Art is the Heart of All I Do

Whether it is the visual arts, literature, theater arts, or music, it is my worldview that art is the common language we all share, that provides a forum for discourse and unity in a way that no other means of interaction can. As such, the Arts should have a priority role in K-12 education, and beyond, to ensure that a new generation of citizens is equipped with the vocabulary to reach out to one another across traditional divides, and to achieve their full potential as individuals and members of civil society. I believe that my life's work is to share this passion for the Arts as an educator. I believe strongly that all children can learn, and that all children are artists in their own right, with the potential to create beauty in their own lives and the lives of those around them, regardless of other circumstances. The power of language and the impact of the visual arts are ways to empower children who otherwise feel they may not have a voice, and to encourage them to see their place in this world.

Dracula- The Ultimate Byronic Hero

.

There is great empathy in our culture for the troubled hero archetype, from comic book superhero’s to contemporary soap opera characters. This distinct brand of hero was originally introduced and made popular in the early 19^th century by the poet Lord Byron, father of the Byronic hero. The Byronic hero embodies an enigmatic duality, a person that embraces both dark and light, illicits both fear and desire.  Ranging in diversity from Batman to James Dean, from Satan to Anakin Skywalker , the Byronic hero is now among the most commonplace of both literary and pop culture entities. Perhaps the most well known example of a Byronic hero is none other than Bram Stoker’s timeless Dracula.  In his simultaneously horrifying yet seductive Count Dracula, Stoker created a Byronic hero for the ages, a character that exemplified the menacing combination of  charm and cruelty.

                The Byronic hero was first made popular in mainstream culture with Byron’s hugely successful poem “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage”, written in 1812. The poem tells the story of a young man’s experiences abroad, but more importantly introduces a character who is both imperfect and complex, at turns melancholy and defiantly unapologetic, “I have not loved the world, nor the world me” (404). Thought to be semi-autobiographical in nature, the poem was a hit because it appealed to a flawed and human populace grateful for a protagonist that they could relate to. This is what gives the Byronic hero his lasting appeal. There is a comfort to seeing some of the dark that resides within us residing in another. Byron pushed his archetype to an extreme in his poem “Manfred”, where the lead character is a nobleman tortured by a secret guilt associated with the death of his great love Astarte. The poem hints at topics as dark as incest, yet still shows Manfred in a somewhat empathic  light, as a broken lover wracked with grief summoning spirits for aide.  The idea of a dark secret is an important element of the Byronic hero. Many writers emulated this character type in Byron’s own time, but the enduring appeal of this type of personality has insured that literature, pop culture and film are rife with examples of Byronic hero’s.  Written eight- five years after Byron wrote “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage”, Dracula embraces the duality of the Byronic hero, and Bram Stoker was no doubt influenced to some extent by his predecessor.

                There are, in fact, circumstantial connections of some interest between the two writers. It is widely speculated that Stoker loosely based his Count Dracula on the character in “The Vampyre” by John Polidori. “The Vampyre” was the first to introduce the concept of a vampire as an aristocratic man.  Polidori wrote the piece while vacationing in Geneva the summer of 1816, employed as none other than Lord Byron’s personal physician. This was the great summer where Byron initiated the ghost story challenge to his friends, among them also Mary Shelley, whose response to the challenge was none other than Frankenstein.  It is also widely believed among literary critics that Stoker based much of Dracula’s mannerisms and grandiose personality on the famous actor Sir Henry Irving, whom Stoker was quite close to.  Irving was known for his penchant for playing complex villains with tremendous charm, in a very Byron-esque fashion.

                The most compelling reasons for drawing a parallel resides within the text of Dracula itself.  Count Dracula literally manifests duality, in that he appears as young and old, prince and beast, lover and murderer. On a deeper level, he’s both a devastated lover, wracked by centuries of grief, and a predatory, animalistic killer, driven by unholy hungers. The reader simultaneously fears and desires Dracula. There is a distinct sensuality in his approach.  We see his seduction and destruction of Lucy Westenra, and the long, slow dance of seduction he does with Mina Harker. There are titillating elements of carnal lust, strongly contrasted with elements of brutal violence.  As Caroline Lamb once said of Byron himself, Count Dracula is “mad, bad, and dangerous to know” (386), yet much like Byron and his hero’s, we are drawn to him in spite of this menacing nature. Dracula’s dual nature is best contrasted in his dramatically different treatment of Jonathan Harker as compared to Mina Harker. He imprisons Jonathan in his castle, slowly chiseling away at his sanity. He courts Mina, and is effusively charming and kind to her, while simultaneously torturing her fiancé and slowly murdering her best friend.  Dracula struggles to keep his true nature secret from Mina initially, in keeping with the Byronic tradition of dark secrets, yet reveals his monstrousness to Jonathan and revels in his fear. All of these components remain true to the Byronic hero formula, and successfully worked together in this case to create one of the most enduring literary, film and pop culture characters of all time. Perhaps with the exception of Satan, there is no example of a Byronic hero more internationally well known than Dracula.

In the creation of his Byronic hero archetype, Lord Byron approached potential villains with an empathetic air of humanity. As inhuman as Dracula may be, Stoker imbued him with this same human vulnerability that gives him his uncanny appeal. That the Byronic hero has such longevity and continued relevance in the pantheon of archetypes says much about us as a culture. We identify with these tainted and troubled characters because we all to some extent are tainted and troubled as well, and it is this ability to identify that gives both Dracula and the Byronic hero true immortality.

  

                                                                                Citations

Damrosch, David and Kevin J.H. Dettmar. Masters of British Literature Volume B: The Romantics and their Contemporaries, the Victorian Age, and the Twentieth Century. New York: Pearson Education, Inc, 2008.

Leask, Nigel. “Polidori, John William (1795-1821)”.Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press,2004. www.oxforddnb.com/public/index/html

"The Bath of Diana"- The Duality of the Sensual and Superficial”

                                 

                    The era of Rococo painting is best characterized by the wealthy French patrons that commissioned the works, and the painting “The Bath of Diana” by Francois Boucher is no exception. Painted in 1742, it is a classic example of the opulent idealism of Rococo art. The favored subject matter of the period most notably includes depictions of fetes galantes, outdoor social gatherings celebrating romance and the trappings of society life at Court. Boucher specialized in these types of paintings, and also served as director to The Royal academy and Court painter to Louis the XV.  He was the favorite painter of Louis XV’s extremely powerful mistress, Madame du Pompadour. While “The Bath of Diana” is not a fetes galantes, it exemplifies the ideals of Rococo sentimentality and self indulgence through the depiction of its cosseted and Court-like goddess Diana.

                    The primary focus of the painting is Diana and her lady in attendance. They are strategically bathed in a glowing ethereal light that contrasts starkly with the darker landscape that recedes into the background. All other action or symbolism in the painting is secondary to the two female nudes at the paintings center, including her hunting dogs, arrows, and the spoils of the hunt, which are all relegated to the edges of the picture plane, where they serve only to indicate Diana’s identity. The soft, lushly rendered landscape is typical of the Rococo, and as things recede further into space, they become more dreamlike and hazy. Rather than the fit, athletic build one would typically associate with the goddess of the hunt, this Diana is representative of the beauty ideals of the aristocratic French Court, and as such is soft, rounded and feminine, with very delicate features, and soft peaches and cream skin. Her hair is perfectly golden and elaborately coiffed in the style of the era, and it is clear that Bouchon was more concerned with conveying his contemporary ideals of beauty than an actual realistic depiction of what the real Diana may have been like. In fact, the context of Diana on the hunt could very well have merely been a device for having the freedom to paint women in the nude, which was quite popular but required an appropriate context in order to not be deemed gratuitous. The palette of the painting is also typically Rococo, with warm pinks, yellows and oranges gently contrasted against rich blues and greens.

                    What is most personally striking about the painting is the expression on the face of Diana; she is vacant, looking generally disinterested in her situation. Her expression almost lends itself to a naivety, or alarming apathy. Perhaps Bouchon was attempting to convey an aloofness befitting aristocracy, but it reads more like a lack of intellectual activity.  There is something subtly erotic about the intimacy between the two nude women, the ease with which they are keeping company. There are no indications of modesty, only an easiness and familiarity that could be observed as sensual.

                    Bouchon established himself alongside Watteau as one of the preeminent painters of the Rococo era by infusing his work with a lightness and delicacy so favored by the French patrons at the time.  “The Bath of Diana” is simultaneously sensual, superficial, and decadent, all traits embodied by the aristocracy that so heavily patronized the artists of the 18^th century.

Women in the Arts: The Personal is Political

                                                Women in the Arts: The Personal is Political

Throughout history, women have failed to receive the attention and respect they deserve for their many contributions to culture and society. The area of the Arts is certainly no different, and the struggle of female artists for recognition and opportunity parallels the struggles of women in society in general. Certain branches of the arts were more accessible to women than others in previous centuries. For example, while many women painted in Renaissance Europe, there is almost no known history at all of accomplished female musicians and writers during this time. The amount of known work by women artists from any given period is directly correlated to the amount of liberty, education and opportunity available to women in that period. As such, we see more and more work by women as history progresses.  The overall reality of women in art history can be fairly accurately summed up by the Guerilla Girls activist group’s 1985 billboard statement: “Less than 5% of the artists in the Modern Art sections (of the Met in New York) are women, but 85% of the nudes are female.” Through most of history, society has been more comfortable to view women as objects rather than as artists and innovators.  The role of women in the arts is largely determined by the political and social climate of their era, and as such, the art made by these women reflects the prevailing attitudes and philosophies of women’s role in society at large while simultaneously challenging the status quo.

In the era of the early Renaissance until the middle 19^th century, the realm of the arts was mostly limited to the aristocracy and bourgeoisie. The only women, who had access to materials and education, as well as the free time needed to paint or sculpt, were of the very upper classes. Many known and successful women artists throughout this period were often related or married to successful male artists, which gained them admittance to the necessary circles and access to patrons. For example, Lavinia Fontana, a successful and respected portrait artist, was the daughter of the artist Prospero Fontana.  Fontana was very well known, and even worked as portrait painter to The Pope. In Northern Europe, Caterina van Hemessen established herself as a renowned miniature portraitist. Many female artists of the Renaissance and Mannerist period were portrait painters. Hemessen was the daughter of Flemish Mannerist Jan Sanders van hemessen. During the Renaissance, while there was a resurgence of humanitarian thought and philosophy, it often failed to include women.  A woman’s opportunities were severely limited by her family and social status. Unless a woman’s family was supportive of a decision to pursue art, the choice would have been all but impossible. Women at this time, and really until the end of the 19^th century, were seen as the property of first their fathers, and then their husbands. In many places, women couldn’t own property, and working outside of the home was usually impossibility. Yet another famous painting daughter is Artemisia Gentileschi. Her painting Judith Slaying Holofernes is really the first well-known painting by a woman artist to portray a scene of such violence. A complete departure from the portraiture and still life that most women artists occupied themselves with, this painting is rife with emotion and violence, and really symbolizes the rage the artist had after a sexual assault at 15. This painting for me symbolizes the first real feminist painting, a work depicting a strong woman doing “man’s work”, and accomplished without any sentimentality or pandering to expectations of ladylike behavior.

We finally see women break out beyond the visual arts and into the arena of literature during the late 17^th and 18^th century. Anne Bradstreet was the first female poet to achieve success. Her work focuses on domestic issues of family, childbirth, and marriage. Her work celebrated her domestic role rather than challenged it.  During and after the Enlightenment, writing became not only more accessible to women, it also started to become a means to challenge the status quo, and question their second-class citizen standing. Mary Wollstonecraft published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, comparing the plight of women to that of the working poor, and arguing that women are oppressed and forced into subservient circumstances that deprive them of their true nature, and prevents them from achieving their true potential as individuals. This essay was hugely influential, and has been cited by many feminist scholars.  Jane Austen also challenged the social attitudes and philosophies regarding women, though she did it in a much more subtle and ironic way, utilizing the fictional novel as her means of expression. As the 19^th century progressed, more and more female writers achieved success. The Bronte sisters and Emily Dickinson are perhaps the best known women writers of this period. It is worth noting that these women all opted not to marry and have children, a defiant act in that era. The prevailing thought at this time was that one could not have a family and also write and have a career, and so these women chose their art over the expectations of their communities. Ironically, many of the most successful women painters on the Renaissance and Baroque period had many children. 

The beginning of the 20^th century saw the blossoming of the Naturalist movement, and this movement was heartily embraced by woman writers as a means to voice their frustration and suffocation with the limited roles available to them. The delicate Victorian ideal of gentle wife and mother was being exposed as the stifling charade that it was by a new generation of lady writers like Kate Chopin and Charlotte Perkins-Gilman. Artists like Georgia O’Keefe and Dorothea Lange achieved critical and commercial success as artists on their own without need of male relatives or spouses to pave the way for them. Women gained the right to vote, and the tumultuous and decadent atmosphere of the Roaring 20’s provided an opportunity for women to abandon the confining social mores that had oppressed them for so long. With World War II, so many men were overseas fighting that women had to step up and fill many jobs traditionally held by men. This helped further chip away at the notion that women were somehow inferior or incapable. This all paved the way for second-wave feminism and the equality movement of the 196o’s and 70’s. Throughout this time, women writers, artists, and now finally musicians were achieving both critical and commercial success like never before in history. The advent of cinema and television provided new creative opportunities for women, but also served to reinforce many negative stereotypes that served to keep women pigeon-holed. Artists like photographer Cindy Sherman sought to challenge and defy these stereotypes, and much of the art made by women in this period is anti-establishment and anti-patriarchal. Judy Chicago brought the conversation to the table, if you will, with her monumental installation piece, The Dinner Party, which paid homage to the many women that contributed to the arts, society and culture, while simultaneously reevaluating crafts typically thought of as kitsch women’s work, like knitting, embroidery, and the like, and transforming them into high art.

Unfortunately, despite all of this progress, women are still grossly underrepresented in the arts. Women are still paid less for the same work, and only now in 2010 did a female director finally win a Best Director Oscar at the Academy Awards. The one area where women have made the most headway in the recent past is music. Female artists have taken over the charts, from Rock and Roll to hip-hop, to country; the ladies are hard to beat for popularity and sales. The downside is that so much of their success is image driven rather than talent driven, and it perpetuates many unfortunate stereotypes.  We have reached a point I our culture where women have reclaimed their sexuality, and now see it as an empowering tool to utilize for their own benefit. This is a philosophy aligned with third-wave feminism, and is in direct conflict with second wave feminisms outrage at what they perceived as the sexual exploitation of women. The question for the new generation is really “Who was right? Are we more empowered or are we pandering to the basest stereotypes and re-instigating a negative cycle and backlash?” These are issues the youngest generation of women artists seek to address.

The gift that feminism gave us is that now many women artists can and do explore social issues and causes beyond simply women’s issues, and instead look at national, global, and overarching human issues.  Nonetheless, if history has taught us anything, it’s to take nothing for granted. Woman artists have a responsibility to pay due diligence to  the maintenance of our progress, as well as realizing there is still so far to go before we reach true equality in opportunity and representation.

Constructivism in International Relations: "Wag the Dog"

No other film better exemplifies the spirit and intent of this course than the dark comedy “Wag the Dog”.  Pushing satire to its outer limits, “Wag the Dog” takes aim at the power of media to construct realities regardless of facts or validity, and demonstrates the ease with which masses are manipulated while not so subtly taking digs at the naivety and gullibility of the American public.  The combination of arrogance and ignorance is a heady cocktail, and the movie illustrates how by capitalizing on that lethal combination, an entire population can be persuaded to wholly buy into a shared delusion as fact.  Directed by Barry Levinson and starring both Dustin Hoffman and Robert DeNiro, “Wag the Dog”  effectively utilizes both the incongruity and superiority theories of humor to support Constructivist theories of International Relations, and forces us all to re-examine the truth behind the hype of the 24 hour, nonstop cable news network media blitz that defines contemporary political culture.

            It is important to recognize and define several key theories that are at work within the film. Critchley defines Incongruity in humor as “produced by the experience of a felt incongruity between what we know or expect to be the case, and what actually takes place in the joke,gag, jest, or blague” (Critchley, 2). He quotes the philosophers Plato, Aristotle and Hobbes in defining Superiority Theory in humor as “suddaine Glory arising from suddaine Conception of some Eminency in ourselves, by Comparison with the Infirmitiyes  of others, or with our own, formerly” (Critchley, 2). “Wag the Dog” utilizes these forms of humor in an effort to demonstrate the Constructivist nature of politics and media. According to our course lecture “constructivism focuses primarily on the importance of ideas and culture in shaping our understanding of international politics. “  This ultimately refers to the concept with Constructivism that everything around is a construct based on shared perception, i.e. the sky is blue because we all agree that the sky is a color we all perceive and refer to as “blue”.  This concept is critical to the film “Wag the Dog”, as the entire premise of the movie is based on reality being rooted in shared perception, not necessarily fact.

The movie opens with several White House aides gathered in seclusion to come up with a plan to damage control the breaking news that a teenage “Firefly” girl has accused the incumbent President of sexual misconduct a mere 11 days prior to the election.  Political “problem solver” Conrad Breen (Robert DeNiro) is brought in to take the helm and begin the process of distracting the American public. Calls are made, information about a mysterious B3 Bomber is “accidently” leaked out, and the wheels are set in motion to begin constructing a new, more pressing crisis than the alleged sexual impropriety of the President. Conrad brings on board larger than life Hollywood producer Stanley Motts to stage an all out war with Albania. Metts assembles a team to help him fabricate the makings of a war, including patriotic songs, footage of a fleeing Albanian village girl (complete with CGI kitten), and even “homegrown” fads to unify everyone around the common cause of defeating the Albanian terrorists.  The construct evolves to become more and more elaborate, infiltrating all levels of American society in record time. Every time a potential obstacle or conflict arises, Stanley rises to the occasion, dismissing the challenge as “nothing”, and proceeds to add more and more layers of detailed deceit, culminating in the use of a mentally ill rapist convict as a supposed POW in Albania. The rapid fire speed with which this all occurs is a testament to the new global media. Ultimately, the public is distracted long enough to allow the President to secure reelection without facing the music of his actions. While congratulating themselves on a job well done, Conrad and Stanley see a pundit credit the Presidents cheesy campaign slogan “Don’t change horses midstream” for  his successful reelection. This is more than Stanley’s ego can bear, as he wants credit for his efforts. Despite being warned that he was risking his life by saying that he was going to come forward, Stanley insists that he is going to tell the story so he can get credit for the genius of his well-orchestrated illusion of war. So Conrad has him killed, and stages it to look like a heart attack. The implication is that these types of actions are business as usual, and that we need to open our eyes and stop taking what the media covers at face value.

The scene in the movie that best illustrates the Constructivist nature of the film, as well as clear examples of both incongruity and superiority humor, is the scene where Conrad and Winifred meet with Stanley for the first time to hash out the details of their plan, and Stanley’s team is assembled to begin the process of bringing concept to “reality”. This scene takes place right after the initial scene where we meet Conrad and the nature of the dilemma is presented, and we see the first machinations of Conrad’s crisis management methodology.  The scene takes place in the producer’s outrageous and ostentatious Hollywood mansion, complete with uniformed help and topiary. When they first meet Stanley, he is laying in a tanning bed.  This detail alone is an example of both incongruity humor (a tanning bed in a living room?), and superiority theory (“I would never be as shallow and vapid as to have a tanning bed in my home”).  The scene follows this dynamic throughout, painting the celebrity elite as both eccentric and ridiculous. Conrad and Winifred explain the situation to Stanley, and ask for his help.  Slowly the story begins to take shape, and a general outline of the war and its causes is formed. There is definitely some irony in the decision to make it about fundamentalist terrorists, given that the movie was made a mere four years prior to 9/11. As the story begins to take shape, Stanley gets on the phone to reach out to his key “people”- a musician played by Willie Nelson, responsible for creating the patriotic soundtrack to the war “pageant”, a character named simply “Fad King”, played by Denis Leary, responsible for creating “homegrown, grassroots” trends and movements, i.e. the Yellow ribbon movement, and Lorraine, his costume designer.  Once they gather, the scene focuses on the idea-tossing and banter of the group, finally ending with them all walking out of Stanley’s house with a loosely outlined plan for a war with Albania, sold to the American public with “raw footage” of a young peasant girl and her kitten escaping the terrorists bombs.

This scene is critical to the film, because it lays the foundation for the audience’s understanding of the level of orchestration being put into the constructed reality. Additionally, it introduces the audience to the superficiality and pomposity of the upper echelon types pulling all the puppet strings. This is the message the movie wants you to take away, and it’s all neatly demonstrated for you in this one scene of the film.

The scene is definitely funny, for many reasons, but perhaps none more so than for the over-the top personality of Dustin Hoffman’s character Stanley. He exemplifies the consummate Hollywood producer, all bravado and ego and flair. At one point, the President is on the line for Winifred, and Stanley tells him he can wait, he’s finishing a story-not even the President of the United States is more important. The humor of this scene relies on the cheesy self importance of the archetypical Hollywood scenesters.  This, coupled with the outrageousness of the plot, plays heartily into both the superiority and incongruity theories. We laugh because the behaviors and actions are completely outlandish and unexpected, yet we also laugh because we assume we’re better than these shallow “Hollywood types”.

The humor in this scene is definitely successful, in that it effectively points out the inherent ridiculousness of most propaganda and fads. It also calls out how easily the public is duped.  The goal of the director is to demonstrate to the audience that what we believe to be real could easily be fabricated by specific political interests, and that what we perceive as reality is often the construct of those in power. This is successfully achieved by using humor to soften the blow of such a discouraging revelation. If we see the people pulling the strings as ridiculous and inferior in some way, it takes some of the sting out of realizing how easily we’re duped, thus making us more receptive to the possibility, which in turn encourages us to be more skeptical and scrutinizing. The message of this scene is “Anything can be fabricated with effort, and the people doing the fabricating don’t necessarily have the public’s best interests at heart.

This scene reveals much about world politics; primarily that much of it is staged for the benefit of those who wish to remain in power. It is a theatre of the absurd. It also speaks to the ability of a superpower to exert their will on a smaller nation (in this case Albania), or at the very least exploit that nation to their own ends, regardless of whether or not there is any factual basis to their actions. It is really shocking when you consider that this movie was made prior 9/11, prior to the war in Iraq, prior to much of the heavy-spin propaganda of the last decade. It almost feels prophetic in hindsight (WMD’s, the B3 bomber….), and really provides some thought provoking arguments on behalf of the many conspiracy theorists.

The film is about as direct as you can be when it comes to its political message, but the use of humor gave it more plausibility, and made the assertions of the film less threatening and therefore more palatable to the public at large. It’s one thing to make the statement “Your government and media lie to you”. It’s another thing entirely to show you how easily and humorously our government and media could conspire to mislead us through the use of great storytelling. For this reason, humor was a necessary strategy in order to reach a broader audience with their message.

“Wag the Dog” effectively used humor to make the “medicine” of their message go down a bit easier, and called attention to the power of perception. The movie clearly demonstrates how easily reality is constructed, and provides a sound argument for Constructivism as dominant theory in International Relations.

Our Bi-Polar Clouds

With their quickly transitioning dynamic and alternating bursts of extreme energy and power and dissipating calm, clouds very closely mirror the behaviors and tendencies of bipolar mental illness.  Bipolar disorder is characterized by marked and pronounced episodes of extreme highs (mania), and extreme lows (depression) and these shifts can occur rapidly or slowly over months. Like clouds, while no individual experience of Bipolar disorder is identical, there are basic commonalities that allow for it to be independently classifiable and distinguishable, much like the three separate classes of clouds. Though no two clouds are ever the same, there are three broadly general categories under which all clouds fall.

The first class of clouds, cirrus, is defined as having “the least density, the greatest elevation, and the greatest variety of extent and direction” (Hamblyn, 126). Additionally, they are the first clouds to appear in serene weather. As such, these clouds are most like the transitory calm occurring between a manic and depressed episode, when one is emerging from depression but has not yet reached manic heights. 

The next class of clouds perhaps offers the strongest metaphor for Bipolar disorder. Cumulus clouds, the large, fluffy, archetypical clouds, are “the densest structure, formed in the lower atmosphere, and move along the current which is next to the earth” (Hamblyn, 128). They begin as a small anomaly, much like the initial impulses of a manic state. Cumulus clouds begin as a broad, stable, horizontal base, and rapidly grow and escalate into monstrous hemispherical heaps, reaching for the sky. This is much how a building manic state feel, the increased apprehension and energy, manifesting itself in an endless whirl of projects and activity, growing and building until a swift and crash like dispersion, much like the intense but short-lived cumulus cloud.  A more poignant metaphor is that of cumulus clouds continue to build into the night, a thunderstorm can be expected-how equally true for someone in a manic state-if they continue to work with great zeal late into the night, you can rest assured there will be a crashing storm to follow.

And lastly, we have the stratus cloud, “the lowest of the clouds, the cloud of night” (Hamblyn, 130), a broad, low clinging cloud that envelops all and frequently lasts through the night. This cloud is clearly representative of a depressive state, as it even dissipates with the coming of the sun-an apt metaphor indeed.  

The transient yet semi-predictable nature of clouds lends itself to mental illness metaphor, most effectively when describing states like mania and depression. The building of storms, the calm after storms, these are all mirrored in human behavior, and as such metaphors among them have become common figures of speech.

Unintended Consequences: Feminism Can Do Better

Well over 100 years after Charlotte Perkins Gilman published “The Yellow Wallpaper”, and nearly half a century after Betty Friedan first published “The Feminine Mystique”, women, dependent on their geographic location and economic status, now find themselves able to pursue careers in any field, entitled to the same rights and freedoms as their male counterparts. Many younger women shun the word feminist as something anachronistic, an archaic term that no longer bears relevance in a postmodern, post feminist society, where women run successful businesses, raise children and “have it all”. The question that needs to be asked is, by pursuing both successful careers and motherhood, as well as striving to meet society’s brutal expectations of women’s appearance and conduct, are women really “having it all “? Has the quality of life for women in the wealthy west honestly improved since second wave feminism? Though the assertion is highly controversial, there is an argument to be made that if we are measuring quality of life by overall health and happiness, women have actually experienced a reduction in quality of life as a result of some, not all, of the sweeping cultural changes that manifested as a direct result of second wave feminism. Make no mistake-I do not seek to discredit the hard won rights to suffrage, equal pay, and equal academic and professional access; instead, I question the now celebrated cultural myth of the “Do It All” woman, and whether society has in fact handicapped women further by imposing unrealistic expectations of success and worth rooted in the ability to both excel professionally and run their household affairs. This juggle of demands has never been asked or expected of men-woman have implicitly agreed to shoulder far greater burdens in exchange for their “right” to “have it all”. 

 In her new book Dutch Women Don’t Get Depressed, psychologist Ellen de Bruin examines the difference in cultural expectations for Dutch women when compared to the expectations of other wealthy, first world nations, and broaches the possibility that not all has come up roses for women as a result of the paradigm shift brought on by the latter 20^th century women’s movement². In her article “Rematerializing Feminism”, Teresa L. Ebert examines contemporary feminism through the lens of class and labor, and in doing so exposes several fallacies with the primary foci of mainstream feminism, and how many women, mostly lower-middle to low income, have been left behind¹.  Through careful examination of medical data, economic data, media/cultural commentary, and scholarly articles related to similar studies, I will seek to determine if there is enough evidence to support the assertion that the overall quality of life for women in the US and other western nations has actually declined over the last 40 years as a result of dramatic cultural shifts that are directly attributable to second wave feminism.

It is important to stress the point that this assertion only pertains to women living in the more female-friendly western industrialized world. The majority of the women the world over are still subject to unacceptable sexism, misogyny, and violence. In Saudi Arabia, for example, a powerful and wealthy United States ally, women are still forbidden to drive or vote³. Clearly the strides made by feminism in the West in these areas are to be heralded, not dismissed, and I in no way seek to minimize the relevance of this progress. Rather, in conjunction with our assertion, I would argue that 2^nd and 3^rd wave feminism focused so much on access and opportunity that to some extent they’ve neglected the areas of sexual violence, institutionalized economic disparity, and the challenges faced overall by low income women.  3^rd wave feminists, so concerned with individuality, seem to miss the forest for the trees. Focusing instead on issues like reclaiming the word “slut” in an attempt to call attention to the misperceptions surrounding women that are victims of sexual violence, many of these women lack the motivation or see the necessity to take action beyond spectacle⁴. Perhaps this subgroup of women is better referred to as “fem-me-nists”, concerned more with personal freedom and advancement than the plight of women as a whole. Worse still, the trend of girl on girl bullying, especially cyber bullying, continues to grow rather than subside, and it usually is due to fighting over a young man, an indicator that young women still see their real power as coming from their ability to “get the guy”. ¹⁵ This is no doubt fed by our hyper sexualized “empowered” culture that again reinforces that a women’s sexuality is her greatest strength.  It is in these disconnects plaguing both second and third wavers that we see “feminism” become an undesirable term to many women, especially young women, despite the fact that they agree with and identify with many feminist ideologies⁵. Additionally, many younger women feel that to some extent the ideologies and sweeping changes of feminism have left them with some negative baggage.  Society at large has also been left with some lingering negative misperception, which is then capitalized on by the great political machine of Washington, and this has allowed for some very anti-woman policy and legislation to gain support and even passage-all signs we are clearly taking women in the wrong direction. Conservative legislatures have introduced more than 1,000 pieces of anti-choice legislature since January⁶.  Brutal cuts to education, Medicaid, Head Start programs, WIC and other programs that benefit women and mothers have occurred with ferocity since the start of the Great Recession. This type of anti-woman legislation is now so common, it necessitates novel terminology, one that reflects the motives and impetus behind such action: misogyslation.  Misogylsation is policy making aimed at undermining women and the issues that affect them most. So now we have a society that tells men, “Hey, women can do it on their own, it’s okay to shirk responsibility”, and yet we take tools and resources from them  that enable them to do it on their own, leaving many women trapped between a rock and a hard place.

Before we can fully discuss what all of this means for contemporary western women, how we got here, and what to do next, we need to briefly look back at where we’ve been. First Wave feminism, also frequently referred to as the suffrage movement, primarily concerned itself with winning the right to vote. Women fought long and hard-they were beaten, imprisoned, and demonized by some in their communities. They persisted despite this and with the passage of the 19^th amendment in 1920; women earned the right to vote. Following on the coattails of this progress, women like Margaret Sanger advocating for birth control rights and information, and with the advent of WWII, the icon of Rosie the Riveter became synonymous with the modern working woman supporting the war effort by working our factories here at home. When the war ended and the men returned, they wanted those jobs back, so there was a strong push within society to redirect women back into the domestic sphere, and we see this emphasized by the film and television programs of this era. Shows like “Leave it to Beaver” and “The Donna Reed Show” reinforce the domestic ideals. Second wave feminism was born out of many women’s frustration at being forced back into the kitchen and out of the work place. This time around, the movement was far more personal-as exemplified by the rally cry “The personal is political”. Betty Friedan is credited with helping the movement gain steam and support with the publication of her book “The Feminine Mystique”, which lamented the neglect of female intellect and empowerment, and focuses on a series of interviews conducted by Friedan, which showed that a great majority of American housewives were unhappy with their current limited situation. Many women artists reclaimed the studio, artists like Judy Chicago, who used their work as a means of conveying their feminist message. The famed Woman’s Building in downtown L.A. was a hotbed for this feminist art⁷.  This is the so-called “bra-burning” era of feminism that has come to define feminism in the collective American psyche, and that has left so many with a negative perception of it as archaic and extreme. The feminists of this era focused on equal pay, equal access, and “body politics”-reproductive rights, freedom from sexual violence, and worked against the hypersexualiztion of the female form in film and media.⁵ These were all noble, valid pursuits that paved the way for Title IX funding, affirmative action, and other policies that clearly benefitted women.

 What is not so clear is how the cultural mindset surrounding this paradigm shift regarding women in the workplace and beyond clearly benefitted women. Women fought hard for independence and autonomy, but what society took from that hasn’t always manifested as a positive. Many opponents of welfare argue that even women with small children “should go out and get a job to support themselves” Many  younger men feel like it’s only fair for their female partner to pull half the financial weight, though very rarely do they do half the domestic labor at home, even when children are involved. This shift has placed a disproportionate burden on women-expected both to financially provide and maintain all the affairs of home and parenting as well.  Some would argue this is a small price to pay for our current level and access and freedom, but I question why there has to be that compromise. Could we not have that same level of freedom and access while acknowledging that for many, the quality of life is better when one parent can stay home and dedicate themselves primarily to affairs of the home and family? Most women now work outside the home out of economic necessity rather than simple desire or drive. Is this really a choice then? Frankly, this is a clear example of how feminism has been stolen from women and co-opted for economic and political gain by the groups least interested in women’s welfare.  Which brings us to the current state of feminism, 3^rd wave or post feminism, which Maria Morelli says, “explicitly embraces hybridism, contradiction, and multiple identies.”⁸ This translates to some into a movement that is confused, without a clear mission or guiding voice. As a result, many women now choose not to identify with feminism, despite their clear desire for equal pay, reproductive rights, and many of the other things feminism has made possible for them.  In her essay “Adventures in Conservative Feminism” Angela Dillard argues that social reform needed to happen in a more slow and cautious manner and to “recognize the circumstances under which change is likely to produce unintended consequences that make matters worse rather than better.”⁹ While I disagree with much of the article, I feel that there is ample wisdom to be found in this statement. In our mad dash to “have it all” we created some hefty unintended consequences that are unfairly shouldered by middle and lower income women.

We cannot address this issue without speaking to some extent about the state of men. There has been much hype and ado recently especially in the literary and Blogosphere worlds about the “Decline of Men”, and the overall trend of extended male immaturity and failure to “man up.”¹³  Numerous books have been written about it, and recently there was a live NPR debate titled “The End of Men?”, in which the historical male dominance society was speculated to have ended, and ended badly.

Some authors, like Guy Garcia and Kathleen Parker, place the blame squarely on the back of the women’s movement, saying feminism has left men without a clear place and role in society.¹² To some extent this is true. This is not say that women’s success is at fault, or that equality is the problem, more that men haven’t been empowered to be both supportive of women’s rights and still remain our men, who nurture, protect and care for their families-and you can do both.  Three inarguable facts certainly play a role in the sweeping cultural changes we’ve seen take place with men’s roles in society and the family structure: the decline of marriage-the marriage rate is half of what it was in 1969, the decline of education-34% of women aged 25-34 have earned degrees, compared to 27% of men (and it’s steadily dropping), and a lack of clearly defined roles, or positive role models for that matter.¹⁴ The playboy, skirt-chasing, pro-athlete/hip-hop mogul persona does not make for quality role models, nor does the weak-willed wimpy artsy permanent student that still lives with roommates and goes to the bar every night.  This all is not to say that extreme’s are accurate either; there is very conservative school of thought that sees feminism as a threat to men and the family¹⁶-that is ridiculous. Feminism has just failed to provide men the tools to still be men in a changing world.

There is a personal reason I decided to choose this topic. I am a 30 yr old married mother of 3 small children that works and goes to school fulltime. Like many women my age, I am exceptionally burnt out and overwhelmed. In my personal circle of female friends and colleagues, I see women struggling to afford and find quality childcare, shouldering most of the household and childrearing burdens, and more often than not, the women are the primary if not sole breadwinner in their relationship. As a result, most women I know are on either antidepressants or anti-anxiety drugs, and most are unhappy with their relationships and circumstances. Though it may not be popular to say out loud, the reality is that most have privately admitted that they wish their spouse or partner would step up and be the primary breadwinner, or take on much more responsibility within the home. Polls, studies, and other data all back up my observations. A 2009 Gallup poll indication that women were 25% more likely than men to be depressed, and the lower the income level, the more significant the rate of depression.^{10 A} telling survey from 2000 indicates that 26% of women are most worried about money and economic issues, versus only 4% that were most concerned about equality and equal rights.¹¹ This is evidence we are doing something wrong. Some will argue that men just need to catch up, that this is a problem of men not steeping up to the plate, but it goes deeper than that. It’s about a detrimental socio-cultural mindset that says that this is the price woman must pay if they want to be “equal.” But it’s not equal; it’s grossly unequal in terms of distribution of labor and burden. Adding insult to injury is that women still, in 2011, earn $.76 for every $1.00 earned by men.

So, 40 years after second Wave feminism took hold, here we are. Women earn more degrees than men now, women have entered the corporate and political sphere in great numbers, and we’re starting to see serious female contenders for presidential office. All of these are undoubtedly resounding positives. However, we also see skyrocketing depression, divorce, and an increase of female headed households below the poverty line. Third wave feminism needs to clearly organize itself around these issues, and start getting the message out that liberation doesn’t translate into being required to do it all or face scrutiny, judgment and poverty. They need to educate an entire generation of men that women’s stepping up doesn’t mean that they get to step down. These are the causes feminists need to rally around now: balance, fairness, and choice. Looking forward, the stability and progress of our world centers on striking the right balance, not just for Western women, but for women the world over.

Works Cited

1.Bruin, Ellen De. Dutch Women Don't Get Depressed: Hoe Komen Die Vrouwen Zo Stoer? Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Contact, 2007. Print

2. Ebert, Teresa L. "Rematerializing Feminism." Science & Society 69.1 (2005): 33-55. Print

3. Morgan, Robin. "Keys to the Kingdom." Ms. Summer 2011: 20-21. Print

4. Thompson, Christie. "Taking Slut for a Walk." Ms. Summer 2011: 14. Print.

5. Edelstein, Jean. "Why Second-wave Feminism Has Gone Soft." Public Policy Research 14.3 (2007): 164-67. Print

6. Chamlee, Virginia. "The States War on Women." Ms. Summer 2011: 12-13. Print.

7. Kort, Michele. "When Feminist Art Went Public." Ms. Summer 2011: 40-43. Print

8. Morelli, Maria. "Feminism in the Twenty-First Century: Does It Need (Re)Branding?" Feminisms: The Evolution 4.1 (2011): 12-25. Print

9. Dillard, Angela D. "Adventures in Conservative Feminism." Society 42.3 (2005): 25-27. Print

10. Pelham, Brett. "About One in Six Americans Report History of Depression." Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management. Oct. 2009. Web. 08 Sept. 2011. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/123821/One-Six-Americans-Report-History-Depression.aspx

11. Newport, Frank. "The Challenges Women Face." Gallup. Gallup Polls, 14 Apr. 2000. Web. 8 Sept. 2011. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/2998/Challenges-Women-Face-their-Daily-Lives.aspx>.

             12.  Delaney, Tim. "Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity/The Decline of Men: How the      American Male Is Tuning Out, Giving Up and Flipping off His Future." Rev. of Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity/The Decline of Men: How the American Male Is Tuning Out, Giving Up and Flipping off His Future. Library Journal 133.15 (2008): 77-78. Print.

          13.  Morris, Sophie. "The Decline of Men, or Just a Spot of Man Flu." The Independent (2008): 36. Print.

       14. Selbert, Roger. "The Crisis of Modern Male Immaturity." Growth Strategies 1038 (2011): 3-5. Print.

15. Timson, Judith. "Feminism in the Web Era: It Ain't Pretty." The Globe and Mail (2009): L1. Print.

            16. Tuttle, Kate. "Immaturity of Today's Male Tied to Rise in Feminism." Boston Globe 18 Mar. 2011. Web. 30 Sept. 2011

                                                               Neologisms

As, stated in my paper, not since the Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1970’s have women’s rights been in more jeopardy from a policy perspective than they are now. In the last year alone, states have introduced over 1,000 pieces of legislation seeking to limit or all but eliminate a woman’s right to choose. An increasing number of states, especially states with large rural populations with limited access, are passing legislation that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill a patient’s prescription on the basis of moral objection.  Popular former vice-presidential candidate and infamous proponent of anti-woman legislation, went so far as to sign a law into being in her home state of Alaska that requires women that are alleged victims to pay for their own rape kits unless the case results in conviction. Women are under attack, and by other women, in greater and greater numbers. The amount of policy being introduced that directly threatens women’s rights continues to grow exponentially, such that there needs to be a succinct one-word term that accurately describes the bulk of this legislation.

                This brings us to the prefect word to fill this semantic void- misogyslation. Misogyslation can be defined as any law, policy or legislation that is inherently anti-woman and anti-choice. This word is a great tool to quickly sum up the nature of a particular bill or agenda. It’s a media-friendly buzz word, and since I’ve posted it on my FB, the feedback has been phenomenal. This is very relevant to my paper, as I discuss the current political atmosphere, and how it seeks to further limit and burden women. This word enhances the paper and the overall lexicon of contemporary political punditry.

Also, discussed at length in my paper, another phenomena on the rise within the feminist community over the last decade or so is the “individualizing” of feminism, which I my opinion has led to a lack of unity, message, and activism in the feminist community. In fact, many young women, despite identifying with feminist issues, refuse to identify with the feminist label. Everything to this generation is personal-it about individual advancement and access, and not so much about the global community of women o the whole. I think we need a new term for this type of feminist, one that reflects the self-absorbed focus and nature of said individuals.

                The word I propose is fem-me-nist, clearly isolating and putting the emphasis on the phonetic “me”, thus establishing the true motive behind their concern and actions. This is extremely relevant to my paper, as I am discussing where feminism went wrong, and clearly this is one of the areas where feminism failed. This word will be important going forward, because it seeks to isolate the individuality driven feminists from the community and globally minded feminists. Though I do not seek to create schism within an already fragile community, there is a clear and distinct difference, and perhaps in this acknowledgment, we can compel more women to be feminists, and not fem-me-