one employee’s comment that the peep show room is like a “fish bowl�), these women (and their rights) become invisible and therefore obsolete to society. They are stigmatized and denied respect—which removes their agency.

However, as the film displays, these women are educated, respectable, caring, and strong. It is time that their fellow women of the feminist movement begin the tide of granting these women back their agency in society. As Priscella Alexander proclaims, “We must bring prostitution, sex labor, above ground.� Feminism must unite in this cause (despite differing opinions of its acceptance on an individual basis) of recognizing these women in a rightful way. By forcing our culture to grant these women a place within it, their visibility will lead to their renewed agency. Feminism declares to represent and protect all different forms of life and people; in the film the strippers declare that they find a “life force� in their work. Clearly, this is a life force that deserves to be realized.

Posted by lenth006 at 4:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Overall, I think sex work in general is fairly invisible. Society as a whole doesn't spend much time thinking about the rights of sex workers. Anytime that is spent thinking on sex workers probably falls into the realm of opinions that revolve about the lives and actions of sex workers. This movie illustrates that fact, for too long these women, and many others shown throughout San Fransisco, have has their human rights neglected simply because the people in charge can get away with it. Julia Query realized that they needed to become visible, or even hypervisible, in society for people to take an interest.

This is the benefit of being visible, they can showcase the harm that their employers are doing to them. They are able to receive support from the community and make a difference in their working conditions. This is also causing problems for the women that would prefer to stay invisible, whether it be because they don't want their families to find out (Julia Query) of they choose the profession because of it's invisibility. By becoming visible they are putting themselves in a vulnerable position, they are opening themselves up for scrutiny. They no longer can solely identify as a sex worker within their workplace as simply a job, but now in society they are identified as a sex worker. This may not have been their aim when they entered into the field. This is a way that sex workers can play with visibility, they are able to control how- and by who- they are perceived in society as a woman.

Visibility and invisibility can certainly vary depending on the type of sex work. Types of sex work that is illegal in the community will most likely be invisible. This would probably be preferable to the women because it is against the law. Visibility is also affected depending on where the work takes place, one is much more visible on a stage, as opposed to a private room with one other person. But I consider the visibility to be subjective to that specific space, not with in society as a whole.

Overlooking sex workers is too easy for people especially when there is so much controversy revolving around their work when they are discussed by outsiders, it usually focuses on the topics of pro/anti-sex worker beliefs.

Posted by luco0005 at 2:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The debate between pro and anti-sex work feminists creates a division that is weakening the strength of feminism. Instead of fueling this separation we must unite and focus on the safety and wellbeing of the females working in this industry. The question must ask if it is voluntary or coerced work. In “Introduction to Whores and Other Feminists,� Jill Nagle explained that sex workers have been excluded from feminist discussions. Because of the single focus on the oppression of sex work, some feminist activism has even silenced feminist sex workers. In Live Nude Girls Unite!, females working in the sex industry spoke their minds and worked to reform feminism to include sex workers. As shown by the readings, film and lecture the debate over sex work is not black and white. One aspect to consider is visibility. Visibility depends on what type of sex work and personal preference. The women in the video showed that invisibility within visibility is possible with the use of make up and costumes. Hyper-visibility is described best in the movie. Regarding peep shows, one female described feeling like they are

inside a fish tank. In hyper-visibility, the body is put on display for the sole purpose of looking. Live Nude Girls Unite! is a film that helps to see a perspective that is not commonly discussed. Jill Nagle stated, “Mainstream feminism has not made moves beyond analyzing how sex work oppresses women to theorizing how feminism reproduces oppression of sex workers.� Pro and anti-sex work feminists must join forces and work to understand the other’s perspective. We all share similar themes of advocacy so let us unite and strengthen feminist ideals. Bridge the division between pro and anti sex work feminists!

Posted by Katherine Jonas at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Notions of visibility, invisibility and hypervisibility manifest itself the lives of sex workers in ways not seen in traditional jobs. These differences in visibility occur due to the way our culture views sex. Carol Queen writes, “Our culture carefully and narrowly circumscribes what is acceptable, much of the sexual world gets left on the wrong side of the fence.� This forces many sex workers to be discreet and feel like they need to hide what they do. Many feminists are divided on the issue as well. Queen writes, “Mainstream feminism had never been entirely comfortable with sex.� In the film, Julia didn’t want her mother to know she was stripper partly because of the damage it would cause to her mother’s reputation in the public eye. Julia understood the stigma associated with sex work. Not all sex work is equally stigmatized. In the film Julia’s mother asks if she touches the men, and Julia said something like, “Of course not.� Prostitutes receive a much great stigma and have a greater need to remain invisible. Both the public and the law create this stigma. Visibility functions differently in different situations. The girls in the peep show wanted a regulated visibility...

They were okay with men looking at them through the peephole, but they were not okay with being filmed. Sex work on a stage is hypervisible to the people in the building but still invisible outside the building. Being seen has both positive and negative consequences. Being seen allows the workers to receive attention that they may desire for self-esteem purposes or financial gain. Being seen also makes them victims of stigma and they run the risk of being labeled as a less-than-human “whore� by both management, public and patrons. Sex workers play with visibility by not revealing their entire bodies and allowing themselves to control what they display. It’s agential because it allows the sex workers to be in charge of how they use their bodies.

Posted by Da provida at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Different types of sex work can be placed into two different categories (visible and hyper-visible). Visible sex work may include anything from a peep show worker, to a cyber sex worker, to a phone sex worker, etc. These types of sex work provide the client with intense visuals and pleasure from viewing (and listening), however nothing more. Hyper-visible sex work may include anything from an escort worker, to a strip club worker, to a prostitute. Hyper-visible sex work provides the client with much more than just visuals. It, more often than not, provides the client with intense physical contact and sex. While both of the visible and hyper-visible categories allow the worker to be seen and viewed, they also allow (or force) the worker to be invisible at the same time. This can be understood in the documentary Live Nude Girls Unite!.

The peep show workers of the Lusty Lady are extremely visible to their clients; however their rights, needs, and identities seem to be of no importance (invisible) to the management. This argument can also be understood in the realities of America. According to Priscilla Alexander in her essay Feminism, Sex Workers, and Human Rights, “Police, prosecutors, and judges all too often believe that a prostitute, by definition, cannot be raped, and refuse to enforce the law when one is. When prostitutes are murdered, police make little effort to find the killer unless or until he kills someone who is not a prostitute. Far too often, the murders go unsolved, even unacknowledged.� This supports the theory that even though prostitutes participate in hyper-visible work, they are often forgotten about (invisible) by law enforcement, those who are supposed to protect the people, when tragedy strikes them. If a sex – negative woman had been murdered by a male, there would be uproar in the conventional feminist circles, a full investigation, and no one would rest until the perpetrator is behind bars. However, if a female prostitute had been murdered by her dominatrix lesbian lover, there would be no uproar in conventional feminist circles (there may even be cover up) and no investigation would be held.

Posted by Eleanor Roosevelt at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found the video to have an overall interesting quality. Going into our group discussion I wasn't able to completely connect all my thoughts and although the group talk helped, I still am not able to bring everything together. A lot of what is being said about this topic from all sides- workers, employers, outsiders, etc- just doesn't seem to fit. Some of the women say that they enjoy doing this, and some say it's for the money. I'm not sure if it were the same women saying both things or not. Either way, it is a very unique job they have and it is interesting to look at if they are truly visible or not. They are hyper visible especially during peep shows because all the vision in sort of tunneled at them. At the beginning of the movie when everyone was in the back room putting on their make up a couple of the females considered their make up a mask or a disguise. If this is the case then they are not really visible. They are just putting on a show with a shell or costume on, kind of like an actress on stage. At the same time, I feel like if someone is truly passionate about the role they play, then much of actors true personality leaks through the shell even if they try to hide themselves. So I think that these sex workers that we saw can be invisible and visible at the same time.

How much they are visible and how much they are invisible depends on the person. Some people might be in it for the money, some people might enjoy expressing them selves this way, so it is difficult to make an general statement on whether the sex workers we saw are invisible or visible. I sometimes feel like this topic is being disguised. I sometimes think that the sex workers we saw say they do this through expression because it's a more acceptable reason. It sounds a lot better than I do this because all I want is money. I'm sure there are some people who do it because they really do believe it is an art form. I guess it's hard to draw clear lines sometimes because there isn't a lot of light on this subject since it is kind of taboo.

Posted by leex2356 at 7:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"I was born in 1968, the day before Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. I dreamed of fighting the good fight but I never dreamed my first attempt at activism would be as a stripper." Julia Query opened the film with this statement, letting us know she wanted to be known in this world or “visible� but didn’t think it would end up the way it did. In this film, I think there are many different ways of being seen (visible) or not seen (invisible) throughout this film. Yes it depends on what type of sex work that is being taken place; like in the main type of sex work in this film; peepshows. Three of the peepshow's 13 windows were made of one-way glass; the customers could see the dancers, but the dancers couldn't see them. For years, the Lusty Lady attracted amateur pornographers who'd set up shop behind the one-way windows.

They videotaped and photographed with alarming regularity, usually without knowledge, and always without consent or compensation. So in this situation the dancers are “visible� and the costumers are the “invisible� ones. This gives the costumer the privacy of who they are but also makes the girls more vulnerable because they can’t see what the person is doing. The rest of the peepshow windows, you are able to see through both ways. The customers are separated from one another and the dancers, making both able to see one another but having something in between them. Like said in the Carol Queen article, “When whores see a client or when a peepshow worker or stripper interacts with a customer, the presence or absence of respect has much to do with how sex-positive the client or customer is, and something to do with our own sex-positivity. It also depends upon each person’s degree of self-respect and presence or absence of sexual shame,� this having a lot to do with the visibility and contact or boundaries of the worker and the client. “Sex industry� refers to a range of practices involvling the exchange of sex and/or sexually related goods or servies for money. Jill nagel says “I believe that as long as women are arrested for the crime of being sexually assertive, for standing on the street without a socially acceptable purpose or a male chaperone, I am not free. As a women and a feminist, I believe we will never have rights, opportunities, choices, work options, or an income eqivalent to men’s unless we can stop being afraid of being either raped or called “whore�. The sex industry is a very controversial this in this world and is pictured in many different ways.

Posted by bues0040 at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There is definitely a clear distinction between public and private life in the movie Persepolis. Marjane loves punk rock music; she walks around the streets covered in a veil, blending in with all the other women, but takes it off and headbangs to Iron Maiden the minute she reaches the privacy of her own room. One scene in particular shows the drastic measures taken to conceal "inner" life activities. This scene is the party scene in Iran. Marjane and her group of guy and girl friends are dancing, drinking, and the girls have their veils off and let their hair hang down. Soon the cops come to bust the party. The boys take off and hide. The women pour the alcohol down the toilet, put their veils on, turn off the music, and stand in a straight line like criminals. The cops start chasing the men across the rooftops and one of them falls to their death after not making the jump from one house to another. According to lecture this time was probably 1983 when strict public segregation of the sexes was inforced, public veiling required, and make-up prohibited. Everytime Marjane puts her veil on in the film she looks very sad and hangs her head. It's like having the veil on shows that she should be ashamed and hide herself. Early in the film she attempts to point the finger at the men.

Everyone was sitting in the auditorium, the woman fully veiled and the men slouching, relaxing in their own clothing. Marjane says, "Why, as a woman, shouldn't men's tight clothing offend me?" The system is so incredibly sexist; the women are punished and hidden in order to have a 'decent' society. This is why there was such a difference between public and private life in Iran; there were so many rules publicly that you couldn't do anything outside of the privacy of your own home.
Nellie Marshall

Posted by marsh410 at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For Iranian women, being aware of the concept of “inner (andaroon) and outer (birooni)� is very important to avoid problems with the law. This is well depicted in the film Persepolis. In Persepolis at one point, Marji’s grandmother is overjoyed when she learns how Marji voiced her thoughts against the University regarding the inequality towards women in how they should wear their dress when men can choose to wear whatever they like. Then her grandmother says, “Take Off this fucking Cowl. It makes me claustrophobic.� Grandmother is referring to the veil that Marji is wearing and to her, the veil is almost like a hand-cuff or something that controls her from being who she is which she doesn’t want to see in their inner space.

In their inner space, they can do whatever they like but once they are in their living room and in public, they have to careful and follow the law which includes wearing the veil.
Nima Naghibi in her Bad Feminist or Bad-Hejabi says that sharm (defined as a combination of charm and shame) is held as highly valued quality of an Iranian woman even though a feminist may disagree with this entirely. She says the more the Iranian women are able to afford to conceal with her dress, it more it indicated of a higher social status.
It seems like the women in Iran will have to wear the veil for a long time or possibly in indefinitely. Although the feminist group in Iran may not like wearing veil, the majority who are not wealthy and educated well seem to find comfort in wearing the veil. To me a woman required to wear a veil may seem like male oppression of woman but it also seems that many woman have accepted to wear it one way or the other in some such countries. The society seems to find a way to work around these laws.

Posted by dorje003 at 10:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The film "Persepolis" is a very strong minded film about a girl who is growing up during the Islamic revolution. The film centers around the idea of 'veiling'. In the film, Marjane is constantly fighting the norm. She wants to break free of what is expected of her and express herself. There are a few scenes that depict her breaking the code. She listens to western music and dresses differently than the others. The scene where she buys music of the street is extremely significant. This just adds to the idea that it is forbidden to listen to that type of music. If you have to secretly buy a CD from a complete stranger and bargain for it, it is obviously not legal. She also wears clothes that aren't approved of. The nuns at her bording school scold her for sporting such garments. She is "unveling" herself by not letting herself be supressed. She does what she wants, and surprisingly, gets away with a lot of it. It is interesting how, during Marjane Satrapi's interview, she comes off as the same kind of person. It just plays into the fact that this story was told from the heart and is a real descrpition of how life was back then. Life must have been so hard for a girl growing up with those kind of circumstances.

Posted by conw0077 at 3:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think the scene where Marji’s grandmother takes off her veil when they are in their backyard shows how inner and outer workings with the veil work. With Iranian women, wearing the veil is so much a part of life that I think that it could somewhat cover and hide their personalities when seen through the eyes of an outsider. During that scene I think that Marji was forgetting about the whole issue with public and private. In public she must wear the veil because it is mandatory, but when in private she does not have to wear it. I think she was getting the whole issue with public and private somewhat confused and they were beginning to fuse together. Her grandmother mentions to her that just because she wears the veil in public that doesn’t have to be her life. A lot of Iranian women are accepting of wearing the veils while others are not. Some women are concerned that western influence is having too much of an influence of the way the fashion is made now. In the Youtube clip, Fashion industry thrives in Iran one woman says that the fashion’s that are available in the Iranian market are not acceptable as Iranian dresses. She also adds that if a design would be made with traditional Iranian thoughts that it would be a good idea. So, possibly if this was the case with most Iranian women maybe if they were given a choice of wearing something traditional it would be more acceptable to them to wear the veils, especially in public and they could still have their own identity, instead of getting put in a category with every other Iranian woman wearing a veil.

Posted by jcareykc at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think the scene when the mother’s friend is over at their house talking and quickly puts her veil on when the father comes home best represents the distinction in public and private life for Iranian women. Even though legally women have to wear the veils in public, that translates into some of the women’s private lives too. For Marjane, her mother and grandmother do not allow it to translate into their private lives, but for others, like the mother’s friend, the legally imposed tradition has infiltrated her own beliefs about what is appropriate dress for women in the presence of men. For the many factors discussed in our lecture, the youtube clip with the professor, and in our readings, wearing the veil has become very controversial.

It can represent patriarchy because it is imposed only on women, but it also has religious meaning and important class-crossing possibilities. Like Nima Naghibi and Shahla Haeri discuss, women may choose to wear the veil for many different reasons. It seems apparent that because of the origins of the tradition being in religion and because the tradition has been used to oppress women by turning into something that is mandatory, there are legitimate arguments for and against wearing the veil. This concept of women having different public and private lives is in support of those against the wearing of the veil because it illustrates the control over women while men do not have to separate their lives the same way. Wearing the veil is such a powerful tradition that has been manipulated in the name of patriarchy, a form of protest against westernization and a way of showing respect and modesty.

Posted by AJ at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The film Persepolis offers a much more westernized perspective on the subject of veiling and throughout the film in general. This is evinced through the French language that is spoken and the western music and geographic locations that are sought for sanctuary or escape. Using this perspective, the film depicts a clear distinction between the Iranian people and the western-inspired freedoms they embrace and a government that restricts this expression. This barrier between government and people sets the scene for this duality of “public and private� or “inner and outer� lives that the Iranian citizenry must embrace. The veil is typically portrayed as an element required of “public� or “outer� life, as the scene with Marjane’s mother displays, when she takes off her veil and when she enters her home and expresses her discontentment with having to wear it. In this way, the film shows Marjane’s mother’s discontentment with the separation between her public and private life. This is also shown when her mother’s friend comes to her home and puts on her veil when Marjane’s father enters the room. At this point, the freedom of the conversation becomes restricted as well. This last example depicts the way in which even private life becomes restricted through the public mandate female veiling.
However, the reality is not this simplistic. As Nima Naghibi discusses in her article, “Bad Feminist or Bad Hejabi,� the process of publicly mandated veiling is the result of several political occurrences, but is also the personal (or private) choice of many women. Not only in term of religious embrace, but cultural and nationalistic embrace as well. She discusses complexities that also impact this argument apart from gender, which include religion and class. As Shahla Haeri of Boston University discusses in her Youtube clip, many women wear the chador—not just the mandated hejab—out of religious piety or to cover their poverty.
Naghibi also discusses the westernized feminist critique. In the NOW youtube clip, American feminists struggle to accept veiling as more than an example of patriarchal domination, as is evinced when one of the women laments her problems with being able to hear with her veil on, saying that it isolated her from conversation. However, Naghibi relates this to cross-cultural differences beyond east and west, but also along the lines of economic class—in the way that feminists in the past have worked to “embolden� and “mobilize� Iranian women out of an western elitist mindset that deals with public and private spherical clashes in different ways that to me, seem to be hypocritical.

Posted by J Kriegs at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Persepolis presents the unstable dynamic between personal and private in a variety of ways, most obviously in the use of veiling. The veil serves as a marker, a way of distinguishing the outer, public life of women from the inner, more private life. When Marjane visits the garden of her grandmother- the most active voice of patriarchal resistance in the film- she demands that she take off her veil in such an intimate setting. The desire to be free from what her grandmother calls the “claustrophobia� of the viel is in line with the views of modern Iranian women presented in the videos. 65% of Iranian university students are women, a sign of their growing independence and cultural significance. The feminists who visit Iran notice how the veil obscures their hearing and cuts off their ability to participate in conversation. Marjane’s grandmother represents what the readings and videos call the growing disconnect between women and patriarchal tradition (made evident in the burgeoning fashion industry). Her emphasis on inner, private equality while still maintaining the tradition of public realms illustrates the shaky situation of Iranian women in the 21st century.

Posted by thur0139 at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When analyzing the private and public sphere, the scene most relative to Western culture was when Marji and her boyfriend were driving and holding hands. The action was abruptly stopped because authority drove by. In Western culture this is considered a private matter that can be taken public if desired. As shown in Persepolis, in Islamic culture couples are trapped in their apartment if they want to be affectionate. In Islamic culture, the private and public spheres are very separate and cannot mix. With force, these spheres are constantly controlled by the government. As discussed in lecture, veiling can mark identity as well as the power of seeing others and not being seen. Hillary Chute discusses how the chapter, “The Veil,� shows pictorial evidence of the psychological condition Satrapi portrays throughout her comic strips. Marji showed rebellion from this psychological condition by expressing Western influences and continually testing the boundaries set by the Iranian government. In Shahla Haeri’s video she discussed the difference between the full body cover of the chador and the head cover of the

hijab. Haeri discussed how the chador or hijab can be a way for women to form into their ideal, “respectable� selves. In “Now women in Iran,� it was interesting to see how American, feminist women reacted to wearing veils. They respected the cultural aspect, but were not convinced of the growing empowerment of women in Iran. In their meeting with a female professor, cameras were not allowed and she had to be watched by a government official. This was an eye-opener for the American women and for me. Women are oppressed in Iran and I believe the veil is a tool of this oppression.

Posted by Katherine Jonas at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Overall, I think Marji is a good example of someone who struggled with the public versus private sphere. She takes on many western concepts; she eats french fries and buys American music. In one specific scene in the film, Marji was wearing a punk jacket out in public, and two older women called her a slut and told her that by wearing those clothes, she was disrespecting her country, etc. Marji had to make up a story so that the women would leave her alone. When she got home, she played her music loud and rocked out.

I found it interesting that in 1939, veils were banned as a statement of modernization. Then in the late 1970s, women began wearing full veils as an anti-western symbol, and women were encouraged to participate politically. By 1983, there were strict segregation rules in place and veiling was required.

In the history of veiling, we learned that:

-Veiling is specific to time and place. In the Youtube video, Now/Women in Iran/PBS, the women from the U.S. find that men and women are separated in all holy places in Islam, and that women are required to wear Chadors in holy places (Chadors, according to the Youtube video, Shahla Haeri on Women in Iran, are specific to Iranians, while the Hijab is all-inclusive). Also, men and women are required to study in separate libraries. However, at public Universities, men and women share space.

-Veiling is often seen by many westerners as oppressive, but veils can be worn to show solidarity, faith, protest, respect and modesty. One of the women from America in Now/Women in Iran/PBS stated that she feared her ability to accept the limitations placed on females by the government.

-Veiling is also included in the fashion industry. The Youtube video, Fashion Industry Thrives in Iran, tells us that Iranian fashion designers follow international fashion, as all fashion designers do.

Posted by Bute0023 at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We talked about in class how veiling is often seen by many westerners as oppressive, but veils can be worn to show solidarity, faith, protest, respect and modesty. In the film Persepolis we see that for Mariane and women in her life don't want to wear the veil because they also think it is oppressing them. We see her mother and grandmother wearing the veil out in the public but once they come home they take the veil off right away. You see the mother saying that she hates where the veil when she comes home. So we see that aspect of these women having to cover up out in the public but once the come home and are in their private places they don't wear the veil. We also talked in class about how the veil can be worn as a way to show upper class status, as much as it can be a way to hide poverty and still be respected in public spaces. I didn't know that before that the veil can be a symbol of class. Which is interesting in the film because we see that Mariane has money and are in somewhat of a upper class and they don't want to wear the veil. Which draws the question of why not? They never really touch on why they don't want to wear the veil but it is interesting that maybe because they are high in ranking they don't want to wear the veil.

Posted by breme071 at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In Persepolis Marjane Satrapi shows the audience a picture of life in Iran as she experienced it. As such, the politics of veiling which governed her actions and shaped her experience are presented to the viewer through her eyes. Her family is shown to be educated and of means. Like the men in her family, the women are opinionated and strong. Her family rejects the political ideology of the time and forced veiling, and thus, the audience sees the issue from the point of view of women who feel oppressed by it, desiring to choose the issue for themselves. This is obvious as each time the women return to the private sphere of home, they immediately take it off. In most of the scenes within private spaces, the veil (being a symbol of oppressive, public space) is an issue. In the scene where she is in her grandmother’s garden, her grandmother tells her to remove the veil saying it makes her feel “claustrophobic." Marjane’s response that she sometimes forgets she’s wearing it prompts her grandmother to caution, “Never forget that. Fear lulls our minds to sleep.�

This message resonates well with a Western audience, as representations in mainstream media have largely presented the veil as a symbol of fear and oppression. I enjoyed this film very much, but I have to admit that as a Western viewer, I would have likely not thought about other points of view such as those brought up in both the youtube clip with Shahla Haeri and in the article by Nima Naghibi. Both explain that there are many reasons for wearing the veil, demonstrating that one should not assume that all who wear it do so only because they are forced to do so. Naghibi’s criticism of upper-class, educated, Iranian feminists as too dependent on Western notions of feminism reminds the reader that one model is not always wholly applicable to all groups. Her insistence that the veil is a more complicated issue than Western women might think is well put. However, Satrapi’s account is no less credible because of this. I don't believe that it is her responsibility to present the myriad of differing opinions on veiling. Satrapi is retelling her early life as she lived it, and there can be no denying that her experience is significant and representative of many others’ experiences in Iran. Her voice, just as Naghibi’s and Haeri’s deserves an audience and the wider the better.

Posted by kafka at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The scene I chose is the when she stands up in her class when the students are being talked to about how the women should be dressing. First of all I feel that in this film the veil is supressing the females in Iran. Although some of the women view it as part of being a woman I don't think that the younger generations feel the same way about it. I think that this probably has to do something with how much the meaning of the veil has change in the past centure. With it changing so much I think that it has really lost its meaning to the younger generations and they simply do not recognize its traditions or value as a part of their culture. especially since our world is becoming ever more globalized. It is supressive to me because the women have no choice to whether or not they can wear it or even how it should be worn. Also, at the same time the men could wear what ever they wanted and not have to worry about any consequences regarding their clothing. I feel this also discriminates against them because they are singled out and told what to do while the men can do what ever they want.

Posted by bergm154 at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Persepolis is filled with scenarios and situations that explicate the precarious balance between the public and the private that Iranian women consistently experience. The most obvious example of this, of course, is that of veiling - it quite literally physically and visually divides and classifies the time and experiences of women into indoor and outdoor, public and private. In the film, there is a scene where a veiled Marjane enters her home and comes into the garden where she meets her grandmother. Her grandmother immediately comments on the veil, demanding that Marjane remove it because it makes her claustropobic. She continues to say something to the effect that it is crucial that Marjane, and any other woman or Iranian citizen, never become passively accepting of the attempt to dominate minds and lives. This is a particuarly powerful scene that could be read in several different ways; it could be that Marjane's forgetting to remove her veil inside the confines of her own home could be just that - simply forgetfulness. It could also be what her grandmother says, a softening of the mind and will to be accepting of domination. Or perhaps it is just a moment where Marjane does not find it neccessary to seperate the inner and outer, to differentiate that particular moment from the one just before she walked through the door.

Because the film (and the books as well) are both decidedly without the religious influence typically associated with Iran in the post-revolutionary period and instead is highly politicized, it has the most to do with Marjane's grandmother's statement and the notion of veiling as a personal and political act for some - not religious. In the Satrapi household in the context of Marjane's memory, veiling is seen as highly politicized, an act that keeps one from getting arrested or overtly harrassed by policeman, soldiers and other hands of the state; the veil indeed serves to protect femininity in some fashion, for it keeps girls out of jails, prisons and other locations of the state. It strangely privatizes sexuality as well as identity, placing femaleness in the sphere of the domestic alone.

Posted by allison at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In Persepolis, for women the distinction between private life and public life for becomes blurred. Wearing the veil became second nature to the female characters. An example of public life blurring into private life is when Marjane went to visit her grandmother and she was still wearing the veil in the garden. Her grandmother tells her to remove the veil and Marjane replies that she didn't even realize she was still wearing it. Although Persepolis presents to us that all females are being oppressed by being forced to wear veils, this is not true. Not all women consider veiling an oppressive action, and some women choose to wear veils, and they may where the veil to show their beliefs or even to hide their poverty. In the film Persepolis the veil itself represents the distinction between public life and private life, and the distinction between public/private life causes the women to portray two versions of themselves. In public they have to hide their true identities, but in private they can act normal. The continual change between personalities would be very taxing on a person and it would be a struggle to keep individualistic qualities about yourself, it would be difficult not to conform to societies standards.

Posted by conlo027 at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The connection that this graphic movie made about the hijab and the public vs privat sphere seems to me a continuous theme when it comes to this issue. The choice to wear a hijba seldom remains in the private sphere it seems. With the continuous politicization of the choice to wear a hijab comes the denial of a private connection to the decision one makes. This movie showed so many aspects of this debate that touched on multiple significant social issues: religious fundamentalism and political uses of religious symbols; oppression of girls and women; levels of immigration; discrimination and lack of economic opportunity for immigrant communities; however it is the term “they� that
Persepolis had continuously used that I want to look at more closely today. In the analysis presented here I would like to show that the politicization of the Hijab law supports the discourse of using the process of “othering� to create an antithesis to the western ideas of sexuality and standard of religious practice in everyday life. This movie shows that when a person diverts away from the social norms given to them by society, they lose the privilege of the private sphere. For example every time Marjane comes back to Iran she has to put on the hijab again the Public sphere that she is in during the airport collapse with a private choice because of the fundamentalist police officers that force the women to uphold to the Islamic law. This however doesn’t just happen in the extremist Iran, the same process is used in the “West�. If Marjane would decide “privately� to wear the hijab in Austria the visibility of that choice would move with her into the public sphere as well. In both the movie and contemporary society today one can see that this choice doesn’t remain private due to its consequences. The movie many times failed to complicate the idea that with the choice to wear a hijab or the refusal comes a gaze and visibility from the public that doesn’t allow you to keep this matter in the private roam. In many ways the movie reified the idea that it is only the oriental fundamentalism that blurs the private and public. A simple understanding such as this was able to create one classification of Muslim. This shows the Orientalist perspective of the idea that any manifestation of religion by a Muslim must be a product of coercion or group thinking, rather than a product of a reasoned decision by a Muslim individual. When we look at the individual agency and personal freedom to choose to wear a yarmulke by young Jewish boys one can see how rare it is that the choice is questioned or cited as a reason to deny these schoolboys access to the separation of the private and public.

Posted by Nami at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the film Alien, Ripley is constantly fighting against the men to make the right choices. Even when she is in charge her decisions are ignored. Although we find out later that Ash is not a man, but a robot, we must still acknowledge that his actions were predetermined by men. Ripely is the sole survivor because she is the only character who makes smart choices and does not act hastily. She can also be seen as acting as a male character, as determined by Hollywood. The other female character, Lambert, continuously behaves as a scared neurotic woman unable to care for herself or defend others. Ripley and Lambert are opposites in everything they do. Ripley survives through strength, not letting the men determine her choices, and acting on her own instincts. Perhaps the sole survivor was meant to be a woman because the alien is herself female. They mirror each other, each with the potential to bring in life and to destroy life.

Posted by Tina Fey at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The main issue I noticed between the youtube clips and Persepolis with the veils. You see Marjane in Persepolis and the American women on the youtube clips wearing their veil more off their heads. Also, in Persepolis the mother came home and took her veil off, stating that she does not like to wear it. Iranian women are so brainwashed and have a mind set that they cannot show any part of their hair or body. In the youtube clips I enjoy seeing them look up to us; you can see that they want to be free, like American women, to wear whatever they want. I feel bad because we are able to express our own personalities and identities through our choice of clothing where as the Iranian woman are not. I cannot believe that a piece of fabric can challenge a countries power and religion. The only way I see veiling as good is when they understand that clothing option as a class hider. When women are wearing the veil they are not rich or poor, they are equal but not equal to men. The interview with the author of Persepolis says that the book was just not enough. Having it on a film not only shows emotions better but gives you a feel of being in Marjanes shoes during the Islamic Revolution.

Posted by lemme021 at 9:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The concept of private/public can be seen throughout Persepolis. However, there are specific scenes where it is undeniable that the ideas of inner and outer are often breached. When Marjane attends a party with friends, men and women, the police come to investigate. The party goers are forced to hide the men, dump the liquor, and the women have to quickly put on their veils. Even though they are in the privacy of a friend's home, their inner/private suddenly becomes outer/public. These binaries can be seen everywhere. Inner/outer, private/public, male/female, veiled/unveiled, right/wrong. Nima Naghibi says, "Indeed, public spaces have increasingly become the sites for airing political and economic grievances in private dialogues between strangers of both sexes who are much more open about their disenchantment with the government than in the years immediately preceding the revolution." No matter what the situation is, their will always be those who will push against the ordered norm, bringing private into public or public into private. Both sides push against each other continuously, never reaching a middle ground. What complicates things even more for Iranian women is that the women themselves are fighting each other over veil or no veil.

Posted by Tina Fey at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The distinction between conceptions of "public" and "private" life were clearly represented throughout Persepolis. A certain key scene that portrayed this variance occurred at a kitchen table inside a woman's home. While two women were conversing, one without a veil and one with, the woman without hte veil asked the other to please take it off. "It make me claustrophobic," she stated. The women proceeded to talk in private until one of the woman's husbands entered. The woman that originally had her veil on quickly lowered her eyes and began to put her veil back on. the other woman was appalled, since the husband was an old friend. She asked her friend why she was putting it back on. The woman looked embarrassed and replied, "your husband." In that instance the "private" situation where the women were casually sitting transformed to "public" where a man entered the room and made the woman frantic and determined to be a devout follower of the revolution.
According to lecture, women started wearign veils in the the late 1970's to show allegiance to the revolution and as

an anti-western symbol. In 1983, strict segregation of the sexes was enforced and public veiling was required. As the lecture noted, many westerners viewed veiling as oppressive, but veils could be worn to show faith, protest, respect and modesty. I believe the woman who wasn't wearing the veil veiwed them as oppressive, referring to them as "claustrophobic." The other woman, in my opinion, may have been being respectful and modest toward the husband. She wanted to show allegiance to the revolution because she was so scared she or her loved ones would get in trouble and be harmed.
On another note, I think the decision to film Persepolis in black and white was more impactful and important to how the story was developed to the viewer. In the 'Retracing Percepolis' reading the film was compared to Murnau's Nosferatu which helped influence the filming techniques. Both of these films were quite memorable and struck the viewer with an impactful message due to the strong depictons shown through black and white. The following quote from the reading helps represent the black and white decision; "violence today has become something so normal, so banal. . .To draw it and put it in color. . .reduces it by making it realistic." Along with the violence, the changes such as the wearing of the veils, were made more impacting with teh black and white filming. It gave it a more realistic view and understanding. The scene were Marjane was in the airport was shown with a bit more color and also when she was living away from home during the "hippie" era. I perceived these scenes as possible times of hope in Marjane's life and the added color was perhaps shown to represent this.
Wether wearing or not wearing the veil or shown in black and white or color, Persepolis had the main message of "Don't forget" and "Never forget." No matter what the revolution entailed or what happened to one onother's loved ones, it was important and significant to remain true to your background and roots.

Posted by hendr324 at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

After reading Naghibi’s article, and watching the first video on youtube I feel that in many ways Persepolis reaffirmed Western notions of the veil. The hejab “implies modes clothing,� and has a variety of meanings. Naghibi discuss how there are a variety of ways the hejab can be worn, and it has “markers of a woman’s social and economic status� (557). We saw in the fashion show that the hejab is not just an all encompassing black cloth, but comes in a variety of styles that can be very fashionable to some women. Iranian women expressed the desire for there to be traditional Iranian aspects of the fashion as well. In the video where the Christian women go to Iran they talk about the physical limitations of the veil; one woman talks about how her hearing is muffled, and this cuts women off from conversation. In Persepolis, Satrapi and her mother both express limitations such as the veil getting in the way for painting and how hot it can be in the summer. In Persepolis, we see a clear distinction from birooni, where Satrapi and her friends are veiled (against their will), and andaroon, when they are at a secret

party with boys. At this party, the women are unveiled and have on western style dresses. However, this scene fails to show how some women like wearing the hejab for religious reasons, and also for economic reasons. Not all Iranian women can afford to buy Western cocktail dresses. It is clear that this is only one side of the discussion of the veil, coming from an upper-class liberal perspective.

Posted by Alias at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The readings and youtube videos for Persepolis show that there are many different ways to view veiling. Nima Naghibi demonstrates the role veling plays in the andaroon/birooni spaces, while also showing ways in which "bad-hejabi" women manipulate veiling to show their dissent (we see evidence of this in the Iranian designer video as well). Naghibi also argues that bad-hejabi reinforce class boundaries, going against one of Shahla Haeri's main reasons for veiling. Besides covering poverty, she says that the veil can also be a sign of strong religious belief. On the other hand, the NOW video shows the western world struggling to comprehend Iranian culture, as they tend to see veiling as a sign of persecution and inequality. One scene from Persepolis that exemplifies these differing attitudes is when Mrs. Satrapi is talking to her friend at the table. Mrs. Satrapi is not wearing a veil and questions why the other woman hasn't removed hers. She replies "because of your husband". We can see that Mrs. Satrapi represents a modern and secular attitude while the other woman is much more religious and conservative.

Posted by allora at 5:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The scene I think best exemplified the way Marji used her veil as a way to gain agency was when she told the guardians of the revolution that a man had spoken indecently toward her in order distract them from her makeup. In the way I imagine agency in this case is the idea that Marji is playing by the rules of the Islamic revolution in order to avoid punishment. The fact that her ingenuity is really really mean also points the the fact that people in Iran at that time were not only forced to live by repressive rules, but in order to allow for some normalcy in their lives they were encouraged to be self serving. The "retracing persepolis" reading describes the veil as "disrupting [marji's] characterological presence" which I think perfectly shows what happens to marji in the scene. In order for her to escape notice marji has to fully embody the veiled and helpless female ideal of the islamic revolution, and in doing so she denies her true self. So although she does gain agency in the outside world, she actually loses agency within her world and the world that those she loves believe in.

Although this scene does not leave any room for the interpretation of the veil as positive, I don't think that it necessarily puts the veil in only a negative light. The "Bad Feminism or Bad Hejabi" helps to elucidate the actual meaning of the veil as not good or bad in and of itself, but that it should be judged based on the reasons for its use. So in the scene, if a viewer sees the veil as bad it is likely because they associate it as a cause for marji's behavior. But really the veil is only the effect of the repressive government, not the cause.

Posted by CrazyOldMaurice at 11:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In the film, Persepolis, there was definitely a clear distinction between the conceptions of public and private for Iranian women. One specific scene when I noticed this distinction would be when Marji was in the car with her friends and they dared her to take off her veil. When she actually did it, the girls were all shocked and thought of her as rebellious for doing it. Although Marji was portrayed as very rebellious throughout the film, this scene still pointed out how important it is to wear the veil when you are in the public eye. It is important to note that when she was in the privacy of her own home, neither she nor her mother or grandmother wore the veil. It was only important for them to wear it when they were out in public.

As stated in the lecture and in the You Tube videos, women wear the veil for a variety of reasons. The veil is often used as a symbol of one’s identity. Some wear the veil to show status, some to hide poverty, and some because it is mandatory. It is clear that Marji struggles with her identity throughout the film. She challenges the norms of society to try to express who she is by the clothes she wears, the music she listens to and the way she acts out in school. It is hard to discover your identity when the hijab limits you from expressing who you are. In the PBS video, it really shows how different the perceptions of the veil are to westerners and Iranians. Westerners may think it limits freedom, but to Iranians it is a tradition and way of life, whether they like it or not. I do agree that women should have the choice to wear the veil, but that is really not my decision to make.

Posted by sulli396 at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

There are two important scenes that show this variance of "public and private" life occurring. They are two different scenes in the sense of their point, but they come together because politics of veiling. In the first scene that shows this occurrance we see Marjane and all of her friends heading to a party. When most of us think about going somewhere like a party with all of our friends, we think of it as a time where we can just be ourselves with the people we love. On the way to the party we see Marjane and her friends wearing veils, almost hiding their true identities and feelings. We then cut to the party and see everyone including her without veils, without restrictions just "letting their hair down" literally! This shows the hiding of these peoples true identity. If Marjane and all of her friends wanted to where the veil, that would be find. But it is obvious that they are just wearing it so they don't get in trouble because once they get out of the publics eyes, they immediately take them off. With that we are able to see how some women truly feel about the veil and we also get to see the power that the Iranian government has over these people. That point brings me to my next scene.

The second scene that goes along with this "public and private" theme, and also shows the governments power, is the scene where Marjane's grandmother scolds her for wearing he veil even after she is out of the public eye. What makes this scene so important is Marjane's reason for not taking it off. Her reason was because she forgot that she was even wearing it. It shows that the Iranian government has so much control over its women and how they look that even the strongest minded of women who are against everything they stand for succumb to their power. It is exactly what the government wants, power over their people whether they know it or not. That is exactly what her grandmother is against and she makes sure that Marjane understands that she shouldn't ever let anyone, especially the government, control who she is.

The last two paragraphs have been mostly negative when it comes to talking about the veil. What I think I need say though after reading the articles and watching the film along with the youtube clips is that there is no right or wrong reason for wearing the veil. It seems that everyone has there own opinion on the issue. For Marjane, the veil was something that covered up who she really was, and according to one of the youtube clips, the veil is worn by some to cover their social status or class. There are so many things that determine what the veil means to Iranians, from the way they were raised, or to how much money they have, so unless we have any connections to the veil or Iran, we need to just listen to their reasonings and think before we judge.

Posted by keilh004 at 10:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“Persepolis� deals with many different power struggles, one of which is the veil. The main women in the film fight against the veil; they find it oppressive. The scene where Marji goes to buy illegal music demonstrates this. Outside her house, she must wear the veil, and the older women accost her for not wearing the proper outfit. Once she gets home, however, Marji removes the veil and jams out to the music in her room while her mother looks on indulgently.

This inside/outside power struggle mirrors that of the rest of Iran at this time. Khomeini cannot control events happening outside of the country (the war with Iraq), but he can control events happening inside the country (requiring women to wear veils, executing political prisoners).

Marji and her family follow the same principle: they cannot control what happens outside of the home (attacks, forced wearing of the veil), but they can control what happens inside the home (no wearing the veil).

Since the film focuses on the power struggles involving the veil, it fails to point out that, as the readings and the first YouTube video show, women choose to wear the veil to represent different things: wealth (or lack thereof), piousness, modesty, etc. This film only points out one reason: it’s mandatory. Since this film is about identity and finding yourself amid the chaos, I understand why people are upset that she didn’t show more sides to the veil issue. However, this film shows her life and the women who influenced her, and therefore I don’t feel she’s obligated to go into more detail.

Posted by Katie Green at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A large part of Persepolis focuses on Marji’s struggle to define her own identity. Marji is raised in a house where the veil is treated as a sign of oppression – something to be removed when not in public. Her family knows that for her to fully develop as an individual, she must leave the country to find herself. The subsequent journey Marji takes leads her to take ownership of where she is from, to come to terms with who she is. The struggle Marji faces in Persepolis represents the struggle that Iranian women endure by wearing the hijab or chador. While many outsiders believe that women are oppressed and unable to be respected when they wear the chador as we see the Americans do in the PBS youtube link, many also see the benefits of wearing it. One of the Iranian women spoke about how the chador covers poverty and allows women without much money to present themselves as respectable. In this way, the chador allows equality, but it also strips women of their individuality. The hijab, imposed by law for all Iranian women to wear, is allowed to be customized and the fashion industry is strong as a result, but at what cost? Regardless of benefits that we can see coming from wearing the hijab or chador, the fact that men and women are treated differently under Iranian law is fundamentally wrong. As we see in Persepolis, by succumbing to the unfair customs – demonstrated by Marji getting married too young – there is no sustainable happiness, only continued oppression.

Posted by joh02629 at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Before class, I had read the articles and then after watching the movie, I didn't get the same messages. The articles really pointed out how important the veiled or unveiled issue was in this country and the different revolutions that led to both the forced unveiling and the forced veiling. In the movie, however, there was no mention of those revolutions or the impact they had on their everyday lives.
The scene I can pick out that most demonstrates this phenomenon is when the mother walks into the house, takes off her veil and says she can't wear it anymore because it is so hot outside. That is the only scene where I see the veil play a significant role. Outside of her home, she has to be the modest woman who follows the rules but as soon as she steps inside her own home, she can let loose and do as she pleases. The veil was always worn when the women were outside on the street or anywhere outside their house door. This was also shown in the videos on YouTube when they showed the separate men's and women's sections in the library. It doesn't have to do with veiling, but the women were not allowed to be in the same area as the men, just as the men do not have to cover themselves when they go out in public but the women do.

Marjane was a slight exception to these "public" and "private" rules because she wore nike shoes that were white instead of black and she wore a white jacket that said "punk is not ded" and she wore these things outside. She was frowned upon and scolded for those things, but she still wore them proudly, and in her home, she blasted the illegal music that she had purchased on the streets. Fortunately, her parents were understanding and they saw she needed to be free so they sent her to Venice, and once she was there, she almost seemed to need those restrictions and those rules and she became extremely nationalistic. It was a weird attitude considering she was so rebellious in her own country, yet so proud of it when others were making fun of it.
I think Marjane was one of those who needed to be free, and who needed to have their wings and not be pulled down by the government. She got her wish, but she obviously never forgot what happened in her home country.

Posted by postx072 at 9:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The ideas and perceptions of public and private life were made very distinct within the film Persepolis. One specific scene was when Mrs. Satrapi, Marjane’s mother, was speaking with a friend/neighbor, both without covering their head and the neighbor instinctively covers her head when Mr. Satrapi comes in. This shows the influence that the public aspect of life can easily slip into private. It was so instinctual to feel the need to cover her in front of a man it was as if they weren’t in the privacy of their own homes. Another scene where this is apparent is when Marjane is at her grandmother’s house, her grandmother tells her to take of her hejabi and Marjane replies nonchalantly that she forgot she was wearing it. The idea of forgetting that it was on upsets her, saying that one should never forget. There is this idea that if you forget that the hejabi is on then one is forgetting who they really are and are covering up their true self.

Persepolis shows the hejabi as a very constricting and oppressive symbol made to keep women within second class status. This film shows that the only place the women were really allowed to be themselves was within the privacy of their own homes. Although that many women believe this to be true, many other women believe in the hejabi and where it out of choice according to the YouTube videos and the readings many women where the hejabi to show their beliefs, as well as be seen as equals between other women by hiding their poverty. In the film Persepolis the hejabi itself represents public and private, the hejabi covers the women’s true beliefs.

Posted by lars2805 at 9:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A specific scene from Persepolis where public and private life occurred was when Marjane was holding hand with her boyfriend, soon to be husband, and they got in trouble for that. At that point in time holding hands was a very private action; it should be done in your own home, if that. This is prevalent in that women were segregated from men in almost every place. PBS (2nd you tube clip) exploits the idea of segregation when the American women went to Iran, they went to the Library where they had their own little place hidden behind a curtain; they also had to study separately. Marjane, throughout the movie never really “obeyed� Iranian law, especially veiling. She was critiqued on how she wore it in public and was asked to fix it (this happened at the airport). Shahla Haeri (1st you tube clip) explains that there is more than one reason why women where the full body clothing (veiling) other than it being imposed by the government: some women believe in it, their families are very conservative, and it covers poverty. I think that the reason why Marjane continued to hold the hand of her boyfriend knowing that it would end

in problems is because she has to deal with the constriction of veiling and she was tired of it, she wanted to display something other than what is expected of her. Also, in the notes, it said that veiling can give power by being able to see but not be seen, when I heard that I was confused because I don’t think that any women see it that way when it is law; there is no power because if they are segregated they only power they have is with other women who are in the same situation. The modernization happened in 1925-1941 where women had the right to choose whether or not they wanted to wear the veil, then in 1942-1953 Democracy was reestablished and banished British, in turn, Iran’s government collapsed. I think this causes a lot of confusing and frustration for women because at one point in time they were given a right just for it to be taken away. Marjane’s mom experience this when she gets home and throws her veil off and states that it is too hot to wear it; which in turns shows the veiling in itself is a public and private life.

Posted by Abbie Weeks at 8:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A scene from Persepolis that illustrates the veils limitations and restrictions is when Marjane and her friends are going to a party. On the streets they are wearing the hejabi but when we see them next in the party they are not. This seems to signify the restrictions that exist with the veil, these women remove their veils in order to participate and enjoy the party. This scene shows that the veil itself creates a separation between genders. So although men and women possess many of the same rights, for example occupants of the party are classmates, the requirement of the veil highlights their differences. At the party by removing them the women and men are on equal ground.

Yet something interesting that this is suggested in both the article by Nima Naghibi and by Shahla Haeri in the You Tube clip, is that the veil makes all women appear to be of equal social status. Naghibi claims that this is the government’s purpose for enforcing the hejabi, “to redistribute the wealth�. But while this is creating equality among the women it is further separating the women from the men. This is happening in the sense that there is an expectation for women to be pious and possess “sharm�, where men are allowed to simply be themselves. As well as women are expected to act differently within their own home depending on who is in their company. This is also shown in Persepolis, when Marjane, her mother, and another woman are talking. Marjane’s father enters the room and immediately the other woman puts her veil on for him.

It seems that there are many consequences to wearing and not wearing the hejabi, as illustrated by Naghibi. When it was against the law to wear it many women felt too uncomfortable to enter the public realm, while others rejoiced their freedom. It seems the true freedom would come from there being no law to prohibit or enforce the veil and allowing women to choose their own preference according to their beliefs and comfort level.

Posted by luco0005 at 7:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Being an immigrant has an inherently duelist nature. The immigrant is at once connected with their former home, while also being connected to their current. For Marjane, in Persepolis, this is a constant state once she leaves Iran for the first time to move to Austria. A scene which truly encapsulates the inner-outer struggle of national identity that she goes through is the scene in which she dresses up revealingly and goes out to a party where she lies about her origins, saying she is French. After the party she has a "conversation" with her grandmother, who questions her about her lack of pride of her origins. In a way, this internal conflict is similar to the one surrounding the veil. The veil represents piousness while also being a symbol for male dominance in society. As Nima Naghibi argued, these two extremes echo Iranian history itself (the veil having been banned and then mandatory).

Posted by seitz057 at 6:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the scene in which Marji goes to visit her grandmother after complaining about the dress restrictions set upon the women of the college, the audience is handed multiple layers of one of the film’s most complicated issues: the veil. First, in public where she is forced to wear the veil Marji seems very aware of it as a restrictive force—one that prevents her from being free in the world. However, after her brave resistance to these restrictions set by the law and the men who rule, in the presence of her grandmother, she subsequently forgets this stigma—even though she is now not even required to wear it. She says she sometimes forgets it is there. Her grandmother admonishes her by saying that by forgetting the veil she is allowing fear to lull her mind to sleep. Clearly, in her family the veil has come to symbolize the threat and brutal force of the Iranian government. It represents the limited public freedom that these women have. In essence, their inner-selves (the part of them that thinks, feels, and responds on an individual basis) are forbidden. Instead they must “put on� an outer that is acceptable. However, it is interesting to consider the possible motives behind Marji’s surprising forgetfulness.

As Nima Nighibi says in her article, “this article of clothing, worn quite differently in a number of Muslim countries as well as in many other regions, has come to embody various meanings at different historical moments in diverse national contexts.� This then allows the veil to encompass an inner private meaning, beyond its perceived public, outer image. Yes, on the outer public front the veil represents the strict force of the law and its oppression of women. However, as stated above, it also can have a deeper more private importance. The West has been typically cast as ignorant of this complex duality. And unfortunately despite her many subversions of Middle Eastern stereotypes, I feel that Marjane Satrapi reinscribes these specific notions in Persepolis—by introducing the veil in the typical fashion. However, as she herself demonstrates in this scene, the veil not only represents a barrier between the private and public, inner and outer—but the veil itself contains an inner and outer meaning. And even if she and the other women in her family only acknowledge one, subconsciously both are present. And both of these meanings are critical to understanding the veil’s significance in the Iranian culture.

Posted by lenth006 at 5:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There is an obvious distinction between public and private places in the scene where Magri is caught holding hands with her boyfriend, while they are driving around town. The officer demands Magri to come with him for a beating, payment, and phone call to her parents. Nothing appears to happen to the boyfriend, from what the viewers can tell. Magri’s father is not angry, but saddened by the situation. Magri’s parents used to have the freedom to show their affection in public, but that was before the government enforced public segregation of the sexes in 1983. This was also the same year in which the must-wear-veil act was reinforced. The father tells his daughter that she must only be seen with her boyfriend in private, and that they must not hang out together outside in public. This forces the two young lovers to marry, which doesn’t last long! At this time in Iranian culture the women are restricted to their homes, if they want to act freely. In public they must control their interaction with the opposite sex, along with remaining covered by the veil.

Margi and her boyfriend’s decision to marry is an example of Iranian women being forced to make impractical decisions, in order to be granted a little more freedom. At their wedding Margi’s mother expresses her disappointed feelings on Margi jumping to the decision of marriage. The mother is letting the audience know that this is a different Iran than when she was Margi’s age. Having a boyfriend didn’t force young adults to become married in order to publicly display their initimate relationship.

Posted by kerli006 at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As noted in the blog question, there exists a clear distinction between conceptions of “public and private� for Iranian women. This is mostly due to their lack of emancipation and the fact that they are forced to wear a veil (or even at times, not wear the veil). Veiling is a “powerful political tool used to manipulate women to reflect the aspirations of the nation� according to Nima Naghibi. In 1936, the ruling monarch Reza Shah Pahlavi legislated the Unveiling Act prohibiting women from appearing veiled in public. Some women protested their will to discard the veil, and wore it in public. Officers were ordered to arrest or to rip the veil off a woman if she was seen wearing it in public. This law that was supposed to liberate women was violently enforced, thus undermining these women the freedom to chose how to represent themselves in public. This act was an effort to democratize gender roles and encourage mixed social gathers but only at official state functions. In 1983, revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, implemented the Veiling Act, forcing women to wear the veil in public again.

I

n an interview with the directors of Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi and Vincent Paronnaud said that the film is about a young girl coming of age during the Islamic Revolution. They said the film wasn’t made to be political or to change the world, but to raise awareness and educate people on Iranians. They both believe that America dehumanizes complicated people—like the Iranian culture—hence the reason for so much support and acceptance of the current war in Iraq. Since we dehumanize these cultures, we don’t realize that these are real people with families, hopes, dreams, and fears just like us.

However, the film portrays political situations. Marjane and every other female is forced to veil herself in public. The veil is a symbol for female oppression and the fact women are manipulative. In private, women can do as they please with no one to answer to except their husbands. In one scene, Marjane’s mother walks into the apartment and while removing her veil she says how she can’t wait to get out of that thing. She feels constricted when she is forced to wear it in public, but has to obey because she and other women are constantly watched. There is enforcement monitoring the city too. In another scene, Marjane is yelled at to tie her veil tighter and cover her hair. In the private of their own homes, is the only place women are allowed to “let their hair down� and be free from the watchful eyes of the law. Due to Veiling Act, women develop a clear distinction between all matters private and public. Another example that drinking has to be done is private since the city is dry. The veil constricts women and dictates them. They are forced to lead two separate lives—a private one and one with the veil that is accepted and acknowledged by the public, and to become two different people—one free to do as she pleases, have fun and smile, and one solemn, concealed personality that is obedient.

Posted by savor004 at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In the film Persepolis, and in Iranian culture in general, there is a vast distinction between the private and public self. One example of this concept is early on in the film, when Marji is a young girl. She is talking to her grandmother about her dreams for the future. She wants to be a prophet who doesn't let old women suffer. After expressing her hopes and goals, Marji's mother opens the window to hear protesters yelling, "Down with the Shah!" This scene shows the difference between Marji's most inner thoughts and desires, and the reality of the outside world. She is an extremely ambitious and strong-willed young girl, yet lives in a country where her dreams may be difficult to attain. This important scene shows the innocence and naivete of childhood, and how it clashes with the harsh reality of conflict and war. Marji's family's household is a refuge, where ideas can be expressed freely. At this point in the film, Marji hasn't quite realized the danger of expression in public places. Throughout this film, Marji challenges these social norms and speaks her mind frequently. In the fashion industry video, the designer is discussing overcoming boundaries: "a designer always has something in his or her mind, and he or she will do something even under limitations." This statement is true for Marji as well, she had to be careful and aware of her actions, but was still able to get her point across and make a statement. The Shah is fighting to modernize Iran, and they are eventually overturned by the Islamic Revolution. Marji's thoughts are extremely modern and progressive, and at first glance may seem to be in line with the mission of the Shah. However, women were actually guaranteed more rights after the Shah was overthrown. Overall, this scene shows the difference between the safety of the home and the uncertainty of the world around us.

Posted by herma216 at 2:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was, at first, slightly disappointed in the way veiling was portrayed in the film Persepolis. Marjane Satrapi’s views on veiling were very negative and did not offer any alternative reasoning for the acceptance of the tradition in Iranian culture. One scene from the film that depicted the tradition and the conception of “public� vs “private� as a clearly negative aspect of Iranian politics is when one of Marji’s mother’s friends joins them in their house, had taken off her veil in the presence of the two women, but is then scolded by Marji’s mother when she puts it back on in the presence of a man, Marji’s father. Marji’s family are clearly leftist in thinking and do not practice the enforced laws of veiling after 1983 Veiling Act was established in their private homes. They condone these laws and view them as oppressive. Although, I agree that the Unveiling Act of 1936 and the Veiling Act of 1983 are oppressive because of the violent enforcement of these laws that Nima Naghibi describes as well as Western influences that encouraged the unveiling which reiterated colonialism, and the Nationalist views that reveiled the Iranian woman and used her to symbolize the nation which was forced upon them. The film Persepolis does address these issues but does not address the choice that some women make to celebrate their culture through the tradition of veiling and the conception of “inner vs outer�. In one of the short clips on Youtube an Iranian woman speaks about multiple reasons for wearing the traditional veil including religious beliefs and covering poverty.

But as I stated in the beginning of my blog I was only disappointed at first. After thinking about the film and reading the articles I realized that this film is not intending to speak for the entire nation of Islam. Satrapi states in an interview that “I use myself as a basis to talk… If I didn’t use myself, it would become more like a political or a sociological or a historical statement, and I’m none of that. I’m just one person, and you see what I saw.� I took this into account when analyzing the portrayal of the veil. She tells her story from her epistemic standpoint and can thus use the veil as a symbol of the oppressions that Iranian people suffer.

Posted by Faith Kolstad at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A scene that really sticks out to me is the scene where Marjane meets up with her grandmother. Marjane walks into a private place with her veil on and her grandmother tells her to take it off. As we learned in class and in one of the videos, some women choose to wear it because they believe that it's what women should do and some people wear it to cover elements of their lives like poverty. But this scene makes me really feel for women who don't enjoy having to wear the veils. I feel as though the women should have a choice. If some enjoy wearing it, let them, if they don't, then they shouldn't have to. Also in this scene, Marjane says that she forgot that she even had it on. This makes me think that maybe some women are content with the situation. If the women in Iran are content with wearing the veils, it's not a big issue. However, I always revert back to choice. It should be the womens choice. In many of the other scenes when women first enter their homes the first thing they do is take off their veils. This makes me think that the veils are a nuisance. However, I also worry that my speculation is to harsh because during the winter seasons in Minnesota the first thing we do when we walk in is take off our coats.

It is difficult to make the call because it's an animation. Not only is it an animation but it has a strong 2-D feel and doesn't have many colors to make this idea strong. The movie does a good job showing how women in Iran act when they are outside their homes, and inside their homes.

Posted by leex2356 at 1:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After the fall of the Shah in the late 1970’s, all females (puberty age and older) were mandated to wear the veil when out in public. Marjane at a young age, already an avid collector of bootleg metal and punk music, remains a rebel who continuously challenges the norms set by her government. However, some women in the film do not challenge the norms. In fact one woman in particular carries the public, government set norms into her private life. This woman is a friend of Marjane’s mother. In the scene, Marjane’s mother and her friend are discussing the political situation of the country in the Satrapi home (inner as claimed by Nima Naghibi in Bad Feminist or Bad Hejabi?). Marjane’s father then walks in and the friend immediately moves to put her veil back on, even though she has been a long time family friend to him.

Unfortunately, most Westerners perceive the act of veiling as only a form of womanizing oppression. Nima Naghibi states this in his first line of Bad Feminist or Bad Hejabi?. As Shahla Haeri states in her interview, the wearing of a hejab is mandatory for women in Iran; however there are also a lot of women think that wearing the hejab is “the proper thing to do…� (1:29). This particular theory could be what Marjane’s mother’s friend is thinking or experiencing. She may not be veiling herself in front of Marjane’s father because it is mandated by law, but because she morally believes it is proper. In the PBS “Women in Iran� segment, which should be titled “AMERICAN Women in Iran�, the viewer is not allowed to have the opinions of women who are from and who live in Iran. The viewer is only allowed the perspectives of the American women (whom already have a bias towards veiling). Thus, I do not believe I can fairly analyze this video segment. And in the interview with an Iranian woman designer, she states that “[a designer] will always do something even under limitation� (0:28). This can be taken as that while the veil may restrain women physically, if there is something that she wants bad enough, she will obtain it. This was used to challenge the theory that the hejab is unbearably contricting (figuratively and literally) to a woman.
Veiling in my opinion, should be a choice made by the woman who is donning the hejab. This, to me, would be the most feminist situation.

Posted by Eleanor Roosevelt at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the Movie Persepolis, I think you see many examples between the “public and private� self. The one scene that I remember the most was when Marji’s mother comes home and rips off her veil as soon as she walks in the door. I feel that the Iranian women are frustrated by this because it hides their freedoms and like is said in almost all the clips and readings, that while wearing the veil over their heads, it secludes them from the public and forces women to be more private people. And which I think leads to Marji getting into so much trouble at school because she tries to wear her own style of clothing and buttons that the teachers get mad almost because she is trying to express herself in other ways she can’t.

The only time you really see any of the women in the movie smile or enjoying themselves in any way, is when they are at home and unveiled. In the article by Nima Naghibi, they talked about how Iran kept going back and forth from changing if women should be veiled or shouldn’t be veiled in public. Anything from getting arrested if they didn’t have it on, to getting it ripped off their heads if had it on. On one of the clips “Shahla Haeri on women in Iran� she explains all the different reasons why women still today decide to wear or not wear their veils in public or in their homes. So I think it should be up to the women and their views on veiling on when and how much they wear their veils. I truly agreed with Nima Naghibi when he says, “While I am dubious about the empowering effects of state-legislated veiling or unveiling, I agree with Mir-Hosseini that this particular class of women effectively manipulates the terms of the legislation to display resistance to the regime. By mocking and parodying the form of modest dress that the state imposes on women, the bad-be/abi threatens one of its most important political aims.

Posted by bues0040 at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A clear distinction between public and private occurs when the police, who represent the public, corner Marji and her family while in their car on their way to a party. Marji and her grandmother quickly run into their house to dump out all of the alcohol, a luxury they enjoy in private. Their home represents the private, or the unveiled. Anything outside a home represents the public, or the veiled. In this scene, the veiled and the unveiled meet. The veiled is a more powerful and dangerous force than the unveiled, which explains Marji and her grandmother’s actions. Veiling is a more complex tradition than many westerners understand. The interview with Shahla Haeri provides a good insight into different significances and complexities of veiling. She mentions that veiling isn’t solely a form of oppression. The PBS video, on the other hand, fails to look at the politics of veiling fully. It focuses simply on the western view of veiling as a form of oppression and ignores its function as a way to show solidarity, faith, protest, respect and modesty.

Niga Naghibi writes about how the Western idea of feminism can’t be compared to Iranian feminism: “[Iranian feminists] would bristle at the thought of being saved by their western and disaporic counterparts whose models of feminism and activism have so little in common with their own.� In order to understand the complex politics of veiling, one must not look at it through western eyes, but through completely different lenses.

Posted by Da provida at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The scene from Persepolis that I am going to explore in regards to public vs. private, is when Taji Satrapi (Marjane’s mother) is sitting at her dining table with a family friend (unknown woman). The two women are having a conversation; both women are not veiled and in walk’s Ebi Satrapi (Marjane’s father). The unknown woman is startled are races to grab her veil to cover herself. The women in Persepolis were mandated to veil in public, but when in the private setting of their homes they removed their veils. The major component that led women to veil in a private setting was the presence of a man. In the article, Bad Feminist or Bad-Hejabi? The topic of public vs. private it discussed. “The andaroon (inner) was a realm occupied exclusively by women. The only men who had access to the women’s quarters were close members of the family and servants. The birooni (public), by contrast, was reserved only for the men of the household, their male guests and servants� pg 557.

Although, Taji’s guest was in a private setting the dynamics changed because of the presence of Ebi. Therefore, she felt it necessary to veil, even though Taji was okay with her not veiling in front of her husband Ebi. I understand the different view on veiling and I believe that veiling has it’s pro’s and con’s. I feel that women should have the option of choice in the matter of veiling and should not be mandated to veil. One, aspect of the veil that I do like, is that for poor women it covers up the fact that they are poor. And it allows them to come into a public domain and still be respected (You Tube video #1).

Posted by thoughts at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Feminism has quite frequently engaged with the question of public and private (or inner and outer) as a revisited distinction that often highlights specific oppressions and study of social conditions. Third world feminists have often highlighted the ways that not all women experience such distinctions the same way. In Iran, the politics of veiling, provides yet another cite for this division, and explorations of oppression and liberation --as was explored in Naghibi's article “Bad Feminist or Bad hejabi?

Highlighted in her article was the ways in which women experience the dawning of the hejab in radically different ways depending on the historical conditions and their positioning within society (their family's understanding of religion, their class background, their politics, their specific location, their current national leader, ect.). The film Persepolis usefully demonstrates how no specific narrative can articulate accurately themes of oppression or liberation in relation to the hejab itself, nor do the divisions of private and public operate in the same way for all women.

In the scene where Marji removes her hejab as she is driving, several aspects specific to Marji's positioning to divisions of public and private is revealed. First, as we see earlier in the film, she is of an affluent background, and her father possess the wealth to quickly pay any fine she might accrue from such an action. Secondarily, Marji is not shown to be particularly religious nor anti the west throughout the film, and thus shedding of the hejab only reflects a specific 'liberation' for her, that is by no means a universal experience or signifier of so-called liberation. Western identification with this notion that the distinctions of private, inner, or veiled is equitable with oppression and that public, outer, and unveiled equals liberation (which was perhaps exemplified by the PBS clips on western feminists in Iran and their struggle with the hejab or this scene in Persepolis) is complicated by any examination of the position of women in poverty, and how such distinctions operate on their lives and bodies differently than that of the elite of such societies.

Posted by Sofia at 7:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the reading it states that the hijab was a reflection of architectural space in Iran, divided into two areas, andaroon (inner) and the biroon (outer, public space). Although the law of veiling did not always remain in effect, it's symbolism of constriction, oppression and privacy remained/remains constant. When watching Persepolis, it seemed when a women was wearing a veil she is in her private space, cut off from society. In the Women in Iran clip from PBS, a woman says when you are wearing the hijab you can not hear as well and therefore are cut off from conversations. The veil in way constricts them so that when in public they are more private than when at home. In Persepolis the idea of the veil holding the power of distinction between conceptions of "public and private" is shown when Marji and her friends are in her car. Marji tells the girls she is going to take her veil off and when she does she screams and you can really see and feel everything that was being held back by the veil. It didn't matter than she wasn't in a different architectural space, all that mattered was that she was freed from the prison surrounding her face. It is evident that this is when she is the most happy and escapes the feeling of oppression and necessity to remain private.

Posted by woul0006 at 5:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The film, readings, clips –all point out to the ability of the state to regulate women’s bodies. The message is that veil is not an ahistorical, unchanging tradition or duty but the norm constructed in alignment with particular political, cultural, and religious configurations (eg. Modern secular pro-Western state or Islamic modernist nationalism etc). However, the more nuanced readings point out that simply reducing politics of veil to the state power and political regime of the time is simplistic – it reinforces idea that women are oppressed and agency-less – the idea popular in the West, where any veil is seen as symbol of powerlessness, patriarchy and lack of “progress� in the realm of women’s rights. Even if somewhat sensitive feminists (as portrayed in the PBS Youtube clip) who accept that there are cultural differences, in the end very much reinscribe the notion of western superiority. For example one of them uses the language that can be read as imperialist/masculinist – “we asked the same question in several different ways to try to penetrate her safe (?) answers.� Western feminists trying to penetrate oppressed Iranian feminist to reveal the TRUTH?

I think the film and readings allows for more complex readings of public/private debates that has been some of the major feminist areas of inquiry. For example, we can think of constitution of “public� space as opening not only potential for subversion/resistance but also new possibilities for making “private� space more “public.� It is also too simplistic to make any divisions of what is public and what is private - the boundaries are quite blurry. Public space in the West has been increasingly privatized – its use is commercialized, restricted, and regulated. On the other hand “private� space has been increasingly (self)policed – since private lives are often regulated, legislated, normalized, people internalize “public� norms of what is allowed/normal, even without real threat of punishment/repression.

Posted by Arnoldas at 1:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ripley's relationship with the rest of the crew shows her as someone the men want to protect. When the baby alien emerges from the stomach of a crew member, the men get in front of her as a protective shield. When Ripley says she'll go in the vent, one of the guys tells her "no," and that her and Lambert have to stay behind. The males are protective of both the women. The crew as a whole, treat one another as members of a family would. They are careful of each other and it seems they all genuinely want everyone to stay safe. The mother to this crew (family), is the ship. The ship provides shelter, food (storage), and safety, which are all important factors in the caring of a family. As the crew dies off, Ripley must begin to protect herself to stay alive.

Posted by ande4840 at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Obviously gender plays a big role in this film. I saw many instances where the male characters minimized Ripley’s thoughts and opinions. There was a scene where Ripley suggested that she (and I believe the other female on board) go out after the Alien, but one of the men told wouldn’t allow it, as if women cannot or should not put themselves in danger’s way. The men also minimized Ripley’s authority because, even though she was supposed to make decisions about who to let on board, for example, her decisions were not respected or taken seriously. I saw that as a threat to the men. They didn’t want to believe that Ripley had better ideas than they did. Also, Ash (although he was a robot) became violent with Ripley while he was malfunctioning. Then ironically, the men had to come to her rescue.

There was a bit of sexuality in the film. Near the end, Ripley undressed herself down to her under-attire and was casually walking around. I don’t think she was wearing a bra, and her panties were so low-rising that her butt crack was visible. It almost seemed like that was the jackpot of the movie. Like the entire movie had built to that point; her escaping was almost the peak of the movie, but then she took her clothes off. I also saw some porno magazines in the scene where Ash was attacking Ripley. I thought that it was interesting that the sexual content occurred in concurrence with the violence. It was almost a symbolic scene of dominance; the man with his nudie magazines beats up an innocent woman.

I found it interesting that the two women and the black man were the last to survive. This is such a contrast to what one might expect to happen (in a film); the people with the lesser power in society actually prevailed in the film. I think that’s a really great message

Posted by Bute0023 at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the film gender plays a big role pertaining to who will be in control of what happens on their spaceship. Ripley is the second in command of who is supposed to be in charge on the ship, however, as we can see in the film, her decisions on what actions to take regarding their safety on the ship are ignored at times probably because she is female. At the beginning of the film when the three characters go outside of the spaceship to investigate if there are living beings on the planet and the captain of the ship is attacked by the alien, Ripley, who is now in charge because their captain has an alien attached to his head, decides to follow code and not let them back on the ship because they could endanger themselves by allowing the captain and the alien attached to him back on the ship. However, the male character, who is the doctor/scientist on the ship, decides to disobey his female boss and let them on the ship anyway, but if she had been male, the chances of him disobeying his boss are much less likely. All throughout the movie Ripley seems to know what the next step should be in saving them from the aliens, but the other characters only begin to listen to her once half of them have been killed, and it is basically their only option because nobody really knows what is going to happen. I think it makes sense that she is the only survivor at the end because from the beginning I think she was the only one who really thought about the dangers they would encounter by letting the alien onto their ship and she never gave up on surviving.

Posted by hall0778 at 1:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The movie “Alien� is very interesting in the way that gender, race, class and sexuality play a part in it. Issues of gender are most clearly exposed by the way that Ripley’s orders are constantly challenged and ignored by all ranks of crewmembers. The other woman, Lambert, was so annoying in the way she just froze in the end times of battle with the alien. She screamed and just acted like a stereotypical girl in times of pressure. I couldn’t stand her. In contrast, the ship, the vessel that held all the knowledge and ultimate power, was called “Mother.�
The only non-white person was Parker, the mechanic that was always complaining and worrying about money. This illustrates the stereotypes of African Americans as lower-income and less powerful than white people. Brett, Parkers colleague, also represents lower class by the work he does and the level of authority he has (or the lack of it).

The crew does represent a kind of family form. Most of the crew takes orders from a select few, acting as the children. Dallas is the father figure that no one seems to doubt or challenge, expect for Ripley, who plays a motherly role. She is concerned with protocol and the safety for the whole crew. She represents a feminine woman by the way she looks, and also the way she cares for the cat. I don’t know the point of that cat in the movie, other then to show her maternal instincts even in life-threatening times. For example, she makes sure to grab the cat, even though she throws the cage around a bit, but she brings the cat with, she tucks him into bed, and she cuddles with him. I think Ripley represents the concept of “true womanhood� in the film. This is empowering because although she is ignored and undermined by the male characters, by following her own instincts and being independent from the others, she manages to be the only survivor. She stands up to the “Archaic Mother,� and therefore she survives. I’m not sure how to read this overall in terms of feminism, but I think Ripley reinforces stereotypes of mothers while also playing a strong, independent woman in a sci-fi film. So, her character is not all good, but not all bad either.

Posted by AJ at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

All seven memebers of the Nostromo crew represent the idea of a family. One of the beginning scenes shows all of them sitting down and having a meal together. During the meal, Captain Dallas was told "Mother wants to talk to you." Mother is the ship that the members are traveling on. In the Barbara Creed reading Mother is described as an Archaic mother. The reading goes on to describe how her many tunnels and rooms she consists of represent the woman's body. Her family is represented by the crewmates that she tells what to do. Captain Dallas reporting to Mother identifies him, family wise, as the lead older brother that is in charge. During the film all crewmates look out for each other in order to protect one another from the alien. Chief Engineer Parker functions as the strong tough man that can defend himself. His African American race further portrays his strength when interacting with the crewmates. The crewmates treat the female, Warrant Officer Ripley with dismissive attitudes. They don't entirely take her seriously and override her orders. Science Officer Ash overrode Ripley's orders to not bring Executive Officer Kane back into the ship when he was attacked by the alien. There was one scene where Parker and Engineering Technician Brett were talking to Ripley asking her about the bonus situation. As they were conversing with her they had an almost mocking cynism about how they were adressing the money issue. Ripley got fed up and walked away while the two men broke out in laughter.

The role of capitalism is highly represented in reference to the powerful company the crewmates are working for. The company tells them what to do and they do it. All of their actions and perfromances are based on what the company demands. The company is in charge and realizes this, taking no responsibilty for the member's safety. At one point in the film, Ripley is talking to Mother to find out the alien situation. Mother, who is controlled by the company, responds that the crew is expendable. The company will do what it wants in order to get the alien and there is nothing the crew could control.
Throughout Alien, Ripley steadily moved toward individualism as more and more of her crew died off. In the beginning, she was soft spoken and didn't stand up for herself when spoken down to by the other members. When confronting Ash the first time about the alien situation and how he brought Kane back in the ship, she was talked down to and her reasons for what she thought were critisicised with smugness. Ripley ended up just walking away angrily once more. One of the defining moments Ripley stands up for herself is in the scene right before Ash is found out to be a robot. Her, Navigator Lambert, Ash and Parker are sitting in a room deciding what to do. Ripley has an idea and communicates it to the others. Once again her idea is shot down making Ripley sound crazy, but this time Ripley stands up for herself and calmy explains her reasoning for the idea. She does not back down and the others see this and go along with her plan to escape. Ripley realizes that if she doesn't progeress toward independence she will die. She uses the anger and bitterness built up by the company, the alien, and her crewmates dying off to help her further advance in her confidence. She continues this fierce determination when blowing up the ship and battling the alien in the get away shuttle as it is sucked out into space.
My theory about how Ripley is the only sole survivor is strictly based on the director's decision. The hero and only survivor was originally suppossed to be a man but the director simply wanted a woman as a survivor. It was important to make a sci-fi thriller movie that for once has a strong, stable female hero. I think it was an extremely impacting decision for that genre of movie. It proved to the viewing audience that it is possible and necessary to portray women as strong and powerful spirits that can perform independently and still make a great film.

Posted by hendr324 at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Alien presents many familiar tropes and representations of gender, class, and sexuality. The male father figure (Dallas) is main communicator with “Mother�, the ship. This representation of ‘mother’ as generative- cold and pre-phallic, establishes what Creed refers to as “patriarchal ideology working to deny the ‘difference’ of woman� (19). Expanding outward, we have Lambert and Ripley. Lambert is favored by Dallas and is asked to accompany him their mission outward, while Ripley is frequently questioned and ignored, even by non-humans (Ash). It is only once the men start dying that the women are able to fight. Class and capitalism are represented by the characters of Brett, the blue-collar, confrontational mechanic and his partner Parker, the African-American who doesn’t think for himself. Both of these characters frequently complain about their wages and represent the lower-class citizen. They’re also among the first to be killed by the alien.

Ripley survives because she is the only character to confront the archaic mother. Creed argues that the archaic mother is terrifying because she castrates. Thus, in these terms, only a woman could face her. As the rest of the crew dies, Ripley emerges not just as our hero but as a woman. She is “the acceptable form and shape of woman� (23) able to be seen, unlike the unseen yet always present archaic mother. She contrasts the “visually horrifying aspects� of the Mother with displays of woman as a “reassuring and pleasurable sign� (24). She survives because as an acceptable manifestation of femininity.

Posted by thur0139 at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The crew of the Nostromo acts as an interesting family unit in Ridley Scott’s film Alien. Although they come from different backgrounds, races, and genders “the family� eats together, sleeps together, gripes together, and jokes together, all under the umbrella of the “Mother� board of the ship. Ripley, usually third in command, is first in command in determining whether or not to follow quarantine orders although Kane has been attacked by an alien. She follows her maternal instinct to enforce the order and protect her family, the crewmembers, but the robotic-science officer Ash breaks rank and lets him in because of his programmed order to bring back alien life at all costs. There is an interesting division of labor, as Dallas acts as the patriarchical father and has access to “Mother� and rules over the crew, and Parker and Brett are the low class, paid less and given the grunt work on the ship (also demonstrates capitalism). Lambert would be a weak daughter figure, always screaming and crying in fear, never able to make a decision for herself.

I believe that Ripley is the sole survivor because she is the strongest character to counter the archaic mother. Just as the archaic mother was present in the abandoned ship, Ripley represented the mother of the Nostromo. The two mothers clashed as they tried to help their offspring/crew to survive, and Ripley ultimately conquered.

Posted by Mel at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is clear that the crew of the Nostromo function as a family unit. At the beginning of the film, the leading figure is Dallas, but Ripley is quickly able to take over this role as she demonstrates her rationality and ability to think clearly under pressure (e.g. following protocol by not allowing Kane onto the ship). This motherhood over the rest of the crew is perhaps the very reason why she is able to emerge as the sole survivor. The contrast between these two types of mothers amplifies the idea of what it is to be a "bad mother" or an "archaic mother". The womb-like sets and costumes also support the theme of motherhood in this film.
We can also see a critique of capitalism in the interaction of Brett and Parker with the rest of the crew. They represent a clear class difference, serving as the laborers who must follow their contract or risk losing everything they have earned thus far.

I do believe that Ripley represents a strong female protagonist, and Sigourney Weaver played the role well, but I was troubled by reading that the character was originally written for a man. It is interesting to think how the film might have changed if Ripley had been the typical macho male hero instead.

Posted by allora at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The movie Alien shows a wide range of how society works on the ship and yet how it is in the real world. The crew has to work together but it seems that some have advantages over others. The guys that are have to least power are Parker and Brett. Both of them seem to have less education than the rest of the crew. Brett seems to be the least smart of the two and is second to die. Also, Parker is African American which doesn't make a difference but it is interesting that he is put in the lower bracket and not above anyone giving orders. One of the first scenes we see is Brett and Parker saying that they better get paid more because it wasn't far that they weren't being paid equally. This is interesting because they seem to be doing the more labor but yet getting the least amount of pay. Than the way Ripley is played out is fascinating because it always seem to have the women that is in charge be this so called "tough bitch". Why does a women in-charge have to be portrayed as this not nice character. Why can't a women that is in charge just be respected enough that she was picked to lead and not have to become this bitchy person. But they did make play her out to be scared and have to run to a man for protection.

This comes about in the movie when the alien that was on Kane's face is gone and Dallas, Ash, and Ripely are looking for it. The alien falls on Ripely and she does the typical girl scream and runs to a man to protect her. That really surprised me because I would think that because of her tough persona she wouldn't of ran to a man for protection. Which just shows that they couldn't have a women character be too much like a man because supposedly the audience wouldn't believe it.

Posted by breme071 at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Gender and the role of motherhood play an important role in how the crew interacts with one another. Ripley plays the strong, independent-minded female who struggles for power and getting her voice heard. The crewmembers (mostly male) that both rank and outrank her consistently undermine her authority. An example of her authority being challenged is clear in the scene when she desperately tries to convince Ash to follow the ship’s quarantine protocol, but he refuses.

In terms of family, Ripley functions as the knowledgeable, sensible and undercut mother and Dallas serves as the ruling, ignorant father while the rest of the crew are like children. Ripley ends up as the sole survivor because she is the most logical and intelligent member on board and doesn’t let her emotions or curiosity put her at risk. She is also the only member to separate herself from the archaic mother’s spell...

Because she has played the role of the mother, she has a better understanding of the alien’s intentions and can therefore subvert them. Ripley’s steady move towards individualism results from the confidence she gains when each crew member dies off, thus supporting the notion that her own choices and actions are keeping her alive.

Class and capitalism play into this film as well. The crew represents a working class of people who risk their lives for money. They are victims of a capitalistic society. The film could be viewed as a satire of capitalism, showing what extremes and dangers people will go through just to earn money.

Posted by Da provida at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is interesting to watch a movie like Alien where the entire film is set in space in future but gender, class, race and sexuality still plays a big part in the story. The male characters seems to want the female character (especially with Ripley who is third in command) to adhere to there decisions. Dallas ignores Ripley’s warning to quarantine the three crews who had been off the ship. The behavior and language of Parker, the African American who is in-charge of maintenance, is cliché and worries about his salary. It also implies that African Americans are going to be in lower class and always be worried about money and that racism & sexism is always going to be present in our society no matter what the setting is.

The funny and surprising part of the movie that we find is that the human lives are expendable for the sake of discovery which probably also can lead to business like most new discoveries. So, the mother ship’s number one goal seems to be to find something new.

Ripley ends up as the sole survivor because it gives hope and continuation of the human species. We know that they are in space and our world is not brought up in the movie meaning they may be the last of the human race. For continuation and new beginning, a mother figure is the key such as the alien mother (invisible but its presence felt throughout the film) is a necessity. The alien egg hatched in the beginning just from a touch and so it seems that they began to live again after that touch. In contrast, Ripley can’t become pregnant by herself but there is a possibility and hope for continuation which is why her survival was important. If Dallas or any of the men were to survive, there is no hope in the end. They will be the last of the human race. As far as we know, men can’t become pregnant biologically. Thus, Ripley survives and had to survive in the Alien.

Posted by dorje003 at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ripley is portrayed as a very masculine character in this film, an instance that this is prominent is in the beginning of the film after Kane is attacked by the alien and Dallas wants to bring him on board but she is stubbornly against allowing that. This seems to go completely against the feminine role, she would rather risk him dying than bringing him aboard for treatment and a chance to save him. This is just the first example that illustrates how Ripley contradicts female stereotypes. This is an important point to make because this seems to be the true characteristic that saves her. There is only one other female on the crew and as we see she is just about the epitome of femininity, we also see that she doesn’t stand a chance of survival and it could be argued that the only reason she lived as long as she did was because she was being protected by the masculine characters of the film.

Ripley’s progression toward individualism is a necessity toward her survival. After the death of Dallas, as well as the discovery that the doctor was a machine, she seemed to realize that it was going to come down to everyone for themselves. By allowing the remaining crew to split up in the end further illustrates her individualism, it would have made more sense to stick together ensuring a better chance of them all surviving. Yet she made the decision to separate and then deviate from the plan by searching for the cat, this shows that she is more concerned about the cat than trying to protect her crew.

Posted by luco0005 at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found the film Alien to be particularly enjoyable because of the presence of Ripley - a character who is primarily not sexualized or sensualized, who is portrayed as strong and capable in the face of dangers that are extreme and unable to be completely understood. However, I must say that I wouldn't have considered the film in the context of monstrous motherhood if not for the reading. Despite my enormous and peculiar personal fear of aliens, I did not react to the sinister mother figure of the alien very strongly - perhaps because I was trying to disconnect myself a little from watching as intently or carefully as I usually might. The imagery of the womb and bizarre alien birth (in terms of the 'chestburster' scene) were overt, but not surprising to me because of my familiarity with the art of H.R. Giger, who designed the aliens and the sets. (I am no prude, but I find his work to be uncomfortably visceral and sexual, and certainly not in a positive way. An interesting choice to design this film, and probably the reason for most of the 'monstrous motherhood/femininity' critiques...)

In terms of familial-type relations between the crew, I did not come away with the sense that they did function as a family unit. Ripley, with her concern for rules that would maintain the health and safety of the rest of the crew, could be understood as a positive mother role, just as the reading mentions. Her vehement reaction to the breaking of quarantine when the alien is allowed on board is one of the ways in which she does function as the caretaker. Beyond that, I thought the crew to be somewhat flat in their characterization and relationships with each other - mainly, I noticed that through the portrayal of Ripley as a white, obviously educated, most likely middle-to upper class female, it gave the sense that race and economic/social class are the ways through which women can perform autonomously. By that same token, the other female crew member on board is likely from the same background as Ripley - it must be a matter of some education and access to to be able to be a crew member of a complicated spaceship - and she acts hysterically, irrationally, from a sense of great fear. It is true that there appears to be a father figure through the captain, Dallas, and the computer that is referred to as 'Mother'... but it is Ripley who ultimately acts as the caring mother, despite her inability to preserve the rest of the crew's lives or safety, but when using the computer 'Mother' as a foil as well as the unseen horror of the alien mother, Ripley is indeed the reassuring, attractive feminine that is easily understood by the viewer. I have no good answer as to why Ripley moves towards individualism throughout the course of the film - I found her a hard character to read, but from the viewer's perspective, she is merely reacting to the general standardized incompetence of these stock, flat characters and the pervasive threat of the alien and it's unseen mother challenge Ripley to eventually cast off some of her more feminine roles.

Posted by allison at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Although the film "Alien" presents the audience with well worn
characterizations of race, class, and gender, it also offers an unlikely
protagonist in the female character of Ripley. Within the quasi familial
structure of the crew hierarchy is the classic patriarchal model of
the self-assured, white male, daddy figure (Dallas) as the leader, with most
of the other crew members falling into their childlike, subordinate
positions. Race and class inequalities are seen as the token black male,
Parker, and the blue-collar male, Brett, are relegated to toil in the
steamy engine room, and neither one is presented as capable of running
the ship. This is evident as Parker is shown as a lewd hot-head and Brett’s
never thinking for himself suggests that he is not very intelligent.

This pair acts like adolescents together by joking around, being vulgar and
complaining about the mission and wages. Lambert, the only other female aboard,
functions as the typically weak, emotional female figure. She is fearful while aboard the
alien craft, she smiles coyly when Parker makes a sexual comment to her,
and when people start dying she becomes hysterical. However, as second in
command Ripley represents the powerful, in-charge woman and matriarch to
Dallas’ patriarch. She keeps her cool under pressure, and she doesn’t
blindly follow orders. As she is subordinate to Dallas she defers to his
judgment, but doesn’t hesitate to question him or others when she believes
they are wrong. In most other films Ripley and Dallas would likely emerge
as the sole survivors with him saving her, but Ripley’s ability to remain calm and
level headed while everyone around her is emotional and/or panicking suggest she
doesn’t need Dallas to survive. Her emotional and even somewhat physical
androgyny enable one to view her as both matriarch and patriarch, which in an odd
way draws a parallel to the “always present, but never seen� archaic mother presence
of the alien. Ripley is threatening to men, as seen when she refuses to obey their orders
and later when she interrogates Ash, both because she challenges them and doesn’t need
them. For these reasons it doesn’t surprise me as we witness her progress
toward individual and her emergence as sole survivor.

Posted by kafka at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The roles in Alien were very prominent and different than what you would expect. The woman, Ripley, played probably the most important role. She could been seen as the "mother figure" towards the other characters. Dallas also plays a major role because he has a lot of say in the the decisions that are made for the team. In the end, he dies of his own mistakes. Brett and Parker seem like fill-in characters just to build the suspense. They eventaully die off too. Ripley is the only character that is able to defeat the alien and survive. She is the smartest and most practical one. And the fact that it is the female character who comes out on top is a good argument to support this film as a feminist film. Even though we don't see the mother alien, her presence is there. The foreign ship is a very strange place. And it's a strange concept that the mother alien is able to reproduce by herself without a male counterpart. In general, throughout the film, there is always the presence of a motherly figure whether it be Ripley or the mother alien.

Posted by conw0077 at 9:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am so glad that we watched this film. I love the alien movies: Lt. Ripley is one of my favorite film characters of all time. She is strong and enduring both physically and emotionally, follows her own instincts instead of following the commands of others, and she has some awesome biceps to boot. (See "Aliens", "Alien 3", "Alien Ressurection" too.) I think that she survives in this first film because she is the main character, the hero. In addition, she is the only character to defy stereotype. The rest of the characters are set up as expendable from the onset, and are stock types employed in many a hollywood film: Captain Dallas is clearly incompetent as the leader, disregarding quarantine protocols and reacting rather emotionally to the new problem on their ship instead of being proactive, leaving Ripley to pick up the pieces . Ash, the robotic Science Officer, is the character who signifies discovery at the expense of human life and who inevitably meets their end when the specimen turns out to be much more lethal and destructive than expected.

Lambert, the only other female on the Nostromo besides Ripley, is there as a device to contrast Ripley's character against another woman, to show the alternative to Ripley's action and bravery in the face of chaos. Brett and Parker, the grunt workers of the crew, are certainly in the film for bait for the monster. There is hardly any emotional or mental investment in them from the viewer's stance, and, as in most horror movies, are employed to add to the body count. I'd have to say that the same is true of Kane, the first of the crew to succumb to the alien menace.
The article "Horror and the Archaic Mother" really struck a chord with me on the terror of the primordial and unknown origins/endings in life. To me, the archaic mother is an archetype of all that is outside a person's control, of all that is acted upon us and through us, but not by us. She rules where we come from, where we end up, and sometimes less obviously, where we live. Life is really messy: menstruation, childbirth, and decay of the deceased. These messy and uncontrollable things happen within us without our permission and without our conscious decision, meaning that they are uncontrollable parts OF US. Life is also indiscriminate: it doesn't care who you are or what you do, it kills whoever. Good people are just as likely to die as evil people. This is seriously scary stuff! And it is how the alien monster in "Alien" operates. It is messy, procreative, homicidal, indiscriminate. And, it is eternal........

Posted by Ms. Chevious at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

In Alien there is a unique relationship between the characters in the movie. Ripley is a strong independent woman who is constantly being outranked by the male characters while they are disputing. The fact that Ripley is the character who defeats the alien and outlives all of her crew reverses the stereotypical role of a weak woman in flim. In Alien the men are presented as weak characters; Dallas continually is making mistakes. He broke quarantine laws and cannot protect his team, and eventually dies. The structure of their family is revealed when it comes to there duties on the ship. Ripley and Dallas are like the parents of the ship because they have more power and responsibility. While Parker and Brett are like the children of the ship because they are constantly being told what to do since they are the mechanics, and lowest in the hierarchy of ranks on the ship. In the movie I also noticed the role of archaic mother being filled by the mother alien. Her reproductive capability is unlimited and she is not dependent on a male counterpart to reproduce. In addition, the alien ship had dark caverns of the spaceship and large entrances that resembled a female reproductive system. The darkness of the spaceship represented that the female body appears mysterious and sinister.

Posted by conlo027 at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I believe Ripley is the sole survivor of the film because she contrasts with the Archaic Mother, the alien. The Archaic Mother is the monstrous feminine. She is never seen but always present. She is seen when the crew goes through the vaginal like opening to the alien space craft, in the rows of eggs, in the birth of the alien, and so forth. Ripley contrasts with this arachaic mother because the audience can see her and she is viewed as the acceptable female in that she poses no violent threat because she is seen and known. Creed analyzes that the monstrous feminine of the archaic mother is dangerous because she is prephallic and can use her offspring to penetrate the crew. This is seen when Kane is attacked/penetrated and actually gives birth to the mother’s offspring. Ripley is allowed to survive and become the hero because she the acceptable female because she does not have this prephallic quality.

In the film Alien, Ripley is surely a very strong and stable representation of a female character. The film seeks out to show how there can be this strong female that can be the hero in the end despite the resistance created by the other characters. From the beginning Ripley tries to use her power and her intelligence to make important decisions but is somehow disempowered by other male characters. This is shown when Ripley wishes to keep the group that went out to investigate the planet and alien spaceship in quarantine and Ash opens the ship’s doors to them in clear violation of this rule while ignoring her orders. The men still believe that they have more intelligence to make these decisions which is also seen when Dallas does not allow Ripley to go into the vents to go after the Alien and goes himself. But she proves all of these notions wrong when it is she that kills the alien and is the sole survivor.

Ripley also contrasts with the usual stereotypical version of the female with the character Lampert. Lampert is seen as the least strong character even though she is one of the last characters to die. She makes comments such as “I like griping� and she is the one to say “lets get the hell of out here� when they’re in the alien spaceship. She contrasts with Ripley while the film attempts to say that weak females never influence or accomplish anything.

Brett continues to hold the stereotypical image of the black man. He is worried about getting his full share of money. He is also the mechanic of the ship. He is not viewed to be the most intelligent along with his partner Parker, at least not in science which is the signifier of intelligence in this movie. They both are viewed as lower class because they are the ship’s mechanics. Science is the definition of intelligence in the film but it is abandoned when quick thinking and keeping calm is what keeps Ripley alive.

Finally capitalism is what creates the problem of the alien in this first place. Ash is actually a goverment robot that is sent with the crew. He is programmed to bring back the alien for examination by the goverment most likely for profit. Capitalism is viewed as a probelm maker in the film because it is the only reason that the alien is let onto the ship (Ash is the one who opens the doors to it). It also drives Parker and Bret's actions and concerns them the most before the alien.

Posted by Faith Kolstad at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The movie Alien reinforces the idea that a woman is able to go out into the working world without having to give up her family status and responsibilities. Ripley is the self confident, self assured woman in the film. Her character is able to be compared to the other female in the film who displays the characteristics of a stereotypical woman of a horror film. She is an over emotional, slightly self consumed woman, who ends up screaming throughout the film until she is killed. Ripley on the other hand seems to stay even tempered while trying to deal with and kill the alien. Ripley’s status in the crew (third in command) shows that she is of higher ranking, however, this does not stop some of the men in the crew, of lower status, from cracking jokes at her expense. One of the main characters who disregards her status is the African America on the ship. He also fills the stereotype of a typical “black� character by making sexist jokes about the woman on the ship and also being overly worried about him getting his fair share of the money. He is also the character in charge of the maintenance of the ship; his job is more labor related than the others. Ripley can also be compared to the captain of the crew who can be seen as the father figure of the crew.

He feels he needs to take full responsibility for the crew on board and therefore needs to kill the alien by himself. This stubbornness is what leads to his death, when he insists on going into the air shaft alone. Ripley, in contrast, who can be seen as the mother of the crew sends the crew members in groups so that together they are able to capture/kill the alien. Her motherly side is also seen in her concern for the cat’s safety throughout the film. I think the reason Ripley is the only survivor is because follows the rules, as closely as the situation allows, and the men did not. As the film progresses the rest of the crew dies off, forcing Ripley towards individualism. At first it seems that there is safety in numbers until Ripley is alone on the shuttle, after the death of everyone else. She is forced to stand up, against the alien, by herself.

Posted by robes002 at 12:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The film Alien addresses many issues, including motherhood, gender, social class, and the life cycle.

Social class did have a role within the film Alien. The rank of the crew members had on the ship represented their rank within society. Those who may have been considered a lower class were the maintenance men while those who seemed more educated and came from a higher class were the leaders of the crew. It is also the two maintenance men that seem to be much more capitalistic than the others. They were the two who were particularly concerned about whether they were going to get paid more or not for the mission to the mystery planet.

Gender also plays a huge role within this film. Ripley, although is one of the top ranked officers on the ship, is continually talked down to. This is seen especially with the Ash who always disobeyed her orders, such as letting the people which in turn let the alien in. Before Dallas dies and Ripley tries to help out and fight/search for the alien Dallas insists that either him or another man does it before any of the women. It isn’t until the men start dying out that the women really start to fight. The idea that Ripley is the only one to survive after a one on one fight with the alien is surprising because of the earlier sexism shown by the men. This may be as a fight of woman verses woman’s creation, as if a woman brought this alien into the world and only a woman can take it out of the world. Both Ripley and the mother alien did what they did on their own, the alien being asexual and Ripley being the sole survivor.

I think that this film is showing one’s future in a fast forward mode. One grows up with family, they soon break away to do their own things, parents and relatives eventually die and you have to learn how to become more independent. In this film, with the crew representing family, it goes through Ripley with her different phases of life happening quickly as the alien takes over.

Posted by lars2805 at 12:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The film Alien addresses many issues, including motherhood, gender, social class, and the life cycle.

Social class did have a role within the film Alien. The rank of the crew members had on the ship represented their rank within society. Those who may have been considered a lower class were the maintenance men while those who seemed more educated and came from a higher class were the leaders of the crew. It is also the two maintenance men that seem to be much more capitalistic than the others. They were the two who were particularly concerned about whether they were going to get paid more or not for the mission to the mystery planet.

Gender also plays a huge role within this film. Ripley, although is one of the top ranked officers on the ship, is continually talked down to. This is seen especially with the Ash who always disobeyed her orders, such as letting the people which in turn let the alien in. Before Dallas dies and Ripley tries to help out and fight/search for the alien Dallas insists that either him or another man does it before any of the women. It isn’t until the men start dying out that the women really start to fight. The idea that Ripley is the only one to survive after a one on one fight with the alien is surprising because of the earlier sexism shown by the men. This may be as a fight of woman verses woman’s creation, as if a woman brought this alien into the world and only a woman can take it out of the world. Both Ripley and the mother alien did what they did on their own, the alien being asexual and Ripley being the sole survivor.

I think that this film is showing one’s future in a fast forward mode. One grows up with family, they soon break away to do their own things, parents and relatives eventually die and you have to learn how to become more independent. In this film, with the crew representing family, it goes through Ripley with her different phases of life happening quickly as the alien takes over.

Posted by lars2805 at 12:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The crew members form an interesting representation of a family. Dallas, the man Mother calls to give information so that he can share it with the rest of the group, is clearly the father figure. Kane represents the eldest son, as his illness and death affect Dallas the same way it would if it were his son: he’s angry, worried, and depressed. Lambert, whom Dallas brings to explore the new spaceship, represents the favorite daughter. Ripley begins as the elder, less-liked daughter (as she is in charge “when Dallas and Kane aren’t here,� meaning she has some power, but Lambert yells at her, implying they are fairly equal as long as the man’s still in charge) and transforms into the mother figure.

That is the reason that Ripley survives: she challenges the archaic mother and monster, which Creed describes as the mother’s missing phallus. As Creed points out, there are two main mothers in this film: the spaceship they inhabit and the archaic mother who laid the egg that became the alien. Neither mother is ever seen, but we know she’s there. Ripley survives because, as Creed says, she represents the “acceptable form of woman.� Ripley isn’t threatening like the archaic mother; we see her—we know what she looks like (which is why she’s half-naked at the end of the film).

Parker and Brett definitely represent the working class, as they are constantly talking about money, and aren’t part of the family. Interestingly, the black man is more powerful than the white man in that duo, and he destroys Ash, who is also excluded from the family unit.

And on a related side note not really part of this assignment…In the “Women’s Appreciation Day� episode of “The Office,� Dwight makes a reference to “Alien� and how it’s a phallic symbol. That scene was definitely more entertaining now that I’ve seen this film and discussed it.

Posted by Katie Green at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In Alien, I would classify Ripley as an “in charge mother� figure to all of the other crewmembers. As previously stated in our slides, she is in control, strong-willed, caring, role model mommy, knowledgeable, gives guidance, dedicated to career and to self, but ultimately to family life and the safety of her crew members. I would consider Dallas the father figure, because it appeared him and Ripley had a very close relationship and they displayed the most control over the other characters. Kane, Parker, Brett and Lambert I believed played more of the child role in this film. They all complained about the money they were making and tended to just follow the orders given to them by Dallas and Ripley. It is important to note that Parker is black and Lambert is a female. Throughout the film Parker is in charge of doing a lot of the labor work and Lambert is pretty much portrayed as the weak, emotional woman.

Ash I think was very separated from the family, especially when he was revealed to be an android and betrays the crew. He never showed any respect for Ripley. An example of this lack of respect would be when Ripley specifically told him not to let the other crew members in after the creature attacked Kane because it would break quarantine and he completely ignores her request. In the scene Ripley displays common sense and intelligence; if they had listened to her, the majority of them would probably still be alive. Another example would be when Ash calls only Dallas in the room to check on Kane and not Ripley. Ripley goes anyway and when she tries asking questions to learn about what is wrong with him, Ash refuses to tell her anything.
Despite this lack of respect, the crew members still represented a family. They were all very concerned when Kane was attacked like a family would be. They also joined together and laughed and talked while having a family meal together.
Ripley’s opinions were ignored throughout the film, which is why I believe she was the only survivor. She was the only one that displayed common sense and intelligence in the situations they faced. She always knew what to do, but was also ignored. She was also extremely strong and brave throughout the film. As her opinions continued to get ignored and she began to lose her crew mates to death, she became more independent and was forced to act as an individual and defend herself. She did what she knew she was capable of doing from the beginning and was therefore the sole survivor.

Posted by sulli396 at 10:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think that gender and class interact within the movie because when they land on the Alien planet or ship and Ridley does not allow the others to come on board, Ash over rules her and lets them in. Her reasoning is that they need to go through a detoxification process and Ridley being the highest in command at that point in time (she has high class) was over thrown by Ash, not taking into consideration that she has "power" over him. I think that he does this is because he knows that he can get away with it because she is a girl and that a girl can not really hold a high class power. Also, Dalls being a male, and the Captain did not "punich" Ash for disobeying direct orders. Each character had their specific role; Ash is the science officer and administers medical treatment, Brett is the engineering technician, Dallas is the laid back captain, Kane is the executive officer, Lambert is the navigator, Parker is the chief engineer and Ripley is the warrant officer. This makes a family in that their ship is their mother and they all have specific roles to make the mother run. For example when the mother beeps they all come

running to her attention because she needs them, she is acting as a mother figure saying that each of her children need to complete their tasks/labor in order for things to continue on or figure out what it was that she detected. Capitalism plays a role into the movie because the women are not given high position roles, and as shown in my previous example not taken seriously. When the alien attatches itself to Kane's face and they went to go see where it went Ripley was told to stay by the door, for her own protection yes, but why her? Why was she the only one that had to stay back while Ash and Dallas looked for the life threatening alien. I agree with Creed when she says that Ripley is something of attractiveness and is good to look at, I think that is why she is the sole survivor because she is something good to look at. Her body is the acceptable form and shape of a woman. Also, she gives off a mother-like figure when she strokes her cat as if it was her baby- she posses a mother-like figure, and that is something that the movie embodies, an archiac mother and a "good" mother. In the beginning of the movie she was belittled and given no repect but as the movie goes on she ends up being the sole survivor gaining power and then strength to stay alive, something in which the male characters could not do. Going against all that is capitalized, gender and class- she becomes "individualized" and not just a somplistic women.

Posted by Abbie Weeks at 9:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

When I watched Alien, I saw Ripley take on the role of the mother to the other crewmates, while Dallas was the father figure. This was also shown more literally in the way that Ripley was second in command to Dallas. Dallas was who the crew ultimately listened to and the crew didn’t show much respect to Ripley until he died. This is shown when Ripley commands that they follow the quarantine procedure and not let Kane back on the ship after he is attacked. Instead, although she should be first in command at the time, Ash ignores her and opens the door. They really created a sort of family while they were stuck on the ship together. They even ate dinner together. Class played a role with the characters’ ranks. Dallas and Ripley are sort of a higher class while Parker and Brett, the mechanics, represent the lower class. Race is a factor since Parker is the only non-white person on the ship and he is one of the mechanics and he is constantly complaining about the money he is going to make.

Ripley is the only one that seems to be able to separate her emotions and think clearly throughout the whole film. She is smart and follows the procedures and this is why she is the sole survivor. I always saw her as more of an individual from the group. She cares for her family and tries to save them, but she is not dumb about it. She knows when they can no longer be saved and she must move on.

Posted by Jolene Lewis at 9:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Throughout the Alien series and particularly within the first movie Alien, Ripley represents the “strong female� character. She meets opposition to this role in her distrust of Ash. Ash represents the male patriarchy and the working class crews subjugation by the capitalistic system. There deaths come mainly because he accepts the rule of the corporation over the safety of the crew. The relevance of Ripleys gender only appears a few times in the movie, and becomes only an issue because she is both masculine and strong/willing to make tough decisions, and sexualized at the same time. The underlying familial structure of the crew is also apparent. Some character interact as if they are siblings (ie outside the ship going to find the alien and sitting down to eat meals) and some as if they are parental (ie Ripley and Dallas' treatment and the hierarchy of power(notice also the reinforcement of hetero-normativity))

The link between the “mother� ship, and the Mother alien is important as well. It is the demonization of the power of creation It can in a way represent castration anxiety by showing the power that the two “female� creators and controllers of life ultimately cause death, the antithesis of birth. I think it is Ripleys position as an outsider and her masculine/feminine dichotomy that both saves her and ostracizes her by connecting her to that female power.

Posted by spiek010 at 9:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In Ridley Scott’s Alien, race, gender, class and sexuality play important roles in determining how each character functions in the ship. While Ripley can be seen as the “main character� in that she survives, the other characters serve important roles as part of the ship’s family. The ship itself takes the role of “mother� for the crew; this is made obvious by the very name of the ship itself. If the ship is mother, then Dallas can be said to be the family’s father figure. Only he has access to Mother in the beginning and he is in command of the entire ship. He fits in with the patriarchic view of a normal family structure. The other characters make up the rest of the family, with two clearly subordinate to the rest: Parker and Brett. Both characters are portrayed as being from the working-class in the society and get paid half of what the rest of the crew makes. It is important to note that Parker is the only character in the film that is non-white.

Capitalism plays an important part in the film. It is the driving motivation behind the crew investigating the alarm call that leads them to the Alien. This can be seen as a warning about the dangers of blind capitalism driving society.
I believe that Ripley is the sole survivor of the film because her character is supposed to represent what true womanhood and female-ness is supposed to look like. This is made clear in the final scenes of the film, in which she is changing and strips down to very little clothing, showing her body in a way that it has not been shown in the rest of the film. It is interesting to note that it is only after this scene establishing her womanhood that she is able to defeat the Alien finally.

Posted by seitz057 at 8:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ripley plays the mother figure to the crew in Alien, while Dallas could be construed as the typical father figure. Although Ripley seems to have power and asserts herself, this authority is constantly undermined. Because she is in the mother role, the rest of the “family� (the 2 mechanics as goof-off kids, Lambert as the angsty teenage daughter) seems annoyed when she tries to direct them. When Dallas makes orders, on the other hand, the rest of the crew listens and obeys. After Dallas’ death, Ripley increasingly takes charge and the crew starts listening.

As one of the readings pointed out, Ripley is like the acceptable alternative to the “monstrous feminine� that lurks throughout the entire movie. She is strong, but also has the caring characteristics of a mother, reprimanding the crew when they screw up and looking after them. This is also shown in her relationship with Jones the cat- Ripley is too soft hearted to leave the cat behind, even though it means risking her own life.

Keeping this in mind I think it’s significant that she is the sole survivor and the entire situation could have been avoided had the rest of the crew listened to her, in two ways: first, it says something positive about a woman’s ability to take charge when given the chance. Ripley was right all along. Secondly, it endorses this model of woman/motherhood. Caring, firm, warm, and attractive juxtaposed against the horror of the archaic mother that is invisible but present throughout the entire film. The random stripping at the end further emphasizes this soft, attractive type of mother role.

Posted by happyfeet at 7:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Alien started off as a film that was representative of a typical patriarchal white film. Dallas and Ash where the main characters that possessed authority over all the other characters. Although, Ripley was second in charge from Dallas the crew including Dallas did not give Ripley much respect. Her word was disregarded by Dallas, Ash and Parker. Parker was portrayed as the loud, outspoken, “black guy� who didn’t respect others especially Ripley. Almost ever time Ripley spoke, Parker was annoyed and he would respond with a disrespectful comment. In the majority of the film the hierarchy of white educated men rained supreme. Although Parker and Brett were mechanics I felt they were held with higher respect then Ripley (who was supposed to be 2nd in charge). The women, Ripley and Lambert were on the bottom of the totem pole. A specific instance of this is when Dallas, Kane and Lambert left the ship to go out into space.

Lambert said, “Let’s get out of here and go back�, and Dallas and Kane refused to listen. Also, when Kane was attacked by an unknown species, the protocol was to remain in the quarantine hold section of the spacecraft for 24 hours. Dallas repeatedly told Ripley to “open the door� and Ripley refused stating the protocol. Ash then opens the door and Ripley’s authority in completely undermined. Ripley represents more of the “mother� role in the film, the ship is also “mother�, and the alien is “mother� it is this correlation that ties them together allowing Ripley to survive and the remainder of the crew to perish. “Life signifies discontinuity and separateness, and death signifies continuity and non-differentiation, then the desire for and attraction of death suggests also a desire to return to the state of original oneness with the mother� (Bataille).

Posted by thoughts at 6:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The crewmates are all living together as a family on the spaceship in the beginning of Alien. They sleep, eat, and work together. Ash and Dallas are portrayed as the macho male types. They make the final decisions on the ship and communicate with Mother, the computer. The two mechanics bring up the issues of race and class. One of the mechanics is African American and the other represents the lower class, because of his laid-back dress and scruffy appearance. They spend their time goofing-off and complaining about being stuck on the ship. Ripley is the mother figure. She assures the two mechanics that they will be included in the bonus, for the delayed voyage back to earth. She also looks out for the safety of the crewmates. She didn’t want to open the latch after the first crewmember had been exposed. Ash and Ripley do not get along, this is made clear in several scenes. For example, Ripley confronts Ash about his poor decision to open the latch and not fallow quarantine procedure. Ripley is suspicious of Ash’s actions, leading up to the exposure of his true identity.

Ripley is showing a definite progression towards individualism as the movie plays out. In the beginning she curiously asks Ash if she can attempt deciphering the computer. She listens to the commands of Ash and Dallas. Then, one sees Ripley’s character become more of a leader as the crewmembers continue to die. She stays level-headed, and thinks hard to come up with a plan to destroy the alien. The other characters begin to panic, but she keeps her wits and courage. At the end she is able to communicate with Mother, and ends up as the sole survivor. Ripley fights off the alien, which has escaped onto her space shuttle. She ejects the out of the ship, but it is still attached to a rope of some-sort. This resembles a womb and an umbilical cord, as the article “Horror and the Archaic Mother� suggests. I view this as, the alien is being rejected by the mother (Ripley), it is shown leaving the space shuttle (womb) and dangling from the rope (umbilical cord), until it is lost into space. Ripley had the power and capability of destroying the alien because of her “motherly� qualities. Her intelligence, caution, and instinct all lead to her survival.

Posted by kerli006 at 5:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Ripley is the sole female survivor of the attack on the "mother" ship by an alien creature that latched itself onto Kane, reproduced and birthed itself through his stomach. Gender is played with in this movie...Kane is the "mother" of the foreign alien creature and Ripley is the one who survives all of the attacks, and maybe it's because she is just in the right place at the right time, but it's also because she is always thinking and always has her wits about her. When the three astronauts leave the ship and Ripley is overruled when she refuses to let them in, also when the captain decides to go into the air duct instead of her, that is showing her lack of power, but also her intelligence working ultimately in her favor. The crew seems to respect Ripley but not always take her seriously because most of her requests are ignored or changed or shot down.
The crew seems to be close, they argue but they all seem to care about each other, except for Ash who seems to be only looking out for the alien, and eventually turns out to be a robot placed there by the company who sent them on the mission. Ash always follows "mothers" orders because he can't do anything else. He is the reason the crew is all killed and ripley was smart enough to know he was up to something, or not right in what he was doing.

In the readings, the mother is constantly referred to as this black hole, the point of no return, where only bad things come out, especially in horror films. In this film, as soon as they land on the planet or whatever it is they land on, their ship has technical problems, the crew that goes out to look at this ship is attacked by a pod/egg shaped thing and eventually that alien kills off almost the entire crew. The birth or the discovery of this "mother" brings only bad news and death and we assume, before the end of the film, that everyone dies, because it all happens so quickly. Also, the mother in this film castrates the males, by not only killing them but by birthing an alien from Kane, a male character.
I think Ripley survives because towards the end, she is sexualized and because she was thinking ahead and planning, she had an idea and the other crew members simply went for it without really doing any thinking.

Posted by postx072 at 5:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In Ridley Scott’s horror film Alien, typical female stereotypes are reinforced (by the panicked Lambert) as well as subverted (Ripley is portrayed as strong, capable, and increasingly independent; she is also the only survivor of the crew). Beyond the question of gender, class and race are presented within the micro-society represented by the crew. The two mechanics are equivalent to the lower class and the only black character is one of them (he is stereotyped as being fully solely focused on getting paid, as well as being a comedian). The captain is a stereotypical white male. His orders are followed without question (as opposed to Ripley who is undermined and must exert her opinions much more forcefully to be listened to, despite the fact her intuition frequently proves to be right on). The crew also represents a family. Dallas and Ripley represent the father and mother roles, respectively, in their abilities to guide and order the other members. The others are less developed as characters and need guidance—making them children-like. There is a strict sense of order and loyalty in early in the film when Dallas orders them to board and investigate the mysterious ship and when they refuse to leave Kane behind after he is attacked. It is Ripley who refuses to readmit him—and here she steps outside of the mothering role of nurture and self-sacrifice to be more than just a mother but an intelligent and demanding presence.

I believe it is this quality of self-preservation, along with her intuition and level-headedness that allow her survive in the end. By the end of the film, there is no choice but for her to be the remaining survivor, as she in a sense deserves it the most. Despite the discrimination ascribed to her because of her sex, she is the strongest throughout. She was the one who tried to prevent the disastrous situation from happening in the first place, as well as the one who discovered Ash’s true identity. She learns to distrust the comforting relationship she held with the Mother ship—and therefore recognizes the threat it represents as the “archaic mother.� She also eventually counters this threat (of the archaic mother) to all of society by her symbolic undressing at the film’s conclusion. By reaffirming her natural female body (representing normal reproduction) and her loving nature toward the innocent cat, we see that she is unequivocally “good� and is, in fact, the member of the society/family/crew that most deserves to survive.

Posted by lenth006 at 3:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ripley is the “in-charge mother� and there for is able to overcome the archaic mothership. She is in control and dedicated to her crew but ultimately to herself. I think the main reason Ripley survived is because of her priorities. She is concerned with following procedures and doing what is best for the crew (as is Lambert, but she is less aggressive and more insecure, making it impossible for her to survive because she can’t fend for herself). Gender is the major character personality differentiation in this film. Ripley wants to go outside the ship and warn the others after she realizes the computer code may be a warning instead of an S.O.S. Lambert wonders about the fate of previous crews on this mission and believes it would be best to retreat back inside the spaceship. Ripley is also concerned with following procedures—especially quarantine procedure. She doesn’t want to risk her health or everyone else’s by letting Cane back onboard the ship without following the proper procedure.

However the males onboard are less thoughtful and make decisions on their male impulses. They open the hatch to bring Cane inside immediately without thinking of the consequences. Ash is very protective of his science work and isn’t concerned with Cane’s well-bing as much as the alien’s. When Cane gives birth to an alien, Parker immediately wants to kill it, but yet again Ash stops him and it escapes. When the alien is loose on the ship, the higher males in authority go on a power trip and order everyone else around. Ripley doesn’t just follow orders, but she thinks logically through the decisions. As more and more of the crew die off, she has to work that much harder to keep herself together and able to focus on the task at hand—saving herself.

Posted by savor004 at 3:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the 1979 film, Alien, there was a sense of family between the visible characters as well as the invisible “archaic mother� present. The characters had specific roles and representations in the family. Dallas represented the father figure. He was the male figure that everyone listened to and looked to for answers. Ripley and Dallas had a representative parental relationship. Ripley was the guiding female of the group. She kept her head through the chaos and ended up the sole survivor. The rest of the characters seemed somewhat childlike. For example, Parker and Brett represented the adolescent boys that were impulsive and vulgar. As described by Creed in “The Monstrous Feminine,� the archaic mother is present in birth, life and death. The beginning scene was extremely infantile. The actors wake out of their egg-like bed, into a sterile, whom-like sleeping quarter. This closely related to a birthing process with an invisible mother figure. Ironically, the spaceship controlled by “mother� became the character’s place of death. The foreshadowing began when Riley felt betrayed from mother. Mother withheld

information from Riley. The betrayal was amplified when Riley found out that mother’s loyalty was to Ash and not Riley anymore. Riley ended up physically attempting to hurt mother when she did not perform Riley’s wishes. After these incidents, Riley became more independent and realized that mother could not protect her anymore. Riley’s individualization and new found independence from mother were the reasons she was the sole survival.

Posted by Katherine Jonas at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I liked the fact that in Alien the “hero� ended up being a woman. In so many cases the hero or the victor is a man. I liked Ripley as a character because she didn’t take any crap from the men that were part of the crew. All the people in the crew treated each other as equals for the most part and they didn’t seem to disregard each other because of gender or race. I really have no theories as to why Ripley was the last one standing in the end other than that the message was that women can be strong and independent and just as tough as men. I think that Ripley was just as tough as a man and carried the same equal weight as the men in the crew. Even though she had this rough exterior she was still vulnerable. Towards the end of the movie when the Alien is in the ship with her and she is hiding in the space suit I think that some of her “toughness� was gone. She possibly was more relaxed and like herself because she wasn’t around anyone else. Maybe her toughness was just somewhat of an act that she did when she was around the crew and men. She becomes more independent after the crew dies off partly because she wants to be but also because she has to be because she can only rely on herself. Once she is the only one left she knows that she is the only one that can save her life. She ended up being triumphant with that task in the end by making it out alive.

Posted by jcareykc at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found Ripley as a mother figure. She doe not give up and sometimes struggles to gain the respect she wants. I feel like she holds the crew together. She is the dominant figure unlike Lambert who does not have enough confidence to work well in stressed circumstances like Ripley (stereotypical female). I did not find it surprising when the men did not use the rules (stereotypical male). I see this in real life situations all of the time. Ripley is more precise and wants things done correctly, not faster (stereotypical female). I didn’t notice a whole lot of racial or class problems. Everyone kind of had their own problems and roles. Although Ripley is a white and seemingly middle or upper class educated female. Once the alien came into their lives I saw that Ripley was the only one who did not follow the male characters. She stood her ground because she knew what she was doing. I think it was very cool that she was the last survivor. I saw her believing in herself and using her instincts to guide her along the way to success. She diminishes the stereotypical male dominancy.

Posted by lemme021 at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Unlike many horror films, Alien depicts Ripley (one of two female crew members aboard the Nostromo) as a strong autonomous female capable of defeating the monster. Ripley’s position as second in command indicates her role in the “family� or crew as the mother figure. She is in charge when the captain or “father� Dallas is away on his mission and acts as the voice of concern and discipline when the men try to break quarantine rules. She displays characteristics of the “In-charge Mother� because she is driven by the principles of her job and doesn’t compromise to her emotional – and weaker side. It is precisely her strength of focus and never compromising attitude that saves her from falling victim to the alien. In the film she develops and adapts as the alien does, becoming stronger as her circumstances force her to. Ripley takes on more responsibility and gives better orders as her predecessors are killed off.

Race and class are evident in the film because the mechanics on the ship (really the only crew members we see actually using their intellectual capacities) are the underpaid and underappreciated lower class. The only black person on the ship is part of this maintenance crew and serves only a small stereotypical role as comedian and is only interested in getting paid. These and others of the crew represent the children aboard the ship because they are not shown as fully developed characters – they are unable to survive without someone’s protection.

Posted by joh02629 at 10:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In some ways Alien is innovative and presents a new formula for science fiction films, but in other ways it is extremely traditional and stereotypical. Introducing a strong female protagonist provides a different dynamic between characters. Ripley is in a leadership role on the ship, and is respected to a certain extent, but her orders are not always obeyed. She has to fight harder to be heard than her male counterparts. Ripley is threatening to men, and this is shown while she is talking to Ash and casually holding a scissors. He seems defensive, possibly suggesting an underlying fear of castration? Lambert, on the other hand, plays a stereotypically female role. She is intelligent and helpful, but cracks under pressure and is sensitive to a fault. In terms of race, the African American characters serve as laborers on the ship and are seemingly only present for comic relief. They are never really taken seriously, and are continually cracking crude jokes and making inappropriate comments. It is interesting that these race, class and gender roles still apply even while orbiting in space. Miles and miles away from Earth, and these crewmembers are still under control of the government (“Mother�). Another important aspect of this film is its take on individualism. In some parts it is celebrated, while in others strongly discouraged. Throughout the majority of the film, the crewmembers are safe while with the group. Once a character journeys alone they encounter the alien and suffer a brutal death. Ripley transforms as the films progresses. She refuses to banter with her crewmates and starts to simply give orders. She succeeds in the end by using her intellect and keeping her best interest in mind.

Posted by herma216 at 10:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The black guy in the movie is outspoken and cares about the money and nothing else. He sometimes comes off as lazy looking to do minimal work and get paid. The black guy is the one that makes sexual jokes as well. The other female, besides Ripley, is very annoying and panicky when pressure situations arise. In one of the scenes she was told by the men to quit "griping" while the men went on with the mission. One thing I thought was very important is the instincts Ripley has. The female uses her instincts and can sense trouble before it happens. Also, Ripley plays things by the books while the men (even if one is a robot) disregards the rules and does things the way they see fit. In the movie playing it by the rules would have turned out to be a good thing, but at the same time this says that women are not allowed to step outside boundaries. Another difference is the status transactions between male and female. The captain says, "meet me right away," while Ripley uses "please" and "thank you". Another thing about Ripley is that she cares for the cat. Women look after life, while men treat the cat as something trivial. I think Ripley ends up as the lone survivor because she is the most balanced. She is brave when she needs to be, she is quick, she follows rules and knows when to challenge rules. She and the captain have this aura to them but unfortunately the captain needed to be brave and try to kill the Alien by himself.

Her steady move toward individualism progresses more and more because he crew members die off. She has no choice because she is the only one left. We can look at capitalism in this movie as the government, or who ever wanted the Alien to study it. They understood it was the perfect organism and sent a crew out to bring it home without the crew's consent. They most likely wanted to study it and sell stuff after they learned what they needed to learn.

Posted by leex2356 at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the movie Alien I felt like the representation of a family between the crewmates was showed in many different ways from the first scene of the film. The one part that I feel like shows their bond and closeness was when the whole crew was sitting in the dining room of the space ship in which they are now on their way home and they are all eating together talking about what they are all going to do as soon as they land back on earth. You also see the representation of a family by where they all sleep on the space ship all in the same area very close to one another. As we all know Ripley is the ‘mother’ figure of the movie and is the only one that plays the game smart and survives from the creature. I feel like the main theory that Ripley ends up being the sole survivor is she is the only one that trusts no one and thought everything through and followed the directions she thought would bring her success.

That’s why her relationship with Ash who was the science officer was the way it was. He was the one responsible for investigating any alien life forms the crew may encounter. Ripley becomes suspicious of him when he breaks quarantine protocol and doesn’t trust him because it’s like he’s almost sexist to the thought of womens opinion. When it comes to the relationship between Dallas and Ripley, I think Ripley has a lot more respect for him because he was the one that came up with the plan to find and kill the monster and when he died, Ripley still thought they should continue with the plan. As for Kane and Parker who both end up dying by the creatures, Ripley obviously cares about otherwise she wouldn’t have shown such distraught when they died. But for all the men characters they really didn’t listen to her orders as much as they probably should have. And with Lambert being the other women I feel like she is the only one that takes Ripley serious and listens to her and takes her advice. When everyone was dying one after another, I think this is when she felt like she knew she had to gain some independence and do this on her own if no one else was going to take her direction, which she ended up doing and being the only survivor.

Posted by bues0040 at 7:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just like Thelma & Louise, the theme of the "strong-minded" woman was at the core of the film. Once everything started to go bad for the crew, Ripley was the only one on the ship that kept her cool not allowing a thing to change who she was and what she stood for. She was a great example of the "In-charge Mother". She was dedicated to her career, in control, and intelligent. Those were just a few of the characteristics of the "In-charge Mother" that she possessed. All of those qualities came in handy for Ripley when the alien came on board. Before the the alien was brought onto the ship though, I really felt that the crew's different genders, races, and class' presented no real problems. There might have been a few playful jabs here and there, but I thought that everyone knew their role (job), accepted it, and respected everyone around them. The first dinner scene really showed this well. Everyone seemed to enjoy each others company. I thought it looked to be a very friendly environment. It seemed that once the alien attacked Kane and got onboard, all respects towards gender, race, etc. went out the window. All of the progress in equality I spoke about disappeared. All of the top men went on "power trips" (Dallas and Ash both), the janitors now were treated like children, and the women became followers to men's orders regardless of their titles. The only one that never changed and stayed professional was Ripley, and that is why she was the sole survivor.

As I stated, the only one from the beginning of the film to the end not to change is Ripley. Not only that, but she is the only one to be thinking logically. The scene when Ash goes against Ripley's orders not to let anyone in, showed masculinity forcing its hand down, not allowing a woman to order him around. Dallas just as much as Ash is to blame for this. He knew the rules about bringing people on board, and for the person in top command to go against the rules showed that he was not fit to be at the top. Like Ash, the "man" in him said forget the rules. Because of all of that the alien now was on board the ship and crew members were being killed left and right because of man's fatal flaw of not being able to stay cool and follow the rules in a time of panic. It was obvious that it would take another female/mother to take down the "Archaic Mother" that Barbara Creed wrote about. Since the Arhaic mother posed such a threat to the phallus (men), the only one then strong enough to take her down was Ripley. After Dallas died, Ripley was finally able to take control of the situation. She did things her way, the right way. It didn't matter if anybody was going to follow her orders. She knew that she was the only person she could trust and rely on. She understood that she had what it took to take control of the situation and end the problem. That is why she was able to kill the alien and be the only survivor.

One really interesting thing that I noticed when I watching Alien, was that the only "female" figure that everyone collectively respected no matter what, is their mother, the ship. No female on board is respected by everyone, and the "Archaic Mother" is not respected by everyone at all with how we see the handling of her. I wonder how true this is for some males in the real world? I could see a theory being made that the female who is most respected by males is their mother. I can see girlfriends, co-workers, and classmates who are female, not given the same respect/treatment as their mother. Why is that? Is it because they brought them into the world? I don't really have an answer to any of this. I guess just wanted to pose that theory and question because I thought there maybe could be something there. It is definitely something to think about.

Posted by keilh004 at 5:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the opening shot of Alien we see the establishment of family between the crew members as they all emerge from a womb-like structure. From there we see that Harvey takes on the role of a father figure who is respected, while Ripley is second in command and can be seen as the mother figure of the group. Although Ripley holds a powerful position the other male crew members do not respect or listen to her orders, one can only think this is because she is a women. We see this disobedience portrayed when Ash ignores Ripley's orders and allows Kane back on the ship with a potential threat (the alien) attached to him. Contradictorily while there is a strong disobedience toward Ripley there is a strong obedience for the other mother figure in the film, the spacecraft. The main difference between Ripley and the spacecraft is the spacecraft can be seen as an archaic mother and Ripley is seen as a sacrificial mother. The crew continuously obeys the orders of "mother", even when they are life threatening. She is monstrous and unknown as she gives orders to terminate her children (crew members) if need be. Ripley is the only one who truly sticks up to the mother spacecraft and is the only one to survive. I found it interesting as Ripley slowly moved toward individualism in the film,

she also moved towards sexually objectifying herself. When she was acting like a male and giving orders everyone disobeyed and tragedy struck, however when she was in her bra and underwear and showed vulnerability to the situation, she finally got what she wanted and defeated the alien. In the reading it said that this showed, "the acceptable form and shape of a women" comparing to the archaic mother and perhaps this is the reason Ripley prevailed for in the end she melted into being sexually objectified and transformed into the satisfactory mother/ female role.

Posted by woul0006 at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In Alien, I think the representation of the crew as a family unit is quite obvious. We see Dallas as the father figure: the leader, the hero, the decision maker, the protector. As second in command, Ripley takes on the mothering role. She is rational and responsible, but still vulnerable. She plays mother when she tries to protect the ship and remaining crew by ordering a quarantine, she makes the decision to blow up the ship, and she puts her life in jeopardy to save the cat, who she cradles like a baby once she thinks she's safe.
Once Ripley has blown up the ship and supposedly killed the alien, we see her at her most vulnerable: alone, almost naked, and unaware of the alien's presence. This is the only time we see the alien vulnerable - it appears to be sleeping. I think that Ripley survives because of her relationship to the alien: mother vs. mother.

I happened to watch the sequel, Aliens, the day after class. Aliens further emphasizes Ripley's role as mother. We find out that she had a little girl who grew old and died while Ripley was away on the previous mission (there is no mention of a father figure/mate). Ripley goes back to the alien planet and finds a little girl - the only survivor of a colony of people living there that were all wiped out by aliens. Once again, Ripley plays mother by risking her life time after time to save the girl (who ends up calling Ripley "mama"), and ultimately battles the archaic mother - each trying to protect their offspring.

Posted by Natalie at 2:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Barbara Creed's piece, The Monstrous-Feminine is a problematic text, as it narrows the scope of analysis by priviledging sexual difference and gender roles to the point of exclusion. By understanding Ripley only in relation to her gendered depiction and reception, and the gendered entities of the archaic mother, she fails to locate Ripley's position in regards to the rest of her crew, most of whom she is superior to, and to the larger societal scope, in which she stands as a white, powerful, seemingly educated and high-ranking female.

The film Alien, far from being some kind of “assault� or “critique� of capitalism, enhances a theoretical basis for individualistic responses and the power of an individual to solve the crisis capitalism presents. In the film, the protagonist who significantly is white, seemingly highly educated and towards the head of the hierarchy in terms of divisions of labor is positioned to "take on capitalist greed" (and if we understand the Company as standing in for capitalist greed in other situations- the scope becomes larger) There are very specific divisions of labor between the captain, the science and technical help, and those who perform the labor on board. All levels are recognized and compensated differently.

As collective responses continuously fail, it is shown that only through the enlightened individual does the true challenge to the workings of capitalism/tyranny/oppression occur. This resembles greatly, liberal critiques of capitalism which understand the elite's/college educated as the major forces of change and progression in history and sees the working class and collective movements as extraneous, though noble, much as the film Alien presents similar depictions of collective action.

The entire narrative plot revolves around the need for individuals to think only in terms of their best interest. From wages, to making sure that crew mates who are exposed be left behind, to the logic of not stopping for SOS signals (which of course are later shown to be a warning) seemingly nothing in this film can be solved by a group effort, everything should be considered in terms of self preservation and the capitalist logic of individualism.

Posted by Sofia at 1:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Barbara Creed’s analysis of Alien is largely convincing, if to take gender as a sole lenses for analysis. Although, gender (and sexuality) in psychoanalytic theory might be a privileged site for exploring human psyche and social organization, in this case it overlooks psychological anxieties such as technology, which might or might not be related to gender. Alien, articulates gendered anxieties, but it also clearly reflects modern fear and fascination with technology. Technology is always seen as simultaneously progressive and destructive. It promises emancipation and possible transgression of human (bodily) limits, but also generates fears of losing control over technology which then results in loss of humanity itself. Alien could be seen as articulation of these tensions.

Although the film puts female protagonist at the center and challenges phallic symbolic order, it does not significantly challenge the social order. Ripley still remains white and educated person with a position of authority within the ship. The portrayal of black and lower-class workers does not go beyond stereotypes and powerlessness associated with those positions. They serve only to portray self-interest and primitive materiality in light of higher existential questions and mental reasoning.
Finally, Creed’s analysis of archaic mother and prephallic state does not necessarily allow to significantly move away from essentialism of identity politics. While challenging patriarchal symbolic order it simultaneously reinscribes sex binary on which psychoanalysis is based. Science fiction films have a potential to challenge traditional representational practices, which Alien does only moderately – behind the excess of monster shock and horror social identities remain sadly familiar.

Posted by Arnoldas at 7:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As kind of a “sci-fi junkie�, I think I am safe to say that Alien was a ground breaking film. By having a female protagonist, who is the sole survivor of an alien attack, Ridley Scott’s film was able to bust through the male – dominant norms of the time. Ridley Scott’s introduction to Ripley presents a working woman who is struggling to assert authority in an implicitly male regimen and environment. However, by the end of the film, she proves herself smarter, more logical, and more determined to survive than her pathetic crewmates.
I believe that Ripley is representative of an ‘In-Charge Mother’ we discussed in lecture. When Dallas is out of the ship or dead, she is actually the one in charge of the crew. Ripley is also very knowledgeable of the spaceship’s very confusing interior, computer programming system, and crew members.

Ripley gives advice, and whether the crew members follow that advice is up to them, but if they don’t they end up dead. While Ripley is very dedicated to getting the crew out alive, after being set up TWICE for an inevitable death by “Mother� (who I think is another ‘Archaic Mother’ in the film); she is also very concerned with getting herself out alive. Ripley practically detaches herself from the situation and is therefore able to keep a controlled demeanor about her, which I believe attributed to her sole survival.
It has been theorized that the character of Lambert, is supposed to represent how the audience should be feeling during the film: completely emotional, almost helpless, and terrified. However, after Lambert dies, the audience is able to breathe easy again when they see Ripley in her undergarments. And according to Barbara Creed, “compared to the horrific sight of the alien…Ripley’s body is pleasurable and reassuring to look at� (pg. 23). I thought that it was interesting that the only time when Ripley was directly threatened by the alien was when she was being sexualized.
I think that Ridley Scott was taking a stab at capitalism with the film Alien. In the film, the government is willing to kill six people and one android in the name of “science� (actually warfare). The government is able to do this, by creating a spaceship (“Mother�) that the crew depends on and trusts. It’s sickening that the government is willing to not only kill people for a weapon, but also to do it under a façade that is usually so loving and caring.

Posted by Eleanor Roosevelt at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I felt like in some ways Alien was a lot different than the traditional science fiction or horror film. It was interesting that the captain, Dallas, died very early. However, like most films, the female, “good� character that followed the rules survived. She also knew how everything worked and had all the necessary knowledge. This is the only reason I can think that Ripley survived. I appreciated that Ripley’s character was rational and for the most part, cool headed, rather than emotional and helpless (kind of like the other female character). She, unlike Dallas, wanted to keep the other crew members in quarantine even if this meant that Kane would die. Ripley wasn’t sexualized in the film, until the end when there are all the close-ups of her getting undressed. The article talks about how “Ripley’s body is pleasurable and reassuring to look at. She signifies the ‘acceptable’ form and shape of woman� (23). Perhaps this is true; Ripley was like the mother of the crew. However, she was not nurturing and over-emotional. We do see her scolding some of the characters in the film. I felt like the film portrayed Ripley and

Dallas like the mother and father. The other female character was like the emotional teenage daughter, and the two workers were like the immature, little boys that needed scolding. When Dallas was gone though, Ripley didn’t get the respect that he did as the captain. I’m not really sure how to read her move towards individualism. I feel like maybe Dallas was holding her back, and she cared about him.

Posted by Alias at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)