Women

We have, more or less, as an audience become used to the idealized depiction of women. Often, particularly in classical styles, they were portrayed as reclining nudes who were there for the viewer’s pleasure. With averted eyes, they touched themselves sensually, typically innocent and oblivious that there is someone painting her for all to see. When they weren’t sexual-fantasy fodder, they were servile and obedient–particularly in the 1940?s and 1950?s after the end of the strong women era of World War II.

They wore their hair in perfect curls, with their perfect dresses and worked merrily away in their perfect kitchens. In Jack Levine’s Girl with Red Hair there is a shift away from the perfect, care-free woman that came before. Rather, nudity is embraced as an aspect of the woman’s power rather than the viewer’s object. The subject confronts the viewer with her gaze. This portrait is not a portrait of a naked girl, but rather, a girl who happens to be naked. There is no trace of sexiness or sensuality–we are drawn to her face so that we may attempt to discern what this girl is thinking.

Though her breasts are there, they are poorly rendered compared to the depth of her face and do not trap the eye like the neatly depicted flesh of the reclining nudes. Hotline for Troubled Teens, 1970. Joe DeMers (1910-1984). Acrylic on board, 22 ? x 18 ? in. New Britain Museum of American Art, Gift of Walt Reed, 2000. 45. Through both this artistic empowerment of women and the then energized Feminist Movement, women became less objects for a viewer’s pleasure and instead independent characters. In Joe DeMers’ Hotline for Troubled Teens, the gender is nearly removed from the girl.

She is seen wearing an over-shirt that hides her breasts and her other feminine features are minimized. The girl is entered into a narrative–no longer is there a displaced nude body just lying around. Instead, we are shown a girl in her not-so-ideal life. Her face is concerned and the telephone cord is wrapped about her shoulders and wrist. She appears to be entirely dismissive of her viewers–be they out on the street around her, or elsewhere. She is self-serving and concerned with only her present situation.

The title even suggests that this girl is reaching out (at the time, even that would have been taboo) in order to help herself–a principle that began to empower women during the Feminist Movement. Laneisha II, 1996. Dawoud Bey (b. 1953). Polacolor ER prints, 90 x 45 3/4 in. New Britain Museum of American Art, Members Purchase Fund, 2000. 34. This is one of my favorite pieces of the collection for many reasons. Predominantly, the depiction of women has centered around the “ideal woman”–which, if you haven’t picked up a magazine lately, is typically white, attractive, young, thin and perky.

The woman here, however, is the antithesis. Though she is attractive, she does not have the “elegant” features that a painter might have looked for in the first half of the century. She is fragmented into six pieces and while they mostly match up–in that there are no huge gaps of information–there is a significant deformation of her figure. Her face is extra wide and left arm seems oddly long. A clear difference between the perfectly kept and rendered women of the past, this modern woman allows her flaws and her discord to be reflected in between each frame.

She is a woman, not an object to behold. Untitled, 2000. Cindy Sherman (b. 1954). Color photograph, edition 1/6, 32 1/2 x 22 in. Members Purchase Fund, 2000. 88. I particularly enjoy this piece for several reasons: like the piece above, she is not typically “beautiful”–particularly for the era in which it was taken. Rather, her appearance is outdated–thick, dark eyebrows, slicked back hair and that awful blue blouse she is wearing. Instead of dismissing the woman as ugly, we are able to see past her physicality.

She bears a face that almost says “Yeah, so what? ’ to her audience. She isn’t hip, nor is she young and beautiful (as dictated by the standards of society) any more. There is a bluntness to this photograph that disempowers the sitter; it almost seems as if she’s the one judging and not vice-versa. Beauty I, 2002. Mark Catalina (b. 1965). Acrylic on canvas, 72 x 72 in. New Britain Museum of American Art, Gift of the Artist, 2003. 01 Lastly, this piece seems to me to be the most poignant out of the bunch.

We are not privy to the “real” image, but only its negative. In form, we might recognize the person as a female. They have breasts, long flowing hair, jewelry… some of the key indicators of what we may associate with being a woman. However, with the inverted colors, we are shown someone with manly features and thus, the lines of gender are blurred. Clearly, the makeup the subject is wearing is exaggerated–dark lips and cat-like eyeshadow–and further masks the individual’s gender.

This piece is so inexorably tied to the way in which sex and gender are separated and defined. In this, the artist is redefining the appearance of women, in that women may not even be “feminine” at all. This piece broaches the subject of femininity and womanhood in an entirely new way, and is entirely appropriate in the evolving context of women in art. What do you think about the portrayal of women in art? How has it changed in the last 500 years? 50 years? 5 years? How can women gain power through representation in art? How does this compare to men in art?

WI agree with the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s allowance of women to be in combat position. I find it a little sexist that women were denied the chance to not have combat roles. In the article, “Pentagon Removes Ban on Women in Combat” by Ernesto Londono of The Washington Post, it says, “Panetta announced a lifting of the ban on female service members in combat roles, a watershed policy change that was informed by women’s valor in Iraq and Afghanistan and that removes the remaining barrier to a fully inclusive military. ” I think that women are just as capable as men.

Even if their bodies aren’t built as strong and men, they have determination and can do so many things, even better than some men. The army currently excludes women from about 25 percent of active-duty roles. The article says that, “The decision comes after a decade of counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, where women demonstrated heroism on battlefields with no front lines. ” To me this is proving the point that women are just as capable with men. Women are just as much as heroes as men are and just as inspiring, if not more.

The Army and the marines are going to present their plans to open most jobs to women by May 15. I really think that this is an excellent idea. As the article says, it’s “monumental. ” I absolutely agree. “Every time equality is recognized and meritocracy is enforced, it helps everyone, and it will help professionalize the force. ” I agree that the force will be more professional with women in combat roles and not just men. Of course this announcement has created a lot of critics and lots of skeptics.

The article says, “Critics of opening combat positions to women have argued for years that integration during deployments could create a distracting, sexually charged atmosphere in the force that women are unable to perform some of the more physically demanding jobs. ” I say that is sexist. Women are emotionally and physically strong. They may not be able to bench press the amount that men can but they can do a whole lot and the combat roles would be very lucky to have them. If they want to dedicate their time/life to the military then let them.

In the article it says, “Lifting the ban will go a long way toward changing the culture of a male dominated institution in which women have long complained about discrimination and a high incidence of sexual assault. ” I think throughout history, women’s rights have been a serious issue. If they let women fight on combat roles, it would do wonders that would go down in history. Another thing the article says is, “’I’ve served with women at all levels, and based on my experience, women have done a phenomenal job,’ said the officer. Women are phenomenal, I agree. They can do amazing things, just as much as men. It’s important that the military doesn’t lower their standards of what’s acceptable and not and they address this in the article when they say, “It is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world. ” I think that women can reach these high standards and perform them just as well. I agree with the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s position to allow women in have a role in combat positions.

It is generally said that “Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus”. Although both of them belong to the human species, they very much differ from each other, physically, as well as, mentally. Since the start of the human civilization, there has been a never-ending debate if men and women do actually differ or not. They may be equal, but, it’s certain that they are not the same. Men and women differ physically in the several obvious ways.

For example, an average man is taller and heavier than an average woman; Men have more bodily hair than women; Men have larger hearts and lungs; Women have breasts to feed the offspring, etc. These physical differences are a result of differential hormonal secretion. The mental differences are a result of the progress in the human life. When humans lived in the forests, at the beginning of the Human life, men and women weren’t much different mentally. Each individual, invariably of whether that was a man or a woman, hunted for feeding himself/herself.

The major difference was that women were getting themselves trained at multitasking, by guarding the young ones, as they hunted. They also scored well in teaching, as they taught the survival skills to their children. The forest life ended as they began to form groups and live under the shelter of the caves. There was a change in the lifestyle, since man decided to keep his woman safe at home i. e. the cave. This also helped women in improving their multitasking skills as they cleaned the place, took care of the children and communicated with the neighbours.

This also accounts for their excellence in speaking. Men were out to places; As a result, they got acquainted with locales better than women. They observed routes as they needed them for their next hunt. As a result, they were (and are) good in remembering routes. Contrasting multitasking women, men are exceptionally good at concentrating over a single task. This follows from the regular hunting routine which required a lot of concentration and patience to wait until the right time has popped up.

As a result, men were better at focusing on the task at hand and completing the job, before moving on to the next one. This also indirectly reduced the speaking skills of men by making a physical change in their brain. The centre responsible for concentration was not big enough to accommodate the improvements in focusing skills. So, it needed to be expanded. But simply expanding the concentration centre would increase the brain size, thus making it crucial for the (male) baby’s head to come out of the mother’s womb. Hence some adjustments are to be made before it could be enlarged.

The speaking centre was chosen to be decreased, so as, to increase the centre for concentration due to the fact that being noiseless is one of the most important qualities of a good hunter because the slightest sound made would easily hint the prey. This is why men hardly speak one-third times as much as women per day. Men are good at some chores while women are good at some other. It is important to recognize that neither is better. They are simply wildly different. It is important to accept and respect the differences. This will bring up a better understanding in relationships and eventually improve the quality of life.

Women’s Rights Collins hammers home the point that women in England, regardless of their social standing, their education, their moral behavior or their finances, have few legal rights for protection. Laura Fairlie is robbed of her identity and her inheritance by a greedy, unscrupulous husband. Mrs. Catherick has her reputation ruined by a misunderstanding that leaves her divorced and alone at the mercy of the man who caused the misunderstanding. Anne Catherick is falsely imprisoned in a mental institution, as is her half-sister Laura Fairlie.

Both escape without the help of any man and go into hiding. Countess Eleanor Fairlie Fosco is denied her rightful inheritance by her older brother Philip simply because he disapproves of her marriage. This drives her to crime to gain back her inheritance. Laura Fairlie is assaulted by her husband and finds no help from the law to protect her, and even her guardian, Frederick Fairlie,… An Analysis of Female Identity in Wilkie Collins’s The Woman in White   This article looks at the issue of female identity in Wilkie Collins’s The Woman in White.

It analyzes two key scenes from the novel to reveal how construction and style inevitably influence the representation of identity, as well as assessing the text in relation to genre, particularly the role of the Gothic in Collins’s narrative. A prevalent theme in The Woman in White is confinement. Both Anne Catherick and Laura Fairlie are confined in a mental asylum by Sir Percival Glyde. The novel effectively reworks traditional in its depictions of confinement and the female characters’ jailer.

The Woman in White belongs to the genre of ‘sensation’ fiction, Collins’s novel being regarded as innovative as it is the first, and arguably the greatest, of the English sensation novels. Sensation fiction is generally considered a hybrid genre in that it combines the elements of romance familiar to readers of Gothic fiction and the domestic context familiar to readers of realist fiction. In The Woman in White the terrors of eighteenth-century Gothic fiction are transferred from their exotic medieval settings, such as those employed in the novels of Ann Radcliffe, and relocated in contemporary nineteenth-century English society.

Melodrama is a genre closely related to sensationalism. Some of the features of melodrama, such as extreme states of being, situations, actions; dark plottings and suspense, are clearly apparent in the storyline of The Woman in White. The character of Laura Fairlie comes closest to a typical melodramatic heroine, especially in terms of physical appearance, being young, fair and beautiful. She also embodies both purity and powerlessness. However her role in the story is curiously passive as she is denied a formal narrative voice.

Her passivity is the counterpart of her half-sister Marian Halcombe’s activity. Marian is a complex individual whose characterization falls outside conventional literary or social models, partially evinced in the striking physical contrast between her face and body. Walter informs the reader that her figure is “tall, yet not too tall; comely and well-developed… her waist, perfection in the eyes of a man” (p. 31). Yet her facial features are somewhat inconsistent with her body: “the dark down on her upper lip was almost a moustache. She had a large, firm, masculine mouth and jaw” (p. 32).

The formal nature of Walter’s description employs melodramatic techniques yet the incongruous content of this description appears to challenge melodramatic conventions. Sensation fiction’s emphasis on plot means that it often depends on secrets, which seem never-ending: as when one secret is uncovered, another is revealed. The presence of secrets inevitably invites spying, an action Marian chooses to take in one of the novel’s most suspenseful scenes, when, fearing that her half-sister’s livelihood may be in danger, she spies on the villains Sir Percival and Count Fosco in the dead of night.

A forbidding atmosphere is swiftly established with an air of menace clearly apparent in the imminent rain, described as being “threatening”, while the adjectives “black”, “pitch” and “blinding” are used to evoke the impenetrability of the night’s inevitable “darkness”. Marian’s decision to listen at the window seems to be partially determined by Count Fosco’s opinions of her “sharpness” and “courage”. Later on in his and Percival’s conversation, Fosco asserts that Marian has “the foresight and resolution of a man” (p. 30). The shedding of her womanly attire in order to facilitate her position on the roof goes someway to consolidate this identity as a ‘masculinized woman’, a type fairly common in sensation fiction. However Marian is somewhat at odds with the heroines of most sensationalist novels in her fundamental moral probity, evinced in this scene with her eagerness to find one factor to justify her subsequent actions to herself: “I wanted but one motive to sanction the act to my own conscience” (p. 24), finding it in the form of her half-sister: “Laura’s honour, Laura’s happiness – Laura’s life itself – might depend on my quick ears and my faithful memory tonight” (p. 324). The actual passages detailing her spying on Percival and Fosco are especially tense, partially through Marian’s situation – her position on the roof is precariously close to the Countess’s bedroom and it is apparent, from the light behind the window, that the woman is not yet in bed.

The paragraph that discloses this fact to the reader is composed of sentences comprising numerous short clauses, some of only two words in length, as well as a copious use of dashes – stylistic effects that succeed in bringing the reader ever closer to the “strangeness and peril” (p. 328) of Marian’s situation, and the “dread”, which she “could not shoulder” (p. 328). Also Collins’s use of direct speech in depicting the villains’ conversation consolidates this effect, and added with the moodily Gothic ambience, succeeds in bringing the reader into uncomfortably close proximity to Marian’s current situation.

The style of narrative an author adopts inevitably effects the nature of their characters. In The Woman in White we see the characters of female protagonists shaped by both formal and contextual decisions. This article has gone some way into revealing how identities are constructed through a combination of narrative methods and genre conventions, as well as the actual content of Collins’s novel, such as other characters and settings. The Woman in White was an incredibly popular novel.

Collins’ masterful creation of suspense made for an immensely successful work amongst the Victorian populace. SENSATION FICTION: Contemporary Reviews and Responses The following reviews of Victorian sensation fiction are arranged according to theme and author. The reviews included here are are only a small sampling of Victorian reaction to and enthusiasm for sensation fiction. In future, this collection will be more thorough and will feature full reviews rather than selected sections.

Sensation Fiction in General At no age, so far as we are aware, has there yet existed anything resembling the extraordinary flood of novels which is now pouring over this land — certainly with fertilising results, so far as the manufacture itself is concerned. There were days, halcyon days — as one still may ascertain from the gossip of the seniors of society — when an author was a natural curiosity, recognized and stared at as became the rarity of the phenomenon.

No such thing is possible nowadays, when most people have been in print one way or other — when stains of ink linger on the prettiest of fingers, and to write novels is the normal condition of a large section of society. Margaret Oliphant on Count Fosco from The Woman in White: The violent stimulant of serial publication — of weekly publication, with its necessity for frequent and rapid recurrence of piquant situation and startling incident — is the thing of all others most likely to develop the germ, and bring it to fuller and darker bearing. What Mr.

Wilkie Collins has done with delicate care and laborious reticence, his followers will attempt without any such discretion. No divine influence can be imagined as presiding over the birth of [the sensation writer’s] work, beyond the market-law of demand and supply; no more immortality is dreamed of for it than for the fashions of the current season. A commercial atmosphere floats around works of this class, redolent of the manfactory and the shop. The public wants novels, and novels must be made — so many yards of printed stuff, sensation-pattern, to be ready by the beginning of the season.

H. L. Mansel, Quarterly Review, 113 (April 1863): 495 – 6. Sensation Fiction and the Woman Reader [Today’s heroines in English novels include] Women driven wild with love for the man who leads them on to desperation before he accords that word of encouragement that carries them into the seventh heaven; women who marry their grooms in fits of sensual passion; women who pray their lovers to carry them off from the husbands and homes they hate; women … who give and receive burning kisses and frantic embraces, and live in a voluptuous dream. … the dreaming maiden … aits now for flesh and muscles, for strong arms that seize her, and warm breath that thrills her through, and a host of other physical attractions which she indicates to the world with a charming frankness. On the other side of the picture, it is, of course, the amber hair and undulating form, the warm flesh and glowing colour, for which the youth sighs. … this eagerness for physical sensation is represented as the natural sentiment of English girls. * * * * * * * [Lady Audley’s Secret] brought in the rein of bigamy as an interesting and fashionable crime, which no doubt shows a certain deference to the British relish for law and order.

It goes against the seventh commandment, no doubt, but it does it in a legitimate sort of way, and is an invention which could only have been possible to an Englishwoman knowing the attraction of impropriety, and yet loving the shelter of law. There is nothing more violently opposed to our moral sense, in all the contradictions to custom they present to us, than the utter unrestraint in which the heroines of this order are allowed to expatiate and develop their impulsive, stormy, passionate characters.

We believe it is one chief among their many dangers to youthful readers that they open out a picture of life free from all the perhaps irksome checks that confine their own existence. … The heroine of this class of novel is charming because she is undisciplined, and the victim of impulse; because she has never known restraint or has cast it aside, because in all these respects she is below the thoroughly trained and tried woman. Wilkie Collins The Woman in White Mr. Collins is an admirable story-teller, though he is not a great novelist.

His plots are framed with artistic ingenuity — he unfolds them bit by bit, clearly, and with great care — and each chapter is a most skilful sequel to the chapter before. He does not attempt to paint character or passion. He is not in the least imaginative. He is not by any means a master of pathos. The fascination which he exercises over the mind of his reader consists in this — that he is a good constructor. Each of his stories is a puzzle, the key to which is not handed to us till the third volume.

With him, accordingly, character, passion, and pathos are mere accessory colouring which he employs to set off the central situation in his narrative. … Men and women he draws, not for the sake of illustrating human nature and life’s varied phases, or exercising his own powers of creation, but simply and solely with reference to the part it is necessary they should play in tangling or disentangling his argument. He is, as we have said, a very ingenious constructor; but ingenious construction is not high art, just as cabinet-making and joining is not high art.

Mechanical talent is what every great artist ought to possess. Mechanical talent, however, is not enough to entitle a man to rank as a great artist … Nobody leaves one of his tales unfinished. This is a great compliment to his skill. But then very few feel at all inclined to read them a second time. Our curiosity once satisfied, the charm is gone. All that is left is to admire the art with which the curiosity was excited. In response to Saturday Review commentary above: The Woman in White is the latest, and by many degrees the best work of an author who had already written so many singularly good ones.

That mastery in the art of construction for which Mr. Wilkie Collins has long been pre-eminent among living writers of fiction is here exhibited upon the largest, and proportionately, the most difficult scale he has yet attempted. To keep the reader’s attention fairly and equably on the alert throughout a continuous story that fills three volumes of the ordinary novel form, is no common feat; but the author of the Woman in White has done much more than this. Every two of his thousand and odd pages contain as much printed matter as three or four of those to which the majority of Mr.

Mudie’s subscribers are most accustomed, and from his first page to his last the interest is progressive, cumulative, and absorbing. If this be true — and it appears to be universally admitted — what becomes of the assertion made by some critics, that it is an interest of mere curiosity which holds the reader so fast and holds him so long? The thing is palpably absurd. Curiosity can do much, but it cannot singly accomplish all that is imputed to it by this theory, for it is impossible that its intensity should be sustained without intermission through so long a flight.

If The Woman in White were indeed a protracted puzzle and nothing more, the reader’s attention would often grow languid over its pages; he would be free from the importunate desire that now possesses him to go through every line of it continuously; he would be content to take it up and lay it down at uncertain intervals, or be strongly tempted to skip to the end and find out the secret at once, without more tedious hunting through labyrinths devised only to retard his search, and not worth exploring for their own sake.

But he yields to no such temptation, for the secret which is so wonderfully well kept to the end of the third volume is not the be-all and end-all of his interest in the story. Even Mr. Wilkie Collins himself, with all his constructive skill, would be at fault if he attempted to build as elaborate story on so narrow a basis… Unsigned Review, Spectator, 33 (8 September 1860): 864. [pic] Henry James on Wilkie Collins: To Mr Collins belongs the credit of having introduced into fiction those mysterious of mysteries, the mysteries which are at our own doors. Mary Elizabeth Braddon M. E. Braddon] might not be aware how young women of good blood and good training feel. . [pic] Lady Audley is at once the heroine and the monstrosity of the novel. In drawing her, the authoress may have intended to portray a female Mephistopheles; but, if so, she would have known that a woman cannot fill such a part. The nerves with which Lady Audley could meet unmoved the friend of the man she had murdered, are the nerves of a Lady Macbeth who is half unsexed, and not those of the timid, gentle, innocent creature Lady Audley is represented as being. …

All this is very exciting; but is also very unnatural. The artistic faults of this novel are as grave as the ethical ones. Combined, they render it one of the most noxious books of the modern times. Marian Halcombe from The Woman in White “I said to myself, the lady is dark. She moved forward a few steps –and said to myself, the lady is young. She approached nearer – and I said to myself with a sense of surprise which words fail me to express – the lady is ugly! ” – The Woman in White Victorian novels with poor, plain heroines are nothing unusual, but it’s rare to find one who is downright ugly.

Then again, Marian Halcombe, the heroine of Wilkie Collins’ sensation novel The Woman in White, cares very little for social convention. In 1860, when even the first wave of feminism was yet to hit, Marian refuses to be content with a life that limits her to “patience, petticoats and propriety”. She knows that in a world where a woman is her husband’s legal property, marriage was not the happy ending for women of her era that convention claimed: “No man under heaven deserves these sacrifices from us women…they take us body and soul to themselves, and fasten our helpless lives to theirs as they chain up a dog to his kennel.

And what does the best of them give us in return? ” She has a point – the novel revolves around a rather melodramatic plot by the sinister Sir Percival Glyde and the fiendish Count Fosco to gain control over the considerable fortune of Laura Fairlie, Marian’s angelic half-sister, and the attempts of both Marian and Walter Hartright, Laura’s equally poor would-be suitor, to rescue her from an abusive marriage.

Our first glimpse of her is through Walter’s eyes, and the description is hardly intended to be flattering – she’s sporting a bit of a ‘tache, and he finds her pallor unattractively “swarthy” (Laura’s later reference to “Gypsy skin” suggests that Marian is of mixed heritage). But before feminist readers have time to draw an outraged breath, Marian proceeds to launch into a five-page monologue that establishes her as one of the most sparkling creations in the whole of literature. Ever.

Although Walter is the overall narrator and inexplicably believes himself to be the hero of the hour, all the risks and major discoveries are made by Marian. It is her diaries that provide a large portion of the narrative, and her quick thinking that saves her sister from a grisly fate. In addition, she can beat any man at billiards, she’s a bit of an intellectual goddess, and she singlehandedly runs the entire household. On the downside, she’s a bit of a snob and prone to making rather rash decisions like taking off most of her clothes, climbing onto the roof and then doing a bit of eavesdropping.

She is driven by her near-obsessive love for Laura and whilst their relationship is emotionally complex, it is never cloying or mawkish – instead it is intense, co-dependent and rather more passionate than their sibling bond should allow. Their closeness is such that Laura’s one act of assertiveness in the entire novel is to insist that Marian’s constant presence in her life be written into her marriage contract, and Laura extracts a promise from her that she “will not be fond of anybody but [her]”.

When the wedding night approaches, it is Marian who explains what Laura is to expect: “The simple illusions of her girlhood are gone; and my hand has stripped them off. Better mine than his – that’s all my consolation – better mine than his. ” Steamy stuff for 1860. But neither her implied queerness or her supposed ugliness stopped countless readers writing to Collins asking if Marian was based on a real woman, and if said woman happened to be single. Even the evil (and married) Count Fosco is taken with her, although he seems to be more attracted to her as a potential partner in crime as a candidate for a mistress.

Whilst Marian may lack the ethereal beauty of her sister, critic Nina Auerbach describes her as “a truly sexy woman”, noting that she is in fact the embodiment of androgynous pre-Raphaelite sensuality. The end of the novel has drawn criticism from feminist readers – the plucky, independent heroine is now content to stay at home and help her sister and brother-in-law raise a family in true domestic bliss. However, true to the spirit of their multilayered relationship, Marian is less Laura’s unpaid babysitter than a co-parent, still threatening the bonds of hetero happiness long after the supposedly happy ending has occurred.

In a world that presented marriage and motherhood as the only options, Marian rejects what Adrienne Rich would later describe as “compulsory heterosexuality” in favour of life as the devoted partner of another woman. She is an amateur detective, early feminist and, despite her vulnerable position, refuses to be a damsel in distress. She was a groundbreaking character when she first appeared, and even 150 years later she remains one of the most memorable characters in Victorian literature.

In the closing chapters of Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina (Penguin Books, 2003), Dolly, Anna’s sister-in-law, reveals that “Whatever way one lives, there’s a penalty. ” This is the central message in Tolstoy’s work, a tragedy whose themes include aristocracy, faith, hypocrisy, love, marriage, family, infidelity, greed, and every other issue prevalent among human beings. Anna Karenina is a tragic figure, but she can also be considered a feminist one. Her experiences resonate with female readers because she does the unexpected: she moves against the grain.

And with any woman—at least in literature—who accomplishes the unexpected, the inappropriate, she pays the price for it. A Princess, an aristocrat married to Count Alexei Karenin, an important man twenty years her senior, Anna Karenina is a socialite, a respected woman, a wife, and a mother. It seems as if she has it all, until she meets the handsome and charming young Count Alexei Vronsky. He stirs things in her—physical and emotional—that she has never experienced. This lack of experience in the spaces of love and desire is common—historically—for women.

They married who they were told to marry—for money, for titles, and for security. Not for love. Anna Karenina is not in love with her husband. She tolerates him, but secretly she feels repulsed by this rigid, domineering, and paternal man twice her age. Vronsky’s wooing of her endanger s her place in society, her marriage, and even her role as mother. When she succumbs to an affair with him, she does so with open eyes, aware of all that she is sacrificing for the sake of love.

And this isn’t the tragedy of the novel, of the situation. The tragedy is that she is a woman in a man’s world: “It was fate; she was doomed” from the start. And she was doomed because she was a woman acting out on her desires. Paralleled to her brother, Stiva, and his insuppressible and known womanizing, the novel demonstrates the evident attitudes society had at this time toward men and women acting in similar fashion. Men, the public faces of society, had the power, the voice, and the volition to act in any way they wished.

Stiva’s womanizing is something his wife, Dolly, has to suffer silently. She has no power to stop it. She is merely the wife. She goes about her business taking care of the home and her children, knowing that gossip and shame shadow her footsteps. Although infidelity is looked upon as an act of dishonor, society looks the other way when men succumb to its powers. Men continue to keep their marriages, the power in the home—over their wives and children, their jobs, and their place in society goes unvarnished.

Even Vronsky, who openly seeks the affections of Anna, a married woman, a mother, and has an affair with her, has eyes rolled at him, but his career is never placed in danger. He does not lose his place in society, his options, his money, or his power. He loves, he takes what he wants, and then when he is done—when Anna becomes too obsessive, too cumbersome an affair—he simply walks away. In the end, he’s lost nothing. He gave up nothing. With women, following their hearts is not so acceptable. It’s a tragedy, as we come to see with Anna.

In following her heart, her passions, Anna loses her marriage, which is controlled by Karenin, who kicks her out of their home, but refuses to give her a divorce. In this way, she cannot marry Vronsky. She is forced to become his mistress and live with him in disgrace. When she takes her love out into the public, she is shunned by the same people who once loved her, while everyone shakes Vronsky’s hands. And the most valuable asset that she loses is access to her son, who is told that she is dead. Having lost everything and everyone, the only thing that remains is Vronsky.

And she grabs on to him with great force, with desperation, pushing him farther and farther away from her with every aching need she can muster. But he grows tired of her love and confesses to her that “A man needs his career,” for he still has that fall back on. She has nothing. In losing him, she loses everything, and it is no wonder that she commits suicide. A woman in her day, having lost her place in society, her role as mother and wife, she cannot sustain herself. She gave everything up for love, for passion, for herself, to feed her own desires, but no one gave anything up for her.

She dies tragically, while everyone around her continues to move on without her. Today, we can look at a character like Anna Karenina and come face-to-face with a feminist: she is strong, determined, bold, and she fights the patriarchal powers that tell her she cannot have what men are allowed, no matter their place in society. And even though her attempts come crashing around her in the end, resulting in her violent suicide, she had the courage to act against the norm. This is empowerment. This is a feminist.

Why do you think so few women and racial minorities have been elected to Congress? That is a question that can come with many different answers. In my opinion, I believe that there is a different reason between women and minorities for their lack of success in Congress. Both reasons involve the past, but in different ways.

The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are 435 members in the House of the Representatives. The Senate has 100 members. Both senators and representatives are chosen through direct election.

The main reason why women and minorities are not popular in Congress is because of descriptive representation. Descriptive representation is a belief that constituents are represented effectively by legislators who are similar to them (Challenge of Democracy). The characters that qualify are race, ethnicity, religion, or gender. That is the main factor why there are so few women and minorities in Congress. Due to the past, the demographic characteristic is a white male.

As far as African American activity in government goes, a lot of progress has been made. In the past slavery kept blacks from being involved at all. They slowly made progress when they were counted as 3/5th of a person. Then they moved on to being free persons, and from then the African Americans moved on. There were many influential blacks to America. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks were two very important people. They changed America for the better and helped African Americans advance in life.

African Americans began serving in Congress during the Reconstruction Era after slaves were freed and granted citizen rights. Free black men gained political representation in the South. White Democrats took back political power and tried to return white supremacy. Legislatures lowered voting for blacks by passing tougher voter laws. As a result of the African American Civil Rights Movement, Congress passed laws to end segregation and protect civil rights and voting rights.

When Congress changed the Voting Rights Acts in 1982, the states made districts that put minorities together. They thought it would make it a better chance for African Americans and Hipics to be elected into office. They fixed the “make-up” of the districts.

Women were never seen as a necessity in the business world in the past. They were not useful when it came to farming in men’s eyes. They were always needed to do the household chores and making sure the kids were being taken care of. Men believed that women were not as strong as men. It was as if they were not as important as men. Women were not allowed to vote until 1920, and before then not many women were involved in the government (Women in Congress). If you could not choose who was going to make decisions for you, why would you even be concerned? There was only one state, New Jersey, who allowed women to vote for 17 years (1790-1807). The only way they could vote was if they fit the land requirements.

I believe though that the reason why there are so few women and minorities in Congress is because America is not ready to change. They are stuck on the way things were before and never trying new things. People are not willing to even give a woman the time of day, even if she has great ideas. It would be someone they brush off because women aren’t smarter than men.

Minorities are not even considered an option in Congress just because of their title as a “minority”. There are a minor amount of minorities and it is hard to find the ones that are determined to better themselves in life. It is almost as if they’ve given up on trying to become an image breaker. Everyone believes in the descriptive representation and that is why minorities are not involved in the government (Congress vs. Minorities).

As the years have progressed though there is one man that I must give credit to for making a huge advancement for minorities in government, Barack Obama. He had many obstacles to overcome to get there. There were many people that told him he didn’t stand a chance in the race. He was determined and he now is sitting in the office as President of the United States.

Demographic groups have always been a large role in Congress. The groups consist of race, gender, ethnicity, or religion. The groups vote for people that are in the considerable same group as them. For example, if a Catholic runs against a Jew, most Catholics would vote for the Catholic.

In 2050, there will be remarkably many different things going on in the world. There is a chance that a black woman will be the President. A Hipic male might be the Speaker of the House. Global Warming could be done for, and New Orleans could possibly be submerged underwater. All possibilities of what the world could be like in 40 years.

I believe that the world will have a new outlook on things and demographic groups will not exist so prevalently. I think people will be able to make decisions based on their own likings and not what their “group” is doing. People are becoming more independent in their choices in 2010, so 40 years from now the world’s mindset will be free.

To support my reasoning on people being independent now is through the example of Obama winning the presidential election. I believe that people stepped out of their demographic group on their voting choice. Yes, most African Americans voted for Obama, but even the African Americans affiliated with a different religion voted for him. White people stepped out of their religion and race to vote for Obama.

I still believe demographic groups will exist, just not so commonly. Those that are stuck to traditions and keeping things the way they were will still be apart of the group. They will consist of less people, but there will be enough to rock a vote. Hopefully, the demographic groups will just completely wipe out and let people use their minds.

I want Americans to be able to make their own decisions. The reason why there are so few women and minorities in Congress has to do with choices made my Americans. African Americans that want to run for a position in Congress probably find it pointless due to the demographic groups. They feel that they shouldn’t waste their time since they already know the outcome especially if they run against a white male. Hopefully having Obama in office will give other minorities and women incentive to pursue their dream to be involved in the government.

The entire controversy will continue for years though. These have just been my personal opinion mixed in with facts. The ideas for the future I have are very well thought out, and I hope to see the progress in the future. If African Americans can go from being slaves to running the United States; I think it is more than possible for people to become more independent in their own thoughts and decisions.

The book, Lakota Woman, written by Mary Crow Dog, gave the reader a personal view of the feelings shared by most Indians living in the United States during this present day. The book dealt with the time period of Crow Dog’s life along with some references to past events. Crow Dog attempted to explain the hostility felt towards the white men in the United States by the surviving Indian population. She used her own life as an example in many instances to give the reader a personal perspective.

The main point in writing this book was to present the reader with the Indian viewpoint on how they were treated and what the effects of that treatment has done to their people over the years. From the beginning of the book it becomes evident that not all Indians are the same. Mary Crow Dogs grandparents grew up during a time when the United States was trying to “civilize” the Indians by forcing them to abandon their customs in favor of a Christian lifestyle.

Most Indians took offence to that proposition, but some did not. Crow Dog’s grandmother was one of the Indians who would have been termed as a successful convert. She adopted the Christian faith and was raising her grandchildren to accept Jesus in their lives. Crow Dog admitted the Jesus part sounded good, it was the beatings at the hands of the nuns and the awful food served to them at the boarding school that tainted their views of Christianity. Indians who accepted the white man’s ways were called half bloods.

Crow Dog said, “The general rule is that whoever thinks, sings, acts, and speaks Indian is a skin, a full-blood, and whoever acts and thinks like a white man is a half-blood or breed, no matter how Indian he looks. ” (49) This division among their own people often created hostility and sometimes led to violence. Another problem was the rage felt inside of the warriors who were having their lifestyle taken from them. These were men who were used to hunting for their food which in turn gave them a feeling of pride. Being held on a reservation took their spirit and crushed it.

It led to heavy drinking among a large amount of the male Indian population which sometimes led to violence against women. Crow Dog suggested that these men were acting out because they could not hunt and perform their duties as Indian males. The book spoke about the different religious ceremonies and the spirituality exemplified by the Indian people. The use of the pipe along with the Willow tree tobacco, the various dances performed, and the infusion of religion in every aspect of the Indians life showed the reader how important religion is to the Indian people.

Because of that knowledge, it was appalling to read how Leonard Crow Dog’s religious rights were violated and mocked in prison. The basic right of being able to freely practice a religion was denied to Crow Dog while incarcerated. The AIM, or American Indian Movement, was formed in order to bring to light the hardships faced by the Indians living in the United States and took a huge part in the Wounded Knee incident. Crow Dog was a member of that organization and married Leonard who was one of the group’s leaders. Power is a theme that is seen throughout the book in various forms.

Crow Dog spoke of the power felt during certain Indian customs such as smoking the peace pipe or performing the Ghost Dance. Another form of power was seen when the doctors at the hospital took Crow Dog’s sisters baby and killed it. As if that was not enough, her sister was sterilized so she could not have any more Indian children. Crow Dog made sure that would not happen to her own child who was born at Wounded Knee. The show of force by the military at Wounded Knee was another example of the power exerted by the white men on the Indians.

The fabricated charges brought against Leonard Crow Dog which resulted in his incarceration showed the power the government held and was willing to use against the Indians. The Indian women show their own version of power by making it their duty to procreate in order to replace the population of warriors who were lost defending the cause. Another theme running through the book is anger. Not surprisingly, Crow Dog and a good majority of her people felt that something was taken from them without their permission.

Because they harbor those feelings, they believe it is ok to do things like steal from stores owned by white people. They justify their actions because they feel they are getting their revenge against the white people who stole from them. Taking Wounded Knee over and performing the Ghost Dance was a way to show the white man that they were not going to be taken advantage of any longer. They were not going to let the white men stop them from performing their sacred ceremonies and change their way of life.

The Indians took their anger against the white man and used it as fuel. Crow Dog spoke of the hardships she had to deal with living as Leonard Crow Dogs wife. Initially she was not interested in Leonard Crow Dog, but years later she found herself married to him and acting as his main support line during his incarceration. When Leonard was released from prison she described how they had to become reacquainted with each other. Life was extremely challenging for Mary Crow Dog but she stood by her husband’s side and provided the support he needed.

After being released, Mary Crow Dog would follow Leonard to various places around the country where his help was needed to bring recognition to a person or groups issue. Her life was dedicated to Leonard and together they both fought for what they believed in. For Mary Crow Dog, her life as an Indian became complete when she took part in the Ghost Dance ceremony. Crow Dog was pierced in the traditional way and experienced the visions that her ancestors had for hundreds of years. She felt that she was finally a full blooded Indian after the ceremony which symbolized that her transition was complete.

The author, Mary Crow Dog, is an Indian who has experienced the hardships of life living as an Indian under the conditions the United States Government has mandated for the Indian people. She gave the account of her life and co-authored the book along with Richard Erdoes. Crow Dog has also written Ohitika Woman, while Erdoes has written several books including Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions, The Sun Dance People, The Rain Dance People, The Pueblo Indians, and Crying for a Dream. Erdoes used Crow Dogs firsthand account as the basis for writing this book.

The authors accomplished their goal of bringing the reader into the world of the Indians and presenting the difficulties they faced and had overcome over the years at the hands of the United States Government. I enjoyed the book. I felt that it informed the reader of the various problems the Indians have faced over the years and how some of those problems are still being dealt with. It showed the mistreatment of the Indians by the United States Government. It brought the reader into the world of the Indian and made you understand why their harbor resentment and hostility along with mistrust for white people and the government.

I think this book is important for anyone who is looking to get an inside look into the bruised feelings of Indians and the reasons behind those feelings. The book provided an overview of what tribe life is like and did not hide the negatives like the drinking problems and abuse of women. Anybody who is looking for knowledge into the feelings of Indians will benefit greatly from this book.

Reference

[ 1 ]. Mary Crow Dog and Richard Erdoes, Lakota Woman, (New York, N. Y. , Harper Perennial 1990)