Written On The Body

The narrator of ‘Written On The Body’ talks about a physical ‘secret code’ that can be found on someone’s physical being; A code that can describe to someone the person’s life and what they’ve been through. I like to think of this ‘secret code’ as sort of a first impression we get from people. How others dress and present themselves in public gives off an impression of how that person is like. Such as a man who wears leather jackets and big silver rings on his fingers with ripped up jeans and large muscles. We may see this person as a tough guy, someone who’s imposing and someone we may not want to talk to for fear that he may be rude or mean.

One’s own body can write that person’s identity. I believe this to be half true, but we will get to why later. I’ve never understood why people were so worried about their hair or how they dressed in public until a few years ago. But how a person dresses or does their hair call tell a few things about that person. If their hair is a total rats nest and looks like they haven’t taken a shower in a while, we may assume that person doesn’t care about hygiene or may be just too lazy to fret over this kind of stuff. Does that mean they really don’t care about hygiene? No. But we can’t tell specifically why their hair is a mess, we can only assume.

And that’s where I get to my opinion of it. Sure, we may be able to tell a few things just based on looking at someone, but humans are such complex individuals that we have to realize what we assume about others based off their looks may not be true. Take the ‘tough guy’ I had explained earlier. If you saw this man on the street, most wouldn’t go and talk to him because he’s quite imposing. But what if HE walked up to you, holding a kitten in his arms asking where the nearest veterinary clinic was? Just because someone dresses one way, doesn’t mean that what we assume is true about them. A body can only tell so much about someone.

In a way, our bodies do write our own identities, because how we dress has a big impact on how others see us. They are writing the impression for that person, and causing that person to think if we may be a friendly individual or maybe someone they don’t want to associate with. This is why most people can be self conscious. If someone wanted to show people that they are an athlete, they might wear jerseys and team sweatshirts. Or if they want to dress professionally to give off a professional look, they may dress in a suit or a skirt.

But people like me really don’t tend to care in our day to day lives what we dress like, because we don’t care how people may view us. I don’t wear a dress because I want my body to write me off as a girl who likes to dress up, I wear one because I just feel like it that day.  And even though my body is writing an identity for me, it doesn’t mean it’s correct. 

So in a way, yes. Our bodies write identities for us. But are most of the assumptions people get from the ‘secret code ‘ true? In my opinion no. Its judging a book by its cover, and nothing more.

A Day In The Life Of...

I do believe that a single day is all you need to understand where a person is coming from. And although I have recently found out that I don’t like books that use this method to tell a story, it was definitely an interesting way to get into the characters head.

Using only one day, writers can only focus on the character, and how they carry out the tasks of their day. How they wake up, how they get themselves ready, if they go to work or not. You can tell a lot from a person just by what they do every day as a routine, or what they get from a store. Allowing a reader to follow a character throughout a normal day gives you more insight that you may not get in a normal book that takes place over the course of a few days or so. How characters carry out their days, the little things they do, is completely different from what another person may do. I may wake up and eat breakfast right away, because I’m hungry when I get up while someone else may not eat breakfast at all. 

It also shows you a side of a character you may never get to see. Many mainstream books rarely focus for long on how a character may react. There’s problems to be solved, plots to continue, battles to be won! We can’t sit around and learn how the main character takes his coffee when the villain of the story is raging terror. If you have the book set in the course of a day, there is more time to sit down, and explain how the character reacts to things, why they do what they do. It just doesn’t show that she’s going to the flower shop just to buy flowers for the party. It shows that she doesn’t go there too often, because the conversation she has with the clerk it’s as friends but as consumer to clerk. 

Giving characters a reason on why they do, and giving the reader a closer look on how they react to things can make the reader feel more connected. How we react externally is completely different from how we act in our own heads. We don’t say everything that’s on our mind. By following a character, and seeing both reactions to a situation, we can really grasp what the character is all about, and start to see them as a real person. Some thoughts the characters may have, some experiences they may go through can relate to us, and there for show the character as a true person we can visualize.

I truly  believe that the phrase ‘A day in my shoes’ comes into play with these types of books. Because the reader isn’t just a bystander, watching as the hero goes off to defeat the dragon. They’re actually following in the hero’s normal life, understand who he is and why he does what he does. We may only get a glimpse of that from another book. But with a book that only shows you one day? That’s where we see most of the psychology of the character, And that’s when we can really feel like we know who they are.

What the bible says to me.

Now heres a topic I rarely like to talk about. Not because I’m not comfortable with it or anything, but just because I always feel like I’m walking on ice with others if I say what I feel, or the wrong thing. Homosexuality is up for a huge debate right now, and both sides can be very passionate about it. And, although I have yet to read the bible and decide for myself what the passages mean, from what I’ve heard I have already started to form an opinion about it.

To me, homosexuality is no big deal. Who am I to stand there and say ‘sorry, you two don’t really love each other’ or ‘Men can’t love men, that’s between women and men only.’ I don’t have someone coming up to me and saying ‘Sorry, you can’t do this because you’re a girl’ So why do I have the right to do that to someone else? True, gender and love are different things, but it’s the same concept. Why are people discriminating against homosexuals? Just because they’re different? Just because they listen to a preacher who says that they’re an abomination?

News flash, its 2010. Times have changed. I’m a Christian, and I believe that the bible is an amazing book. But there are passages that wouldn’t make sense in today’s world. Like how we shouldn’t eat crustation or pork. No one follows this anymore.

It really kills me to see the bible being used in ways to prosecute people and cause violent acts of hate. It has been used this way many times before, and I’m afraid this isn’t the end. People use the bible to make their opinions look like a message from Go. I don’t know about you, but when I think ‘god’ I think love and acceptance. I can’t even fathom why the bible says to love everyone, no matter what, but then turn around and say ‘Oh! Except for these people. You can hate them.’ They’re still people aren’t they? They haven’t done anything wrong. They’re just trying to live their normal lives, and love like the rest of us.

And if all these scientific studies are right, and its not a choice, then why discriminate against something they can’t help? I highly doubt people look at homosexuals, and all the pain they go through and say ‘Hey, that’s a good idea. I want to be part of that.’. If it was as simple as choosing, we wouldn’t have so many people dying, committing suicide, etc. If it was a choice, they wouldn’t last through the pain, and would have chosen to go back to being heterosexual. There is no choice.

I don’t think that the bible is against gays. I think it’s all in how you perceive it. People really need to stop following what higher powers say, and actually research this information themselves. Its when they do this, that they form their true opinion on the matter, and not just take it blindly from someone else.

I believe that god loves everyone. I also believe that love has no bounds, and that includes gender. God wouldn’t hate on someone just because they are spreading love around. People just need to learn to be more accepting of each other. 

Happy October everyone =)

2010 Verus 19th Century

Gender roles, I think, aren’t that restricted as much as they used to be. The lines between women and men stereotypes are still clearly defined, but many people don’t follow or expect others to follow them as closely as people did in the 19^th century. Woman can dress and act as they like now, as well as men without fear or punishment.  Well, that’s somewhat of a lie. Although they may not receive physical punishment, or go to jail, they can be sometimes socially outcast. Its more of a psychological and social punishment. A social taboo; something that people look at and ignore it because they don’t know how to respond, or how to deal with the situation. 

If a woman were to dress a shirt and pants, (something that would be shocking in the 19^th century), no one would care. But if a man were to wear a dress or skirt, he would be almost ignored and labeled as gay. This is where the ‘loose restrictions’ come in. People are able to tell how woman and men should act, but there are only some lines that are acceptable to cross, like changing hobbies that are usually a stereotype for one gender. Other lines will gain the biggest shock factor of the universe, like a man breastfeeding. (It is possible.)

But, we have improved! In the 19^th century, woman were to keep the houses, raise the children, follow their husband like a dog waiting on a command. They weren’t allowed to get an education, get jobs or even keep the money if they were to become employed. Men had restrictions as well. They weren’t suppose to help with children or cooking. They had to go out and make a living for their family, make all the decisions and be forced to work. Now, this may not sound like ‘bad treatment’ but it does have its own pressures and stress. Imagine having to make a decision for EVERYTHING in the house, at your work, etc. And if you were to be fired from your job, it was YOU’RE responsibility to keep the finances up and get a new one. 

I’m also not trying to say the men had it harder. I’m just trying to level the playing field. I must admit that because men did all this, that they did get more privileges than women, but I just felt the need to show how it was for them too.

All in all, we have changed greatly from then that picture on blackboard was drawn. You don’t see all the woman parading in large dresses at home, only cooking cleaning and taking care of the children (Unless they are stay at home mothers, and even then they can go and pick up a job at will). Nor do you see men ignoring their children because that’s the mother’s job, or not doing housework. Society has grown into a much more accepting place than the 19^th century, as long as we stay within the right boundaries.

Judging Jane

Being a woman in the 19^th century must have really sucked. I mean, were they able to do anything? At all? No. They were expected to stay home, and take care of the children, the household and be some sort of ‘property to the man.’  It makes me worried that just in the 1990s things have changed for woman. Sure we’re finally able to get good jobs, get an education and be in control of our lives. But the whole male dominant species thing I think is still there.  We are still not treated equally. Girl sports still will never mix with guy sports, (And I know the real reason, but I’m pretty sure if all the teams were mixed it would be fine.) and men will always get looks when they are playing Mr. Mom (and I mean looks and teasing from mostly men).

But at least now women are more in control of their lives than in the 19^th century. Back then, woman were housemaids, mothers, nurses, and governess’, as Jane was.  They had strict social rules, including how they were suppose to act and their place in society. Only higher class woman were allowed to be educated, and they began at very young ages. Women were sometimes allowed to work as nurses and governess’, but if they were married they would have to get their husbands permission, and the money go to him.

As a governess though, woman’s roles became even more complicated. In Jane Eyre, Jane is a governess for the young Adele in the Thornfield house.  She was at the same intellectual level as the aristocrats, and her job was to teach Adele to be at the same level of education as the rest of the higher class woman. But Jane, like other governess’ was a middle class woman, and therefore not treated as higher class or a  member of the family. Governess’ were treated as servants, because they got paid to teach the children. So even though Jane had the education of a higher class individual, she was treated and seen as a servant, who was working under the master of the house.

I believe that the author wanted to convey that even though the story was set in the  19^th century, that Jane had a very different way of thinking that what society told her to think. She struggled with following the social structures of the woman, what with all the free ideas flowing through her mind. She had a free spirited and independent attitude that gave her great internal conflict on what she should be in society, versus what she was. Bronte wanted to show that woman in the 19^th century had the same ideas as men and even some of the same talent. But they were not allowed to express their feelings, because women were not expected to have the same talent, or ideas as man. Jane struggles with this independent mindset through the whole book, and has a hard time conforming to what society says a woman should act.

Actually, I don’t believe she ever really conforms to society rules…She still stayed independent in her mind. And for that, I applaud her.

Sad, But True.

Devor's text explains many points on how society sees men and women, and how children learn at an early age what is acceptable for their sex. I know I’m a girl, and I’ve known this since birth. Sure, when I was a baby I probably didn’t understand what that meant, but the lesson quickly came to me in childhood. To me as a kid, it meant I had to wear dresses, be nice, proper, stay clean and play house all day so that when I grew up, I could be a good mother. And, as much as it kills me to admit it, that’s how society sees women, and how they’re suppose to be.

I know that society’s view has a huge impact on how people see others, because only a few months ago my two younger cousins (both boys) came over to my house to stay a few nights. After we had eaten dinner, my sister and I got up to do the dishes. The boys tried to walk off, but I stopped them and told them to come help us, in which the oldest replied “No, you’re a girl, that’s your job.”

Needless to say, I made him do the dishes afterwards and gave him a long talk about how it shouldn’t matter if I was a girl or not. He had hands; he was capable of scrubbing a piece of glass with a sponge.

I don’t know about all the rest of the woman out there, but being home to take care of children all day is not my only aspiration in life.  I would certainly like to have kids one day, but I won’t let that stop me from getting a good job or going to school etc.

I enjoy being a woman. I really do. But most of the feminine norms for society don’t peak my interest.  I don’t enjoy shopping for clothes (Actually, I have no fashion sense whatsoever), I don’t like putting on makeup or doing my hair. I don’t like counting calories either. I’d rather be home, in baggy shirts and pants, playing gorey ‘shoot ‘em up’ video games, or listening to my hard rock bands. Society, therefore, labels me as ‘tomboyish’. I thought that people should be used to others bending the gender roles a bit, but because I still get stared at when I walk into Game Stop, I guess its still strange for a girl not to be dressed up like a barbie doll.

I’ve resisted a lot of feminine ways, but embraced others. I don’t mind my emotions, and told myself its fine for me to cry every once in a while. I also like just sitting and talking with my friends, or cooking, even caring or babysitting children is fine by me.

As for the ‘generalized’ and ‘significant’ others, I can say that I’ve had both, and they changed me greatly. Generalized other to me is more of the roles we see on tv, or in the movies, how girls were supposed to act. But the shows I watched mainly had guy characters, and the girls were always to prime and pretty for my taste. Significant others have to be the friends I’ve had and my parents. The whole ‘if your friend jumps off a cliff’ thing seems to play a role in learning how to see yourself as too. My junior high friends were all girls who loved shopping and clothes, so, to be accepted, I acted what I thought was right for my sex. That only lasted until High school though, when I got sick of everything and went back to my baggy shirts and worn out jeans. My friends quickly rejected me, but then I found other girl gamers who were more than happy to let me hang with them.

We may not like it, but society probably wont change on their views of woman and men for  while. Women will always be the quiet, child raising mothers who depend on the man for safety, and men will always be the strong, confident and assertive people who bring home the bacon. I can only hope that this will change.