Classism and a hint of foolishness

As far as literary criticism goes, I think Parenti is pretty dead on with Treasure Island. As far as the rest, I'm not so sure. He digs a whole that is probably a little too deep: the Woman Under the Influence kind of made me scratch my head. Is he honestly proposing the only reason she doesn't get better is because the husband's not middle class? Maybe he's overlooking the fact that the two characters, BOTH underclass, are made underclass to seem relatable to a wider audience.

If anything, classism goes the opposite way, I'd say. Very few people sympathize with the rich guy--in fact, the only reason we see them is to create a Prince-n'-the-Pauper parallel, or some sort of romantic Cinderella-esque story ("Pretty Woman"). Nowadays, though, the middle class seem to be particularly overlooked as characters in media--we are intrigued in media by the struggling under class, who we deem more noble in a sense than those who succeeded by equal amounts of hard work.

To quote Ben Folds: "Ya'll don't know what it's like being male, middle class, and white."

Signs of Intelligence on TV

She makes decent points--good analysis of a topic often overlooked. I totally see what she was talking about how even leading female roles are viewed from a very male perspective. However, she definitely goes off task by the end--her complaint of our police system is irrelevant with the main topic of the article, which is male-female perspective. I really wish writers would stick to their topics and not stray off onto other related Liberal ideas.

Gay Marriage and Batman

Homosexual Marriage Article:

I can't say I disagree with this article, although I didn't like the actual written style. It seems that the majority of issues with gay marriage revolve how it ruins the sanctity of hetero-marriage, so I've often wondered why they don't come up with a legally binding contract that can be shared without necessarily calling it marriage: legal life partnership, etc. I know they have some legal equivalents, but it'd be wise to have a national one. Ya know, I suppose the people don't even have to be gay sometimes, but have to be residents who aid one and other--housemates, hetero-life-partners, etc.

Batman Article:

First off, what the heck is "camping"?! I never quite got a straight answer about what this was, and the author even admitted to not really having a full definition, but he used it plenty enough. I really felt like that limited my understanding of the article. In fact, I couldn't quite figure out what he was trying to get at: his range of topics seemed a little broad. Anyway, he definitely discusses the homoeroticism shared between Batman and Robin, and used this eroticism as a means of showing how our culture reacts negatively to it: either we hate Batman and Robin for being homoerotic (not gay, though), or we hate people for thinking they are, because of COURSE they can't be gay! (in their opinion) Either way, we see homophobia in both arguments.

Now seriously, what the hell is camping?!

Barbie's Birth (un)Mark

Barbie article:

This article juxtaposes the physical form of Barbie with its creator, who apparently was a weapons designer (fascinating!). The article seems to argue that we can easily see the man-design in Barbie, notably her large breasts and thin waist, and that through Barbie and Ken we see the interesting interpretations we as a culture have on our own bodies (Ken is castrated, but Barbie is given her large breasts). Arguably, I don't think selling little girls a toy with fully functioning male genitalia is a great idea; breasts are a strange phenomena because, unlike other sex organs, you grow up knowing they're there. Unlike male and reproductive organs, which can easily be stowed in pants, breasts are not easily concealed, nor comfortably. The article makes good points, but they don't quite elaborate on them and find a conclusion--which is both a pro and con. I like how it's just an observation, but at the same time, I'd like to know WHY it's being observed.

Marked Women:

Essentially, this writer argues that women and femininity are "marked," much like the word FEmale, which is male prefixed with 'FE.' The linguistic and biological arguments the author made were excellent and fascinating, and does make one wonder why we look at male as the unmarked, original human. However, I think thinking in this way disregards our very Biblical roots, which started out with Adam and the Father--now why THAT occurred instead of Eve and the Mother is an interesting question.

However, as far as the whole dressing thing and the "Well-I-Bet-You-Assume-I'm-A-Feminist" thing goes, she kind of lost me. She did make an interesting point that men seem to be able to blend more easily, but it wasn't well supported. By clothes, I don't think men or women can be unmarked: the professors she described seemed slightly frumpy and in between business and casual; looking decent, but not great. She also went to great lengths to stress that their hair was unremarkable, and then described all the different hair they could have. However, their own "unremarkable" hair is a marked hair: it marks that they ARE not Marines, skinheads, hippies, etc. EVERYONE is marked: it's called discrimination. All humans do it. If you try to describe the most unremarkable-but-casual outfit, I'd guess jeans, t-shirt, sneakers--which works on both genders.

She also had a point that I did assume she was slightly feminist, which I have no evidence of. However, her comparison with the other professor lost me: the subjects were inherently different. His topic of interest was pronouns, hers the implication on gender of pronouns--there's a big difference. One is mechanical, the other social; thus, he appears to be a linguist, she a feminist.

Also, I feel really bad for the good-looking woman she described. I don't see why women have to be so hostile to those who are attractive. They're people too!