Gender Identity

In ancient Greece, specifically Sparta, men and women were perfect equals. Women would even run the country while the men left to fight, or trained to fight. In old Scandinavia, both sexes were held to an equal power. In Amerindian culture, some even saw men as more expendable than women because women could bare children while men could not.

In many of these ancient cultures the sexes ere held as equals. Yet as time went on and the romans moved into international power, men were moved to a type of pedestal and women were seen as the weaker sex. By the time of the eighteenth century in England, wherein Mary Wollstonecraft (one of, if not the first, feminist writer) wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, in which se described how women were unfairly treated in society.

In this writing she talks about how the inequality among genders has led to further problems and that ideologies should shift in certain aspects of everyday life. Overall she truly makes a strong case to pursuing women’s rights, which is why the movement she began still exists to this day.

Initially, Wollstonecraft speaks about how women are treated and how they have essentially been mentally and psychologically stunted so as to keep them effeminate and polite. She even says, to the women reading, that she will speak sternly and strictly and that they should not feel offended even though people will often talk down to them or “too nicely” because they are women. Then she speaks about education and how generally being well versed or highly educated is seen, by men, as a manly thing to do. But of course, this is not so.

The topic of morality and goodness in itself is then explored, mostly through reason and basic assumptions of each sex. She speaks to three assumptions about humans as a species. The first is that all people have reason and that sets humans apart from animals, second is that there is moral goodness that makes some people better than others, the final is that G-d gave passion and temptations so as to test the virtue and goodness of others. This is essentially saying that men and women both are born with these different things and being a man does not make one immediately morally good nor a woman not being born with reason. All humans are born with these.

Yet in her time and place, Wollstonecraft was not shown this courtesy of equality. So she goes on to explain that the ideology men hold that women, like children, must have a sheltered education and life is not fair. She goes to speak that in the family environment women are also treated unfairly as the woman must care for the children and keep the home and is seen as purely codependent on a man.

Be it her father or husband, at all times women were seen as codependent. Even within these ideas, women were cared for less for their intelligence and instead more for beauty. A woman was not to be educated, stern and strong in her beliefs in and independent in her thoughts. Women were meant to be quiet, beautiful, and nearly subservient. Not equal to men in any way; the entire sex was infantilized by men. An idea that, now, seems horribly outrageous in all forms.

Wollstonecraft did not base said ideologies on simply her own thoughts, either. She strongly based them off of various thinkers, especially through those who came to the forefront of humanity during the European enlightenment. During the enlightenment, people moved out from the dark ages into a new age of secularized intelligence so as to push humanity (at least in Europe) forward. Wollstonecraft saw the enlightenment, and accompanying figures, to be those of pure reason and logic. The movement away from the iron-fisted Catholic Church allowed for secular logical thought and ideas with it.

Thus it would be believed that in the eyes of enlightenment, purely reasonable thinkers, all people would be equal. Wollstonecraft cited these ideas and moved with them. The idea was that if all were equal, why would men and women not be seen as equal? The enlightenment ideas helped to push and strengthen Wollstonecraft’s. It makes sense that she does this as well; she uses thoughts and ideas of male thinkers. Thus she is no longer simply a woman angry with her lot in life. She is a scholar backed by other scholars that the educated men should be looking up to and studying. It is a genius transfer technique that helps to secure her thoughts, because she is backed by writings of intelligent men.

Overall, I truly think Wollstonecraft was headstrong and knew exactly how to write and whom she was actually writing to and for. She wrote for the women that would read her works and agree, and for the men who would read it and disagree. As a woman her ideas, no matter how well thought out and intelligently proven, could be pushed aside as the ramblings of the “lesser sex” by men of that age. She employed other thinkers and took advantage of the times to push for a movement to make men and women equal in all eyes. It seems she has done well as in the modern day it truly seems both sexes are equal, her writing was strong and paid off.

The Renaissance spirit of inquiry renewed the debate about the role of women in society, a theme, which resonated in the visual arts of the era. Traditionally, “chastity, compliance, delicacy and modesty” were the qualities ascribed to a truly virtuous female, whom was essentially excluded from a real participation in society. Scholars and painters alike glorified male power and achievement in the social sphere, while “the greatest female accomplishment lay in obedience, rather than intellectual pursuits”.

Artemisia Gentileschi, was one of the first female artists to challenge the traditional monopoly over the passive female ideal, as her life and art redefined feminine accomplishment in terms of the conventional masculine standards of achievement. Many have thus interpreted Artremesia as a pioneer of modern feminism; however, the legitimacy of this assertion is questionable. One of her most infamous paintings, Judith Beheading Holofernes, provides insight into the consequences of her bold confrontation with conventional female gender limitations.

The piece explicitly depicts two heroic female subjects imbued with traditionally masculine characteristics. The women are thus afforded a position of power, which would have otherwise been inaccessible to them. While, Gentileschi thus succeeds in creating a feminine ‘power outlet’, in her depiction of Judith and her maidservant, she markedly fails to acknowledge a feminine virtue which is unique and distinct from the traditional masculine ideal.

Artremesia’s painting does courageously challenge the conventional societal perception of the feminine role, however, her prescribed solution undermines the validity of the feminine perspective, as it asserts that ‘greatness’ is achieved through a possession of solely masculine virtues. In view of the fact that Artremesia’s work, undercuts the legitimacy of ‘feminine’ achievement, it should consequently be denied recognition as early feminist art. This essay will provide an in depth critical analysis of Atremesia Genteleschi’s Judith Beheading Holofernes within the context of the painters particular life circumstances.

Firstly, the archetypes of eighteenth century femininity and masculinity will be explicitly defined, in order to determine the influence such social pressures had on women of this era. Atremesia’s biography will then be placed within the context of the prevailing gender roles, as an illustration of her unique confrontation with the patriarchal societal structure of her day. Finally, an evaluation of, Judith Beheading Holofernes, will shed insight into Gentileschi’s artistic challenge of traditional feminine ideals, as well as her ultimate failure to acknowledge the value of a purely feminine perspective.

Defining 18th Century Gender Roles According to Bridget Hill’s Anthology of Seventeenth Century Women the characteristics generally attributed to the ideal woman of Gentileschi’s era were: “modesty, restraint, passivity, compliance, submission and most important of all chastity. “(17) These accepted social views were widely circulated and espoused, and would have thus been tremendously difficult to ignore or challenge. Accordingly, “The vast majority of middle class women unquestioningly conformed to the role assigned to them”(3)

The first significant characteristic of the feminine ideal, worthy of discussion is that of restraint and modesty, as this trait necessitated an alienation of women from the social sphere, and even themselves. Proper ladies were expected to avoid public attention, and conversation in a social setting. Moreover, “it was indelicate for women to have to view their own naked bodies, just as all references to bodily functions and even pregnancy were taboo. “(17) The following passage constitutes a primary account of a father’s advice to his daughter concerning the importance of modesty to the female temperament:

One of the chief beauties in a female character is that modest reserve, that retiring delicacy, which avoids the public eye, and is disconcerted even at the gaze of admiration… When a girl ceases to blush, she has lost the most powerful charm of beauty… That modesty, which I think is so essential in your sex, will naturally dispose you to rather silent company, especially a large one. (19) The feminine ideal of modesty and restraint thus primarily confined women to the private sphere of social relations, allowing them little to no voice in public reality.

The influence of women within the private or domestic sphere was also muted by the subsequent feminine virtue of submission and compliance. According to the constraints of this womanly asset, a virtuous wife would have been expected to obey her husband, while allowing him the authority to harmoniously govern his household. She… who marries ought to lay it down for an indisputable maxim, that her husband must govern absolutely and entirely, and she has nothing else to do but please and obey.

She must not attempt to divide his authority, or so much as dispute it, to struggle with her yoke will only make it gall more, but must believe him to be wise and just and in all respects best, at least he must be so to her. She who can’t do this is in no way fit to be a wife. (20) The preceding passage illustrates the limitation of control, which women of this time period were expected to contend with (even within the private sphere of social influence). As, all of the decisions of the virtuous wife were expected to be in concurrence with her husband’s asserted authority.

Finally, the most important feminine asset was considered to be that of chastity. The particular significance of this virtue was grounded in the fact that men were considered naturally un- chaste, and unable to control their passions. Women were thus, responsible for the preservation of their innocence, and the up holding of sexual moral values. Additionally, as the following quote explicitly indicates, the social consequence incurred by a loss of honor was often drastic. A woman who has lost her honor imagines that she cannot fall lower, and as for recovering her former station, it is impossible; no exertion can wash the stain away.

Losing thus every spur, and having no other means of support, prostitution becomes her only refuge, and the character is quickly depraved by circumstances over which the poor wretch has little power, unless she possesses an uncommon portion of sense and loftiness of spirit (30) Conversely, the eighteenth century masculine ideal, according to John Tosh, author of A Man’s Place could be associated with the specific attributes of: “reason, authority and resolve. “(47) The public sphere of social relations and intellectual endeavourers was thus designated as the realm traditionally, and justly dominated by the influence of men.

The following quote spoken by a women of the time, suggests that this conception of masculinity was embraced by both men and women alike: “Let men enjoy in peace and triumph the intellectual kingdom which is theirs, and which, doubtless, was intended for them”(47) Biography Artemisia Gentileschi’s, life blatantly challenged the passive feminine ideal, as she achieved recognition in the male-dominated world of post-Renaissance art by disregarding traditional gender precepts.

Laura York, author of The ‘Spirit of Ceaser’ and his Majesty’s servant: The Self Fashioning of Woman artists in Early Modern Europe thus, defines Gentileschi as, “no ordinary artist and no ordinary woman. She is one of handful of female professional painters in Baroque Italy, who created a successful career in the competitive, masculine world of seventeenth century artistic patronage. In the process, she constructed a self identity virtually unknown in her time: the woman artist”(1-2) Atremesia was born in 1593 to Prudentia Montone and her husband, noted painter Orazio Gentileschi.

Orazio exposed his daughter to art at an early age, and supported her artistic development by providing her with a formal education normally denied to women of her time. As, she would have been unable to join guilds or study with various established masters, Artremesia’s training with her father, was her only chance for a real apprenticeship. Although Orazio kept his daughter confined to the house, according to the custom among respectable Romans of the time, “the Gentileschi domicile also functioned as his studio, with its constant traffic of models, colleges and patrons. Such company allowed Artemisia contact with many influential male artists, yet it also fueled rumors that marred her reputation.

On May 6, 1611, gossip turned to real injury. “Having entrusted his 17 year old daughter’s supervision to a family friend, Orazio was away from the house when his business associate and fellow painter, Agostino Tassi entered the home and raped Artremesia. ” At the time, rape was viewed more as a crime against a family’s honor than as a violation of a woman. The virtual lack of a legal identity in women, often made it very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain any redress for wrongs committed against them. “(137) Thus, only when the married Tassi reneged on his promise to marry Atrmesia did Orazio bring charges against him. In the ensuing eight- month trial, Artremesia testified that she was painting when Tassi came into the room shouting, “Not so much painting, not such much painting. ” He ten grabbed the palette and brushes from her hands and threw them to the floor.

She fought and scratched to no avail, finally attacking him with a knife. To establish her truthfulness, authorities administered a primitive lie detector test in the form of torture by thumbscrews, a common practice of the time. As the cords were tightened around her fingers, she was said to have cried out to Tassi, “this is the ring you give me, and these are your promises. ” She must have passed the test; Tassi was convicted and sentenced to five- year banishment from Rome (a punishment apparently never enforced).

Soon afterwards Artemisia married a “well born but debt ridden” young Florentine painter named Pierantonio Stiattesi and moved to Florence with him. There in the company of luminaries such as Galileo Galilei and Michelangelo Buonarroti, she entered upon a career that would have been the envy of most male contemporaries. Gentileschi rebelled against the dominant model of passive womanhood by cultivating an image of herself as strong, active, intellegent and powerful. Traits, which would have been considered as masculine to the seventeenth century mind.

The following striking statement, uttered by Artemisia herself provides revealing insight into her perception of self. “I will say no more, except what I have on my mind, that I think Your Most Illustrious Lordship will not surlier any loss with me, and that you will find the spirit of a Ceaser in the soul of a woman. “(4) Gentileschi’s appropriation of Ceaser’s masculine spirit, distances herself from all other woman of her time. Artremesia, does not acknowledge any value within her perception of feminity, and thus choses to conform to traditionally masculine ideals.

Gender Analysis Essay Gender Roles? What Gender Roles? Throughout the endless generations and societies of the world the idea of gender roles can be found in each and every single one. Every human being, in their own time and own way, has had an image drilled into their head as to how the roles of each gender should be played out. On the outermost surface there are two distinct and recognizable types of gender naturally being male and female. However, that truly is only the surface as there are many types of gender roles either a male or a female may choose to, or be forced into assuming throughout their lives.

Society uses whatever image it chooses in order to convey what it thinks the gender roles should be at the time and is very capable of controlling the way people think, act, and behave. However, our generation as well as the last few generations have had the interesting experience of living in a society in which long established gender roles are being challenged more and more everyday. We are deciding as a people that we are far more interested in being individuals then simply going along with the stereotypes set forth by society.

My family, in which my father is responsible for the majority of cooking and cleaning while my mother is the main breadwinner and financial overseer, seems to be a perfect example of the new trend along which society is moving and the new opportunities and ideas that are becoming a reality when it comes to gender roles in society. Everyone knows the long and stereotypical list of jobs that guys do and jobs that girls do as well as the different toys that each are supposed to play with when they’re little. We all also know how the boy that plays with dolls and the girl that plays with trucks gets treated when they’re little.

Seemingly, neither one of these things has really changed at all up until today, but why then does the idea of gender roles seem to be diminishing every single day? Personally, I believe it has almost everything to do with your family and the people that you are surrounded by at a young age. They’re the ones who dress you, decide what school you go to, what friends you hangout with, even what food you eat. They take the small clay ball that is you as a baby and begin to try and form it into what they (in many cases what society) want it to be.

For me, this was not so much the case. Every Sunday morning I would roll over in my bed to the sound of the vacuum cleaner humming up and down the hallway or the mop squeaking along the kitchen floor. Once I finally was able to pull myself out of bed and drag my way up to the kitchen table I was greeted by a plate stocked full of eggs bacon and pancakes all drowned in steaming maple syrup. If you were to ask almost anybody who it was making these noises and preparing this delicious meal they would undoubtedly say it was my mother. But they would be wrong.

While my dad was busy cleaning and making breakfast, my mom was in her office starting on her work for the day, or filing taxes or balancing the checkbook. See, in my house, the term gender role was a very confusing one seeing as how it had a different meaning there then almost everywhere else. I would go to all my friends houses and see their dads, coming home all dirty and sweaty from work, cracking open a cold one while their moms would be scurrying around in an apron tidying things up and pulling hot buttery rolls out of the oven right before dinner.

It never really dawned on me at such a young age though that the differences between my home and my friend’s home were so significant and that I truly have a different life because of these differences. To be completely honest, I have never really thought about the way in which experiencing gender roles in such a reversed way (thus perhaps not experiencing them at all) has actually affected me and the way in which I act. However, thinking about it now, there are definitely aspects of my life and personality that are different due to the circumstances under which I was raised.

Most importantly, I think that growing up in a household in which all the gender rules were broken has allowed me to be much more open to new people, places, and things. Gender is more likely than not the very first thing you notice about someone. You use it as a basis for almost all of the forthcoming judgments you will make about someone based on things such as what they’re wearing, how they talk, where they work, what they eat. A person’s gender decides so much about them in they eyes of an observer, the only problem being many of those things may not even be true. Growing up ith the idea that men and women can fulfill whatever role they choose both within the home and outside of it has caused me to be a much less judgmental person. This is because if you take gender out of the equation it eliminates such a large portion of what you would judge a person on that you don’t judge them at all. Realizing something as simple as the fact that men can stay at home and cook and clean and women can work hard and be in charge of money allows you to realize that you actually have to talk to a person and get to know them before you really known anything about them, you can’t just take things at face value.

Had I grown up with the stereotypical patriarchal family I have no doubt that I would be a different person. For every child that does grow up with one of these families, the roles assigned to each gender are becoming more and more solidified. Every parent that buys their little boys baseball gloves and a plastic tool box and their girls an easy-bake oven and doll house is simply placing another brick in the ever growing wall of gender roles and we are still, to this day, witnessing the negative effects these gender roles are having on our society.

Men still dominate most higher up positions while women still receive lower wages then men in many cases. It’s a little crazy to think that something as simple as what toys you give your children to play with are contributing to the development and growth of gender discrimination isn’t it? So many people may be asking, what toys should my kids play with? Well, growing up I sure didn’t play with dolls or easy bake ovens, I also played with trucks and superhero action figures and baseball gloves. The difference is in the context in which I was playing with these toys.

I was playing with my hot wheels while watching my dad scrub the bathroom floor and hitting baseballs through the window of my mom’s office while she was making major family decisions. It was being able to see the full spectrum of what both males and females could do that allowed me to never get sucked in to the idea of gender-designated roles. I hate to sound as if I’m bragging or over prideful when I say this but I feel as though it is family environments such as the one I was brought up in that are allowing for cracks to be formed in that brick wall of gender roles.

Trying to teach people about true gender equality and cooperation when they’re already grown up and have had 30 or so years of “teaching” from the rest of society is something that is very hard to do. In Amy Truong’s essay, “Gender Expectations and Familial Roles Within Asian American Culture” she talks about how her ideas of gender roles were also formed at a very young age, “ Within Asian culture, women are raised and taught to be silent and obedient…growing up I was told, ‘Do not comment or speak up,’ whenever I wanted to voice my opinion.

My opinion was considered unimportant. And for many years of my life I believed that this was true. ” It is clear that within our own culture, Asian culture, and more than likely every culture of the world, you are truly taught about gender roles within society as a small child when you don’t have the ability to teach yourself and thus you simply take what is given to you. Thus, I strongly believe that gender roles are specifically established within the first years of each new generation.

They are then solidified throughout your childhood and teenage years and by the time you are an adult your beliefs about gender and society are already more than decided. This generation, now grown up, will pass down the exact same beliefs and ideals about gender to their children and the perpetual circle of assigned gender roles and discrimination against the non-conformists continues. Growing up with an alternate view of gender roles has allowed me to understand that we can change the old and out dated idea that because you’re a woman you stay at home with the kids and because you’re a man you bring home the paycheck.

In almost all cases, excluding some jobs involving physical labor, women are more than capable of doing the exact same jobs men do, and in many cases a better job. Similarly, men are capable of doing all the same jobs commonly held by women. All it is, is a state of mind that has been so instilled in the heads of society that we have all but lost the will to change it. We are all created equal, it is a statement on which America was founded, but perhaps it should instead become a statement by which America actually lives.

Genders role between men and women are always present through history. During the 1930’s the time when this story takes place, men are usually the ones working for the money, and performing all the hard labor, while women are supposed to do all the house work, and behave in a polite manner. In the story “Boys and girls” by Alice Munro the protagonist struggles with societies ideas of how a girl should be. This story is about a girl who prefers helping her father with chores on the field as opposed to helping her mother in the kitchen.

As the story progresses her mentality changes as she starts caring about what she wears, how her hair looks, and doesn’t protest being called a girl. The relationship between men and woman in this story conveys how men see woman as inferior based on what roles society places on them. An incident showing how men see woman as inferior was shown when the mother said to the father ” Wait till Laird gets a little bigger, then you’ll have a real help”. This conveys that men in this society can perform physical labor better than women.

The mother tries to plot ways into getting the girl to help her around the house. Even though the girls doesn’t like helping around the house the mother believes that is what women should be doing. This relates back to what the mother said to the father, because she believes the girl is incapable of helping in the farm. Also shows how the mother fills the roles set for women in this society, and wants to enforce these roles onto the girl. Another incident was when the girl was thinking to herself.

She said “A girl was not, as I had supposed, simply what I was; it was what I had to become”. This statement shows how her mentality was changing throughout the story. At first she was confident and happy helping her father out on the farm. The girl then became unsecure because of all the chatter circulated by her mother to other people, and the constant emphasis of what a ‘girl’ should be. This shows how woman in this society are inferior from the point of view of not only men, but also woman such as the mother.

Another incident was when the girl could have shut the gate on the horse “Flora”, but instead she let the horse run away. When the father found about her letting the horse go from Laird he was frustrated at first, but then commented “She’s only a girl”. This further emphasizes the reality of how ‘girls’ are seen in this society. The girl felt free from guilt through her father’s tone of voice when he commented about her being only a girl. The girl at this point didn’t protest being called a girl, and thought it was possibly true.

The father’s use of words conveys the overall perception of how men felt women in that society. Furthermore gender roles in this story gives a overall view of what men and woman should perform in society. The men in this story are the one working on the farm, and performing all physical labor. The woman such as the mother in this story performs all the kitchen work. These roles are enforced into the girl and also her brother Laird throughout the story. The emphasis of how male see woman as inferior is present from beginning of the story to end through many incidents.

Gender roles have a very dominant place in our society. Different families and cultures emphasize different roles for men and women. However, masculinity seems to dominate throughout the world. Women’s role in society is always changing but femininity never seems to rise above its masculine counterpart. Gender asymmetry has been a struggle for a long time because of the uncertainty of how we learn such roles. How to act like a boy or a girl is not something biological we are just born with. These roles are learned through our interactions with family and peers, starting as early as birth.

The first and one of the strongest influences on a person’s gender role is their parents. Parents are our first teachers and role models . They don’t just teach us such basic skills like talking and walking, but also of attitudes and behavior. Most parents still hold traditional definitions of masculine and feminine and what kind of activities are appropriate for each. Parents tend to be more concerned with the safety of little girls. Where as, boys are expected to be rough and tough at an early age. Most of the time parents are not even aware that they are teaching their kids some of these roles.

As discussed in the beginning of the text book, we are taught that our gender differences are due to our biology. We “tend to equate aggression with biological maleness and vulnerability with femaleness”. This tendency to assume that biology is the cause for gender differences is know as “the pink and blue syndrome” (Spade and Valentine p. 4). Starting at birth we are put into certain colors and given specific gendered toys to play with. Sometimes these norms don’t fit with every little boy or girl. Some girls prefer to play rough and with more masculine toys, and some boys prefer pink and princesses.

However, when boys engage in activities that are normally deemed girly they are called a sissys. On the other hand when girls do things that would normally be boy activities they are considered a “tomboy” and praised for this. We looked at this more closely when we read Kane’s chapter, “No Way My Boys are Going to be Like That! ” Parents often encourage there daughters to aspire to take on male roles feeling as if it makes them a stronger person later in life. Fathers seems to be more concerned and often discourage boys in engaging in female roles, fearing they may be homosexual.

Mothers, on the other hand, more often feel that their sons knowing how to cook and clean makes them more well rounded. Even mothers seem to be kind of cautious and lake enthusiasm when speaking to there sons about these “iconic feminine items, attributes, or activities”(Kane p. 179). Overall, parents seem to be aware of gender as something that they must shape and construct, especially with their sons. Some parents even feel as if masculinity is something they must work on with there sons starting at a very young age.

In order to make a change we must “broaden normative conceptions of masculinity and challenge the devaluation of femininity, an effort that will require participation by heterosexual fathers to succeed” (Kane p. 183). Another very important group to consider that can have a strong influence on gender roles are peers. Peer pressure is another means of reinforcing a culture’s traditional gender roles. It can come in the form of taunting or teasing a child who does not fit the traditional gender roles that other children in the peer group have come to expect. Peers react more positively to children who fit traditional gender roles.

We explored this teasing a bit more when we read the article “‘Dude, You’re a Fag’: Adolescent Masculinity and the Fag Discourse”. Pascoe discusses how masculinity can function as a regulatory mechanism of gender in American adolescent boys. It has been found that the word ‘fag’ is not necessarily directed at a homosexual boy, but has taken on a new meaning in school age boys. It is being used as a disciplinary mechanism to police certain behaviors “out of fear of having the fag identity permanently” (Pascoe p. 330). This kind of teasing and harassment can temporarily be place on any boy who shows signs of weakness or femininity.

The high schoolers in the study told Pascoe that calling someone a fag was like telling them they were nothing or stupid (Pascoe p. 335). Boys could be called a fag for anything that he did that was opposite of masculine, even when it had nothing to do with his sexual preference. The fag discourse seemed to be just another way for the contest of masculinity to take place. With such strong enforcement of gender roles in children it is not surprising that these masculine dominated attitudes carry over into adulthood. Over the past few decades, great strides have been made by women in the workplace.

This increased number in women in the workplace does not mean equality however. Even with equal qualifications and achievements, women are still not given all the opportunities that men have. The chapter in the textbook, “Gender at Work”, shows us more of these inequalities in the workplace. Such inequalities cause gender segregation of jobs and can be linked with the pay inequality in the labor force. Even in jobs that are predominantly filled by women, men earn more than women. Women are often stereotyped as being family focused and not as able to travel, therefore they tend to get passed up for promotions (Garson p. 353).

This invisible barrier that keeps women from moving up the executive ladder is referred to as the “glass ceiling” (Baxter and Wright p. 346). Women also tend to do more domestic work, or unpaid labor and caregiving. This extra unpaid work is referred to as “the third shift” and is largely rested on the shoulders of women (Gersel p. 352). Consequently, this seems to be one of the biggest things holding women back from taking on jobs that are normally considered male dominated. These shifts in gender roles over the years have been huge. With the drastic changes, men and women are still trying to sort out what these new roles mean to them.

Although women are no longer expected to be the soul keepers of the house, in reality, they still are in most families. Although men generally seem to be open to the successes enjoyed by the women they share their lives with, some still find it hard to celebrate a woman’s achievements because they feel it diminishes their own masculinity. These patterns will continue as long as our society keeps pushing the importance of gendered roles and the dominance of masculinity. However, today’s parents have the opportunity to show their children that they don’t have to be violent to be strong, and being sensitive is not necessarily a bad thing.

The Western genre has always been a representation of American identity, in that its films reflect societal moods, pop culture, politics, etc. The prototypical Western portrays beautiful open landscapes and heroic, rugged heroes who are set on either conquering or defending them. These iconic actors such as John Wayne, Roy Stewart, Alan Ladd, and Gary Cooper were made famous through being the centerpiece of Western films and series. These heroes and mages of the ‘great American frontier’ stand as metaphor for America itself. Yet, as we closely examine this exciting and adventurous genre of film we see that the hero’s female counterparts are usually underdeveloped and ignored. Western films, especially in the early years of the genre, featured women characters who held little importance to the plot and served as comedic or sexual support to the hero. In this essay I will examine how John Ford, as a Western filmmaker, did not follow the formula of the genre. He played with male characters that were not heroic, but were selfish and cold, and even more interestingly, readjusted he gender roles in his western films so that women were no longer simple characters, but in fact drove the story along and made significant plot-­? related decisions. Often women and men were equals in Ford’s work. I will examine how Ford did this, and contemplate why, as well, in three of his western classics. The films we will be taking a close look at are Fort Apache (1948), The Searchers (1956), and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962), all of which feature significant female character contributions. Before diving into the work of Ford and how he gave significance to women in the West, it is important to discuss further he attitudes that Western film, and all of Hollywood in the early 2 years, had towards female characters. According to Laura Mulvey, a feminist and film theorist who wrote extensively on the subject, Hollywood uses women in only two ways: “as erotic objects for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic object for the spectator within the auditorium… She also connotes something the look continually circles around but disavows: her lack of penis, implying a threat of castration and hence unpleasure. ” (Mulvey, p. 716-­? 718) Therefore, women are either sex objects or characters to be feared. According to Mulvey, Hollywood feels female characters shouldn’t be complex, shouldn’t grow and change, and certainly aren’t able to make decisions that change the outcome of the story. All of that should be left to the male heroes.

Early Western films followed a strict formula. They featured rugged yet like able heroes from the frontier, and pitted against them was almost always a foreign adversary. He was either a Native American, or more typically a well-­? dressed man from the East coast. (Garfield) Women in these early films played very small roles, most fitting into Mulvey’s definition of sex object. They also acted as a power symbol, and the an who possessed the leading woman had all the power, something we will examine in more depth later in this essay. In 1948, John Ford began to change the dynamics between these dominant male characters and their passive, sexual counterparts when he made Fort Apache. The film starred John Wayne playing captain Kirby York, a prototypical Western hero, who is as rugged as they come as well as a well-­? knowledged man of the West stationed at the frontier’s Fort Apache. Henry Fonda played opposite of him as Lt Col. Owen Thursday, a prototypical Western villain, because he came from a foreign land with the intent of instilling change.

Thirdly, the film starred Shirley Temple as Owen’s cute, innocent daughter, Philadelphia Thursday. The story revolves around Owen 3 Thursday’s attempts to control the “wild” Apache tribes of the area and send them back to their reservation, usually against the advice of York. All of these story and character dynamics are to be expected when examining a Western film, but it is Ford’s portrayal of women, and in fact the number of contributing female characters, that make this classic of the genre stand out. According to film critic Howard Movshovitz, John Ford used a subtle semiotic technique to imply his heroes’ opinions of women n his films. “Good women are still; only questionable women travel under their own power,” he says. (Movshovitz, p. 71) By this he means that good-­? intending women in Ford’s films are always immobile, and the women whom we are to distrust are those that move around freely. As we begin to examine Fort Apache and its female characters, we must keep this in mind. The first female character we meet is Philadelphia Thursday, and we are introduced to her as she is riding inside of a wagon. According to Movshovitz’s theory, this means she is good. I would take it a step further and say that we are being presented an innocent character ere, who I think falls in line with Mulvey’s theory. Shirley Temple was a sex symbol, and that’s also how Philadelphia Thursday looks to us when we meet her. Immediately, she is fawned at by a group of soldiers and flirts with the young Michael O’Rourke. We get a very iconic and telling shot from Ford in the introductory tavern scene, in which Miss Thursday and O’Rourke sit down next to each other and smile, while not looking or speaking to one another. Ford is symbolizing a lot for us here. Obviously he is setting up their future romantic relationship, but he is also foreshadowing for us gender roles of Fort Apache, where both of hese characters are headed. As we are to find out, the women in the fort run the show.

They are the ones who take care of the everyday business within the fort, while the men train and go off to battle the surrounding Indian tribes, and as I will explain later, the men actually need their women in order to survive. By not allowing 4 O’Rourke to speak in the aforementioned shot, Ford is suggesting that he needs Miss Thursday to initiate the conversation for him. He is already dependent on women, and therefore will quickly fit in once he arrives at the fort. Ford is also presenting to us something about Miss Thursday with this shot, owever it is contrast to the character that she eventually becomes. Here, by being quiet, Miss Thursday is conforming to Eastern societal standards and waiting to be courted. Ford is showing us that she is a foreigner and that she is dependent on men, but as soon as she steps foot within the confines of Fort Apache all of this changes. Upon arrival to the fort, O’Rourke pays a visit to the Thursday residence to drop off his card, and only Miss Thursday is there to receive him. She immediately goes on the offensive and tries to persuade him to admit his romantic intentions towards her. O’Rourke is confused by her forwardness, and eeds her to spell it out for him, a job which actually gets turned over to Kirby York who enters the scene about halfway through. Over the course of one night in the fort, Miss Thursday has been transformed into a woman who takes matters into her own hands.

Later that day, Miss Thursday decides to fix up her and her father’s house, which proves to be our more solid introduction of another important female character in this film, Mrs. Collingwood. It is Mrs. Collingwood, in fact, who makes all of the arrangements for the Thursdays to have furniture and food and even a servant. That night, when Owen Thursday comes home from work and inds his house fixed up he is very surprised, and slightly confused at how it happened. He is openly admitting here that Philadelphia is more capable than he, at least in the matters of the home, because of the fact that she was able to take care of a matter he was not. Male characters do not do this in Western films. The entire genre is built around a macho mindset in which the male is the all-­? mighty, yet here Ford has decided to give power to Miss Thursday and by association Mrs. Collingwood. It is one of the first instances that Ford shows us 5 how important his female characters are. Without them, we are to ssume that the entire fort would have nothing and would therefore collapse. This scene is also significant to note because of what it foreshadows for later in the film. Owen Thursday and Mrs. Collingwood end up being our too most powerful characters, which I will explain, and through this scene Ford is showing us who deserves this power. This scene allows us the room to be skeptical of Owen Thursday, and believe his poor decision making at the end of the film, because we are led to ask how he is capable of running a fort when he can’t even run a house hold.

This idea of giving Miss Thursday and Mrs. Collingwood power over men is n contrast to both Mulvey and Movshovitz. These women are in motion, they move about on their own two feet freely and therefore, according to Movshovitz, are questionable. Yet, how can we question them when they are giving such positive contributions to our male heroes? These women are making it possible for the men of the fort to live and defend it. I believe Movshovitz would make the argument that Ford is foreshadowing here, and that the reasons that these women are not to be trusted arrives later in the film.

Conform or Defy

Gender roles in the society of the human race have always been that the women bare the children and take care of the home while the man is out working and bringing home the money to support his family. In certain societies this is still true and women do not have a say in what they do. The role and identity of women in certain societies has been shaped and it is up to the woman under this conformity to conform or defy.

The roles of women through the eyes of Marjane Satrapi as a young girl were quite “normal” for her. As a young girl she did not realize how different of a life style she was living from other young girls her age living in Iran. For example when she was six she says, “I wanted to be a Prophet because our maid did not eat with us. ” Later on in the story she reveals that their maid named Mehri was eight years old when she had to leave her parents’ home to come to work for Marjane and her family.

As a teenager, Mehri begins falling in love with the neighbors’ son. When Marjane’s family finds this out her father goes over to the boys home and tells him, “I know that Mehri pretends she is my daughter. In reality she is my maid. ” Marjane does not understand why this cannot be. Her father says, “You must understand that their love was impossible, because in this country you must stay within your own social class. ” Marjane begins to understand the whole concept of the Revolution and wants to demonstrate against it.

Women in the novel conform to and also defy the expectations that are placed on them by going out and demonstrating during the Revolution but also confirm by wearing the veil. Over a broadcast a man declares, “Women’s hair emanates rays that excite men. That’s why women should cover their hair! If in fact it is really more civilized to go without the veil, then animals are more civilized than we are. ” Marjane says, “In no time the way people dressed became an ideological sign. ” Marjane says, “There were two different kinds of women, the fundamentalist woman and the modern woman. The fundamentalist woman covered her entire body with a black veil and only showed her face. The modern woman to show their opposition to the regime would still wear the veil but let a few strands of hair show and they would not cover their entire body either. They would wear pants, boots, and long coats. This was done in order to protect the women from all the potential rapists, it was decreed that wearing the veil was obligatory. As a teenager she was stopped by the “Guardians of the Revolution. ” These women were in place to arrest women who were improperly veiled.

At the committee, they did not have to inform parents and they could detain girls for hours or even days. They could be whipped and in short anything could happen. This was quite traumatizing for Marjane however she did not tell her parents. Overall, the effects of these societal expectations on the psyche and development of Marjane as a child were very influenced by the revolution. Her parents tried their best to protect her from what was going on in their country. They tried to still give her all the liberties of that the Western children had.

They did not want to take away from her childhood and wanted her to have the absolute best. They wanted her to have the best education and normal social life possible and free of terrorism. At the age of fourteen she was sent away to Austria where she would finish school and be a lot safer.

Works Cited

1. Satrapi, Marjane. Persepolis. United States: Pantheon Books, 2003. Print.
2. Satrapi, Marjane. “Persepolis. ” The Story of a Childhood. 2003:
3.  Medium. Satrapi, Marjane. “Persepolis. ” The Story of a Childhood. 2003: 36-37 .
4. Medium. Satrapi, Marjane. “Persepolis. ” The Story of a Childhood. 2003: 74-75.