RomCom...

The Romantic comedy is a genre that seems to only get bigger. It's based on the fact that the majority of people just want to love or be loved. Whatever style of Romcom it is, it all goes back to the fact that most people enjoy love. Men seem to not really enjoy these "cheesy" movies, but I know I end up laughing or smiling during one of these "nothing better to do, Sunday Matinée" flicks. I personally would not be caught dead prompting the viewing of one of these films, but I can see their appeal. Woman also seem to be more in touch with their loving feelings, hence, they are the ones who seem to be targeted with this genre of film. A man would be lying if he said he never enjoyed a romcom at times. I'm not saying they're life changing events or great works, but for what they are, they're OK. Simply put, the romcom is what it is. They're not going anywhere.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

Tennessee Williams' Cat on a hot tin roof is really cool due to the fact there is a role reversal in a time where it was completely unacceptable. The reader is lead through a story that seems to have all the "norms" in a struggling marriage in a dysfunctional family. I think to really see all of the ambiguity and struggle with Brick and everyone in his life, one should know Williams. It's know that he was gay and was never able to write openly about it so he weaved it into his works. Williams' life was a bit like Brick's and Williams elucidates to the fact that people are in cages and are placed in them by society. This book has many oppressors and oppressed, but they all have one thing in common-- they are placed into these situations and can not see an out. The group brought up some good points to portray the different aspects that could have been read in the book, and there are always many views of a work, but I feel that Williams is using his writing as a platform to express what he was not allowed to openly speak. 

ya' digg!

DifferAnce yo!

So, at first this seemed like a total mind-fuck with a wild goose chase based on one letter. So, I guess what I got from this is Derrida is expanding on the word "difference" in French means both "to defer" and "to differ." Yo, I will not lie, I had to read some encyclopedia, wikipedia, and all kinds of mess to kinda get this bad boy. So, Wikipedia makes it a bit easier to read, it states, "In the essay "Différance" Derrida indicates that différance gestures at a number of heterogeneous features which govern the production of textual meaning. The first (relating to deferral) is the notion that words and signs can never fully summon forth what they mean, but can only be defined through appeal to additional words, from which they differ. Thus, meaning is forever "deferred" or postponed through an endless chain of signifiers. The second (relating to difference, sometimes referred to asespacement or "spacing") concerns the force which differentiates elements from one another and, in so doing, engenders binary oppositions and hierarchies which underpin meaning itself.

yup, inhale, hold it, release! Yeah, this is some real deal stuff that I still drift off and think about. What if words are nothing more than sounds to connect our brains to symbols. Is there no real significance to the word. So does that mean if we all call our feet blah blahs then a blah is a foot? Is language only relevant with the existence of other words that will differ from the original word. If so, then there needs to be a black and white world. A word can not mean something without a counterpart. So would the word woman mean nothing without the word man? Derrida is on another level.

The second sexo

So, I was digging Simone de Beauvoir's thoughts on women as a second sex; the fact that she is able to clearly see the truth on the situation and speak up about it. de Beauvoir begins with stating historical patterns that women have accepted for too long. She writes, "woman is a womb." There is more to a human then reproductive organs, right? de Beauvoir also touches on femininity  and the essence of being a woman. She really doesn't go into essentialism, but it's the basic thought that things have a set of characteristics that make them what they are. It tends to catagorize humans. Such as men or women, heterosexual or homosexual. (Essentialism was the counterpart to Existentialism. Like Spy v. Spy style ya know. De Beauvoir was know to be hardcore influenced by existentialism and this lead to her obtaining the strength to write on the subject of sexuality, and woman. )

If this is the case with reality, then if you have some characteristics of another "thing," then you are that thing. So, if a woman does not display the "characteristics" of a woman, then she is not a woman? I think, like shoving all women into a box, is too simple. As humans, characteristics are too vague and open-ended to determine who a person is.

de Beauvoir also comments on women as men's slaves, and have never lived in an equal world. Could it be due to what is stated before? Prior she writes, "The reason for this is that women lack concrete means for organising themselves into a unit which can stand face to face with the correlative unit. They have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity of work and interest as that of the proletariat. They are not even promiscuously herded together in the way that creates community feeling among the American Negroes, the ghetto Jews, the workers of Saint-Denis, or the factory hands of Renault. "

This is a good point, but it still seems that women today have created a sense of unity. Feminism has and can be viewed as a collective unity. But like any group, some do not agree on the exact essence of Feminism, and will disband the unity.

I really enjoyed this article and it prompted a really good discussion with my girlfriend. We both agreed with Simone de Beauvoir, but disagreed with what "could" or "should" be done to attempt to level the playing field. Or, if it ever could be level. Wow stoner convo for sure.