As I read the essay Out of the House, the Halo, and the Whore's Mask: The Mirror of Malinchismo by Professor Gaspar De Alva, it was noted that women were always obliged to do secondary tasks and were never on the front lines of the movement. They were always put in roles behind the men and when women noticed this, they started stepping up in regards to this unequal discrepancy. In the process of liberating themselves from the oppression, they began to step forward and take on leadership positions using feminist ideologies. They were feminist, but yet they didn't identify themselves as feminists. My question is why did they not identify as feminists? Furthermore, why does the term "feminist" have a negative connotation and where did it derive from?
I think that the term "feminist" gives off the idea that women are superior to men which explains why individuals look down on it. In reality it is not a competition between the sexes, but rather about just being on the same level. Women may also not want to identify as feminist because often times women don't want to be labeled.
Essay # 2:
In Professor Gaspar De Alva's There's No Place Like Aztlan: Embodied Aesthetics in Chicana Art, she deconstructs and redefines identity and explains various different aesthetic systems. My question is a clarifying question in regards to her argument- what is the relationship between Aztlan aesthetics and embodied aesthetics, what are the pros and cons to these two aesthetics as well as which one would be the best form of aesthetics according to Professor Gaspar De Alva?
An overarching concept is that of Aztlan which is a utopic or imaginary homeland. Unlike the territory which was conquered, this serves as cultural reclamation which is something that can't be taken away. In addition, Gaspar De Alva deconstructs the idea of place through diaspora and embodied aesthetics. Diaspora- is "a culture without a country" and in embodied aesthetics the place of origin is the body.
No comments:
Post a Comment