Author Archives: jade greer

I consider Fun Home one of my favorite texts we have read in Arts One, so I thought it would be fun try and make my own comic. To provide some background information on the story I’m about to illustrate:

It was a typically Monday morning, around 11 am. The sun was shining and I was putting the final touches on my Arts One essay. I looked outside to see a group of squirrels hanging out. They looked so cute and happy, just playing around the garbage cans. All of the sudden, a garbage truck pulls up and three squirrels jump and run as fast as they can. I figured everything was all good, until… I saw a little bushy tail sticking out of the garbage truck. Before I knew it, the truck picked up the garbage and took the squirrel with it. Then it drove away.

This story was a hard one to retell, as it has taken a real toll on my life. RIP Trashy the squirrel.

Here’s my comic and I hope it does the story justice.

The seminar discussion for Riding the Trail of Tears evoked some tension in the group when we began debating whether the actions one performs in a cyberspace relate to the actions one would do in real life. Kids are killing characters in video games all the time, and apparently “studies show” that these kids are not the people who become killers later in life. So what does it mean when a tourist in the Trail of Tears ride attempts to rape a person? People argued that it isn’t necessarily ‘bad’ if somebody tries to rape a character in a virtual game because it isn’t actually harming anyone. It is considered contradictory that it is horrible to rape in a videogame but completely fine to kill. I disagree with that fact but it took me a long time to come up with why. These are the reasons I generated:

1. There is something personal about rape; it inflicted by one individual onto another, and cannot be done without thought
2. Rape is more common; we hear stories all the time about rape on college campuses, people being harassed on the street, etc, it’s an issue that is close to us
3. There is no single method of rape, it can happen on many different levels and in many different ways
4. It involves emotion and can scar a person for life
5. It is dangerous to normalize that sort of behavior to people because it is more likely to happen than killing somebody

Therefore, I strongly believe that it is worse to rape a character in cyberspace than it is to kill.

To further develop this argument, I will consider this idea in a virtual game I am familiar with, Sims 3. This is a game where you design your own characters and are in charge of their fate. Your Sim’s life involves a career, relationships, and hobbies. I was obsessed with this game when I was younger because I was able to do whatever I wanted without affecting anyone else in real life. I used to take all of my Sims, put them in a pool and watch them drown. Now I know that sounds entirely f*cked, but I guess there was something fun about being able to break the rules in a virtual space without having any consequences. Does that mean I would drown people in real life while I sit back and watch? Definitely not. So why is it that I think rape would be different? Well, first of all, the very idea of rape being an option on a game for kids is indescribably cringeworthy. Yet, for some reason, killing is not. Well, this brings back my arguments above about why rape is worse than killing in a video game. If young people were introduced to the idea of sexual harassment through virtual reality, I do believe it would become more common in real life. Now I do not have any statistical evidence to back this up, but I think I am justified to argue that rape culture presented in movies and tv shows and pornography does normalize the behavior. We are made aware of the fact that people kill other people through the medium of media from a young age, but we always understood that killing is the worst thing you can do. Rape, on the other hand, does not end physically end the other person’s life, thus the effects are hidden and can be looked past. It is something that a person could do, and they wouldn’t necessarily have to face direct consequences if the person chose not to report. An important fact to note is that for cold murder, the victim is never at fault. Let’s say a person goes out on a Friday night to a party and is all of the sudden shot. Next picture that exact scenario, except the person going to the party is raped instead of killed. The first questions to be asked of the person who was raped would be: “What were you wearing? Were you drunk? Were you asking for it?” The problem is that nobody would ever ask those questions for the person who was shot. The murderer would be convicted without question. So why is it for rape that the victim is questioned? Now, this goes into millions of things that are wrong with rape culture and the way it is handled… which ultimately goes to show why rape is worse in virtual reality. As a kid watching movies with my parents, they would cover my eyes whenever a sex scene came on; however, my parents would most likely not cover my eyes if a person was being killed. Rape is emotional and personal, and the idea of it being exploited and made common in a virtual reality when it is something that truly harms people every day is what causes my discomfort.

We see the film Vertigo through the lense in which Hitchcock sets up for us, now whether that lense is underlyingly sexist or not is obvious, but we still are unsure as to what sort of message he is sending. As Robert mentioned in his seminar, Hitchcock’s summary of the film is rather straightforward: “boy meets girl, boy loses girl, and boy meets girl, boy loses girl”. This leaves us with two ways to view it: simply, or critically. The simple view is the literal romance story of a man, Scottie, who falls in love with a woman named Madeline. He tragically loses her and has no way to get over it except for recreating her through Judy. Scottie isn’t creepy, he just misses Madeline and is reminded of her through Judy.

While from the critical perspective, Vertigo is problematic on multiple levels, some far too deep for me to understand from viewing it only once. For starters, despite the common role of women during this time in America, the film is undeniably sexist. The film centers around Scottie’s obsession with the ‘ideal’ woman, and how he fetishizes the qualities that make her appear so beautiful him. Judy is objectified to the extent that she is forced to change the way she looks to please Scotty. He knows he is entitled to Judy and the worst part is that she does too. This film really is the epitome of patriarchy.

I read Mulvey’s article before I watched the film, so I was prepared for roughly two hours of cringe worthy sexism. While the article was quite dense, it did help me catch aspects of the film I would not have been able to grasp otherwise. Never would I have ever thought about Scotty’s obsession with ‘solving’ Madeline has anything to do with castration anxiety. There is no possible way to view “Vertigo” in from a simple perspective after reading what Mulvey has to say about it. Regardless of her feminist opinion, I was quivering while watching Scotty was with Judy forcing her to wear the same dress Madeline did. The story could not have been a love story like Hitchcock suggested, as the plot is everything but romantic; yet somehow Judy still falls in love with him. I’m not sure how anyone is able to enjoy this film when females are portrayed in this objectified manner. And the creepiest part is how realistic and normal seems…

When referring to colonialism and its effects on specific groups of people, it is tricky to find a clear answer without acknowledging them as a group rather than as individuals. This is highly problematic as it leads to stereotypes and assumptions about people. Dabydeen is critiquing this common Western tendency by doing this exact thing within the critical apparatus of Slave Songs. The different poems he claims “are largely concerned with an exploration of the erotic energies of the colonial experience” (10), a line which he contradicts on the next page by saying what “peasant women” and “men” do. This implies that all peasant women are the same and that all Guyanese men are the same. Thus, Dabydeen is revealing the way in which westerners freeze native culture.

By looking at the translation of the poem, “Men and Women”, it is apparent Dabydeen groups people under one stereotype, as he describes “the peasant, like so many Guyanese peasants under the influence of rum, beat his wife then later abandoned her with a hutch of children to support, a common fate for country women” (63). He is mocking the association of all Guyanese people with qualities of violence and alcoholism and reiterates it by adding that it is a common fate. The audience is not supposed to take this information literally, rather they are supposed to question the purpose of interpreting the poems this way.

Another example is present in the translation for “Brown Skin Girl” when Dabydeen says “some Guyanese women ‘willingly’ give themselves to the white men in a new kind of prostitution. They do so out of a deep feeling of inferiority” (68). Here, Dabydeen is critiquing the ways the colonial experience is described, as it is making assumptions about how Guyanese women feel. This text can be seen as a call to action of the way Westerners appropriate the cultures and experiences of other countries. It is important for us as Western academics to understand this notion and respect it.

Works Cited: Dabydeen, David. Slave Song. Leeds: Peepal Tree, 2005. Print.

The Yellow Wallpaper and The Bloody Chamber express feminist ideologies through their depiction of female characters in victimized situations. In The Yellow Wallpaper through the perspective of the narrator, the audience is able to feel the emotions and constraints applied by the husband, John. By deeming the narrator as ill, John controls every aspect of her life; this represents the way in which women are treated in a patriarchal society. John is clearly working to hold control over the narrator in order to claim the masculinity he is entitled to, this connects to patriarchy in the sense that women are put down in order to keep men up. John limits the narrator emotionally and physically, by forcing her to remain in bed rest and by limiting the artistic activities she is able to indulge in.

Carter, in The Tiger’s Bride, depicts a female character who is constrained by her not only father but the masculine Beast. The narrator is objectified to the extent that she is gambled by her father to the Beast. She is locked away in a cell by the Beast, similar to the way the narrator in The Yellow Wallpaper is metaphorically locked away by John. These strong symbols of patriarchy are exposing the effects they apply on women, as they are treated as secondary figures.

Both authors provide insight on how the roles of women are changing, while they are not entirely positive, they are legitimate examples of the evolution of patriarchy. In the end of The Yellow Wallpaper, the narrator goes crazy trying to escape from John, serving as a reflection on the fact that women are realizing their constraints in society. While escaping from bedrest, the narrator claims “I’ve got out at last”, and then questions the situation by asking “in spite of you and Jane?” (Stetson 656), which implies not only an escape from John but a release of her entire persona as a female under the control of a male. Her name is finally revealed, and she doesn’t even feel as if it belongs to her. In a different story by Carter, The Bloody Chamber, the story ends with a dramatic killing by the narrator’s mom on Marquis, who is moments away from murdering the narrator. While this ending provides no clear ideology towards patriarchy, it leaves open the idea that women do not always have to characterize the victim.

Works Cited: Stetson, Charlotte Perkins. The Yellow Wallpaper. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

While this play may appear to be a critique towards Galileo himself, given it is called The Life of Galileo, it is actually meant to reveal the skewed political intentions behind science. According to Brecht, progress and science have lost their definition and are being reestablished by the bourgeoisie. As a Marxist, Brecht does not agree with the way in which people praise individuals such as Galileo who are members of the privileged class. As a result of these anti-capitalist feelings, Brecht urges his audience to reevaluate the way we constitute heroic action through the example of Galileo.

Brecht’s production techniques enhance his purpose by passing the burden of judgment onto the audience, as people are left to interpret the play without being lost in theatrical illusions. In light of the present political situations during the 20th century, Brecht wants people to realize the greater moral message of the play. His most important lesson is regarding the concept of heroism, something that seems to belong exclusively to the upper class. The bourgeois class is granted access and opportunities to knowledge that the lower class does not, creating a misconception that these are the people responsible for scientific progression.

Galileo, although a good scientist, does indeed take advantage of his privilege. Brecht is pointing out that somebody at some point sooner or later would have made the same discoveries because they are facts. This connects to Plato and his idea of the forms, as they do not belong to anybody because they cannot be changed, they simply are. Brecht is working for his audience to realize how the global commons belong to specific groups of people and are being marketed to benefit them.

A present day example of a bourgeois self-benefitting action is Donald Trump building the Trump Tower to ‘make more jobs’, when in actuality the tower is most beneficial to him because it will improve his life. Thus, it is inappropriate to consider Trump a hero for taking advantage of his social status.

Ultimately, Brecht presents the Life of Galileo from a Marxist perspective by critiquing not Galileo, but the oppressive class system. Science has fallen into the wrong hands and until people understand this, the bourgeois will continue to capitalize knowledge and take credit for global commons.

My friends and I from UBC were partaking in a relay event that involved people from all over, and of all ages. I saw some people I recognized from my hometown, although the location was unclear. We were given packets of food and one of my friends was hungry so she ate one, which ended up disqualifying us. Before we were disqualified, I did not want to participate in the competition so I barely tried. My friend Maddy was furious at me, to the point where I was scared. I was also yelled at by a referee for riding a bike when I shouldn’t have, which made me more upset and eventually run away. In the end, I was sitting with Maddy and we apologized to each other.

Since these are real people, I’m curious as to what this dream means. By applying Freud’s method of dream interpretation this is what I can come up with:

My unconscious is nervous about Maddy being angry at me, as a result of occasional remarks of frustration at me. She is angry at me for not trying my best in the competition; the only thing I can line this anger up with is when I talk or laugh too loudly while watching a movie.

The fact I did not want to participate in the relay race could potentially correlate to my lack of motivation I had in grade school with Physical Education class.

Maddy has also been mad at Brenda before for being too loud, which could explain why she lashed out at her in my dream. Brenda ate something she wasn’t supposed to, whereas she usually is a picky eater and doesn’t eat anything. This must be a fulfillment of my unconscious wish for Brenda to eat everything and not be so picky.

The conversation between Maddy and I at end of my dream resolves our conflict and leads to me changing my attitude and wanting to participate. Perhaps what I need to take away from this dream is that my lack of involvement can be upsetting to other people, and to not break the rules.

Thanks to Freud, I can now interpret all of my dreams.

My life used to revolve around hitting my twin brother when he upset me, eating chicken noodle soup, and playing with stuffed animals. My biggest worry in life was my mom being five minutes late to picking me up. If my few desires for fun, food, and revenge were fulfilled, I was happy. It’s not that there wasn’t corruption around me, it’s just that I was too naive to realize. Being unaware of the world I lived in meant I didn’t have very much to worry about. Did this innocence make me happier than I am now?

Today I wake up to a dark, rainy cloud outside my window, representing the depression at the future of America because we just elected Donald Trump. How can I be happy when I am aware of the fact a racist, sexist, misogynist, criminal is going to be in charge of my home country? Instead of only thinking about chicken noodle soup and Spongebob Squarepants, I’m thinking about chicken noodle soup, Spongebob Squarepants, and the horrific backlash to decades of social progress. Just when gay marriage became legal, planned parenthood was gaining approval, and a qualified woman was actually about to be taken seriously, it all backfired.

As nice as it was to be a little kid who didn’t know what the word corruption meant, I’m grateful to have an understanding of it in this day and age. This means that I can utilize my opportunity to be educated and fight the corrupted authority that is taking over the world. I want to stand up for women’s rights, LGBT rights, disabled rights, immigration rights, and everything in between. Without awareness of how screwed up the world is I would not be able to stand against it. As angry and unhappy and frustrated as I am now, it is worth it if I can contribute even the slightest bit of progress to a society of hatred.

I agree with Rousseau that property and inequality drove us into this deep corruption, but I have trouble figuring out what he would want us to do right now. There is no chance of America returning to our ‘natural state’, just as there is no chance of me returning to my innocent childhood state, instead we must move forward. It is impossible to take away property and dominance and all the factors that contribute to inequality, so it’s time to get creative.

I will use my anger as fuel to change the racist, sexist, and ableist systems that control society. While I may have been ‘happier’ 15 years ago, I would not have been capable of joining the movement against hate and for equality. My awareness of the world grants me the potential to make a difference, and I think that is more satisfying than being a kid who has no worries.

Galileo’s talent in the arts is arguably the reason he was able to receive any recognition for his scientific discoveries. He understood how to observe the unknown and how to display it in a way for people to (eventually) agree with it. Given Galileo’s artistic background, he could properly use a telescope and create a legitimate depiction of the moon. A scientist without training in the arts would not have been able to interpret and explain the moon as well as Galileo. His balance of knowledge in religion, philosophy, and fine arts allowed Galileo to see and reproduce what he saw in the natural world.

Seeing and knowing is a powerful skill because it opens up a broader understanding of our natural world. Seeing a round figure in the sky each night is not the same as knowing it’s purpose. A dynamic education provides multiple dimensions for perceiving what we see. The study of arts ignites this curiosity for purpose that can never fully be satisfied, thus inspiring a type of thinking that can always move forward. This desire to know the truth is what differentiates humans from other living beings. Humans are able to thrive based on what we have learned about the world we live in. Galileo signifies this paradigm of people beginning to question what is told to them. He showed us that there is always more to learn, and that we shouldn’t believe concepts without proper observation. If humans always thought the earth was the center of the universe, we would have never stepped foot on the moon.

The study of arts opens up an endless realm of possibilities that have most likely never been touched on before. There is no definite answer in life, so we are left to supporting ideas with evidence and experience. With proper training in arts, we can work to unfold the unknown in this world. Thanks to Galileo, we can conclude everything we are told is false until proven true.

Men are most naturally seen as the higher sex, based on the social differences between male attributes and female ones. Males are seen as strong and stoic, while females are seen as soft and kind. Hildegard is famous for challenging the idea of females as inferior by presenting both biological sexes with a purpose: Women are made for men, and men are equally made for women.

Today, Hildegard would still be arguing her point as the sexist issues remain. Maybe people aren’t standing up and stating that females are made for men, but these ideas are embedded in social systems. If advertising in the middle ages had existed, it would look about the same as it does now: products reiterating sexuality to make women more appealing to men. The ideas behind advertising fall under the concept that women exist to make men happy. Basically, nothing has changed from the middle ages when people believed women are made for men.

When a woman does something amazing, her femininity is praised with it, for a man, he is simply congratulated. Quite often one will hear, “Hillary Clinton, the first female president”, we will know sexism is gone when Hillary is considered president, not a ‘female’ president. It was a huge deal for Hildegard to be presenting visions from God, and the only way this was possible was through the power of a male. Hildegard would not have been taken seriously if she had not sought the support of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, just as Hillary cannot be taken seriously without public support by male figures.

Although Hildegard’s ideas were progressive for that time, they would not be seen as entirely feminist today. She was seeking acknowledgment for what women bring to the world, but through this she was reiterating stereotypes, being that women are maternal. I can conclude that her ideas are strictly biological, arguing that women have just as much importance in the world based on what they physically provide. The difference between middle-aged feminism and 21st-century feminism is biological vs. social. If Hildegard was alive today, I believe she would agree with feminism because of how strongly she argued for basic acknowledgment of females.