Pulse of the Class

This class is very interesting to me. I particularly like it because Professor Fuqua is very passionate about the subject and that translates well through the class. My experience of the readings, screenings etc have been informative, engaging, mind-opening and keeping me aware. For example, when the Professor said to pay attention to how men and women are supposed to take up space; I do that now all the time and I have come to realize how men expect women to take up such little space when sitting on the bus and train. They always sit with their legs wide open leaving us women with no room to be comfortable. I even had an instance where my boyfriend pointed out to me that I shouldn't sit a certain way because I take up too much space when we are sitting together on the couch. So this class makes me more aware about gender and the relations between both genders.

I have always been an open-minded person so nothing about this course makes me feel uncomfortable at all. In fact, the subject of this course is what had drawn me to it in the first place. If anything, the ideas and theories that I have read through the readings have actually helped me kind of have a real stance on certain things. I have always had an opinion on certain things, but these ideas have helped me relate it to my life more and have helped me realize different things about my life. For example, Kate Bornstein's "gender is a cult"idea was something that stood out to me and it helped me out with my artifact assignment. I liked that I was forced to relate these ideas to my life; especially with the artifact assignment. That would have to be one of my favorite assignments to date. I like that I am forced to look at things that wouldn't even seem like there would be any underlying meanings within them when there are plenty; like Fight Club.

I would have to say that the most engaging reading topic was Kate Bornstein's piece. Because as stated before, I used her as a part of my artifact assignment. I enjoyed her ideas and her writing style. I also enjoyed watching her read her work when we watched it in class. I think she is interesting and very funny. Her "gender is a cult"idea was just really interesting to me and I feel that it is translated in media today. In films and television shows about teenagers, gender is ALWAYS seen as a cult. I just really liked her play on words with that topic.

I guess I would say that the Judith Butler was the most difficult because it was a lot to take in. Although we did have the piece before it, the ideas in Judith Butler's piece was a lot to unpack. No wonder we had to have the cats explain it to us but even after that it was still a little iffy for me. It is just a lot of stuff. It's a lot of ideas that intertwine with one another. Even the cats explaining it was a bit confusing. So, Judith Butler would have to be the most difficult in my opinion.

Hello Everybody!

It's mid-term so I thought it would be a good idea to take the pulse of the class. I'd like each of you to compose at least a 400 word post in response to the following questions. You must address each question. 400 words is the minimum post.

1. Using plenty of adjectives and also lyrics from a popular song, describe your impressions of the course so far. How would you describe your experience of the readings, screenings, lectures, discussions (Twitter and in class)?

2. Has the course material challenged, reinforced, surprised, baffled, you-fill-in-the blank, your existing ideas about gender, sexuality, and media representations? Please remember that you have seen a range of media representations in this class -- mainstream and independent and or "alternative."

3. What has been the single most engaging reading/topic so far and why?

4. What has been the single most difficult reading/topic so far and why?

Jack vs. Angel Face

In the film Fight Club, the one scene that stood out to me the most was the scene where Edward Norton’s character “Jack” is beating the living daylights out of one of the fight club members named Angel Face. As his name suggests, Angel Face he has an angelic, pretty-ness about him. With his bleach blonde hair and a very clean look, Angel Face is not your typical member of the Fight Club, looks-wise. As most of the other members look rugged or look like your average male, Angel Face is a pretty boy. What many people thought was going to be another run-of-the-mill fight, it quickly escalated and essentially, it was Jack simply striking this poor kid's face into the ground; the face that represented beauty and Tyler’s affection. 

When Jack said “I wanted to destroy something beautiful”, it speaks volumes to what a normal, masculine man would say because societal norms tell men that they are not suppose to be “beautiful”. They are suppose to" look like a man"; big, tough, and strong.

Angel Face posed as a threat to Jack because he saw how Tyler was being affectionate to him. Jack became jealous because Tyler used to give Jack all the attention and now, he just felt left out. The homoeroticism is, in my opinion, clearly felt in both the scene where Jack is on the sideline looking at Tyler give Angel Face attention and where Jack is beating up Angel Face; the jealously that a man is feeling because another man is not paying attention to him, and fighting half-naked with one man on top of another man.

Fight Club

I've probably watched Fight Club over a dozen times before watching it again last Tuesday. It's amazing to see how my perspective regarding the movie has changed by incorporating a little bit of that queer reading we've been discussing for a few weeks now. I originally watched the film as a recommendation from a friend who expressed his enjoyment in watching this "bad-ass" fighting movie. The film is pretty bad-ass but after seeing it queerly so many things made more sense to me than they did the last times I have seen it. It's not that now I understood the movie it was more of an understanding of certain parts that I did not catch as being homoerotic in a sense. For example the constant references to the loss of masculinity in the film is overwhelming. From Edward Norton's love of decorating his apartment to the support group for men with testicular cancer; this fear of losing your manhood is a very prominent theme in the film. In these support groups there is constant crying and hugging especially with Meat Loaf who apparently is on the verge of "becoming a woman" after developing, what Norton calls it, "bitch tits." There are also little things like the fact that fight club gave them a reason to need to groom themselves; like cutting their nails. I did not even pay attention to this detail before this queer reading was introduced to me. Another thing that struck me was the importance of the first rule of Fight Club which was not speaking of fight club. I ultimately tied it up to Tyler Durden's constant request to not be mentioned. He states do not talk about me or I will leave forever. I kind of tied these two things together in a way that reveals a males fear to openly talk about their homo-social intents. These two characters, although the same person, have this connection and are seen as a great example of a buddy film duo. They don't know much about each other but seem to be stuck together in a very homo-social way.

A Fight to Remmeber

Tyler, the narrator and the member of Fight Clubs are responding to the idea set by society. The need for consumerism, the need to have the perfect newest furniture. The narrator of the film was at the beginning of the film this person. He was a constant consumer and following what the companies told him he needed to buy with no purpose in his life. This was until he met Tyler who gave him a reason to not follow what the big companies told him but rather to live for himself. He began living for himself by fighting not for a purpose of life and death but as a release from doing the same job over and over again. This release end up taking him to a new level and attracting other people to join what is later referred to as the fight club. This fight club took every day simple people and made them into fighters and made them what society would refer to as men. They later learn about themselves the member of fight club that this is not enough. They then create what is referred to as project mayhem. This is to attack the corporation and their hold on society through consumerism.

The reclaiming of lost masculinity in "Fight Club"

“Fight Club” is, at its core, a film about young men lashing out against a society that tries to restrain them. The narrator, and all the members of Fight Club, find themselves emasculated by modern American culture. Stuck in their suffocating office jobs, tied down by women – they cannot express themselves as men in these circumstances. The fights are an attempt to recapture the fleeting feelings of masculinity that these men have been deprived of. Their disdain for women is clear – the narrator pushes Marla away in favor of Fight Club, and his alter-ego Tyler even says how “We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.”

It’s a rejection of women in favor of reclaiming a sense of masculinity that has been lost in our modern consumer culture. The fights that the members of Fight Club engage in are their way of breaking free from this oppressive culture and becoming “true men” again. Fight Club is, for these men, a place to express their masculinity in a world that tries to repress it. It’s a return to a “natural order” of sorts, a rediscovery of the violence and strength that made men what they were all throughout history, only recently (in the grand scheme of human existence) taken away from them so they could be shoved into cubicles in office buildings, “working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need”, as Tyler says. They’re fighting a “spiritual war” (Tyler’s words) against the women and culture that they see as emasculating them.

Fight Club

Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) stated: "I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off."

The narrator, for all intent and purpose is called Jack (Edward Norton), an everyday man who works in corporate America and is trying to find himself. Like the narrator, the other men in the movie are searching for meaning in their lives. Their jobs do not satisfy them, nor do they test them enough to make them feel that they are growing as individuals. Their existences become constant, and they feel irrelevant. As consumers their only true worth is how much they can spend in the never-ending pursuit of products. Jack meets Tyler who is everything Jack wants to be. I believe many men are still looking for who they are and who they want to be. Jack's identity is born from the material things that he buys. Tyler stated that men are "a generation raised by women." The movie argues that men are growing more feminine and losing touch with their masculinity. Thus making him a product of consumerism which entails that Jack is more feminine then he is masculine. Through joining Fight Club, the fighting allows them to feel alive and to connect with a sense of masculinity that they do not find in the modern world.

Fight Club's Unspoken Rule: Don't Mention Homoeroticism

The other day while hanging out with a group of my male friends, I made the biggest mistake of pointing out the physique of another man. While the boys were locked into the computer screen watching sports highlights over and over again(and I mean literally!), I couldn't help but notice and comment on the physique of the men that flashed across the screen. However, I wasn't aware of the unspoken rule against critiquing male bodies around heterosexual males. According to them, they didn't notice the bodies of the athletes which played across the screen, they were just watching the highlights; as if by some miracle the bodies playing the sports and the sport being played were somehow disconnected. In a room full of men who were watching men, why was it such a big deal that I mentioned the obvious? Weren't they looking at the same bare-chested Maidana v. Broner boxing highlights that I was?  Needless to say, I was pushed out and made to seem like an intruder to the male bonding experience because I interrupted or more so exposed the obvious; that these men were watching men who barely had clothes on. As if it was easy to simply ignore that these men were bare-chested for goodness sake!

The male bonding experience has often been categorized as the realm in which masculinity is upheld and  maintained. However, what if one were to read this experience  in contrast to the hegemonic ideals of what the male bonding experience signifies? In the movie Fight Club, the notion of the homosocial male bonding experience is presented in a way that can be viewed as homoerotic. It is not to say that the male bonding experience suddenly and automatically  signifies homosexuality, but the film itself certainly raises questions regarding the homosocial experience and its relation to homoeroticism.  

Homoerotic?....no way!

While watching the film Fight Club, the audience is informed of the most important rule of Fight Club: you don't talk about fight club. As the film progresses, and images of bare-chested grown men fighting in a store basement flash across the screen, one can't help think that they are simply just having fun, just bonding. For many club members, fight club serves as a device which allows them to exert their masculinity. Because many members have experienced forms of non- normative masculinity, one has developed breasts and another would rather look at domestic magazines instead of porn( because porn is somehow only pleasurable to men), fight club allows them to regain their masculinity. Through violence in this homosocial arena, the members are able to embody masculine ideals. However, at times the homosocial environment brings forth moments of intimacy which seem homoerotic. For example, while the character Tyler takes a bath we see narrator Jack enter the same bathroom and the two have a conversation. Not only is the intimate act of taking a bath invaded, but it is replaced and transformed into a homosocial environment where men just have conversations.

Throughout the film, "sexual subtexts" are often transformed into innocent behaviors and made to seem a part of the homosocial environment as opposed to homoeroticism. So when we see male genitals across the screen in a movie directed to a male demographic, we should simply ignore its homoerotic undertone. In essence, we should simply just believe that the homosocial environment is void of any evidence of homoerotic behavior, bringing us to the unspoken rule of fight club: don't mention homoeroticism.

Queer Reading Fight Club

On the surface, Fight Club is about fighting mixed with some psychological elements. This movie can be read very differently if one was to read it queerly. The first time I saw the movie, I watched it for what it was on the surface, the second time I read it queerly. This gave the movie a completely different meaning. 

Since Tyler is just a figment of Jack’s imagination, it’s apparent that Tyler is Jack’s idea of the idealized man. He is handsome, he is very fit, and he has sex very frequently. He is everything that Jack wants to be. In the beginning he is very down on his luck but after Tyler comes into the picture his perspective on life changes and he becomes very active rather than passive. 

The fighting in the movie is used to represent masculinity in it’s most primitive form. Two men fight with only their fists to see who is superior. It appears to be just fighting but one could see fighting as a way for these men to engage in intimate male touching without intercourse. Fight Club is a place for people like Jack, who are not confident in themselves, to prove their masculinity. To me it seems as though Fight Club is an exaggerated gym, where guys compliment each other on their bodies. 

I am Narcissus' Reflection in the Pool

                 

I am Jack's sexual confusion.

So there’s this hunter dude in Greek mythology named Narcissus.  He was apparently the most handsome person in the world, and everybody loved him.  Too bad he was a dick to every person who showed any shred of admiration for him.  This comes back to bite him in the behind when one of the people he ended up rejecting called upon the goddess, Nemesis, to exact revenge.  Nemesis attracts Narcissus to a pool, in which Narcissus notices a reflection of his handsome self and swoons over it.  He basically dies by the pool out of love for his reflection.  In a way, Narcissus’ relationship with himself can be interpreted as a form of sexual confusion. 

What does this have to do with Fight Club? EV-ER-Y-THING.  In fact, this actually reinforces Brookey and Westerfelhaus’ suggestions on the homoreroticism presented in the film if you interpret it hard enough.  More importantly, it also complements Laura Mulvey really well.  Narcissus’ story is very much like the Narrator’s in Fight Club.  Fed up with life, the Narrator starts a really demented relationship with his own reflection, or as Laura Mulvey puts it, his “mirror phase.”  His reflection is very much an idealized, “more complete” version of himself.  This version of the Narrator’s self is Tyler Durden, and takes the form of that one guy that was in that Chanel No. 5 commercial. 

Behold. The Narrator's numerous reflections of himself. 

Throughout the movie, the Narrator slowly begins to fall in love with his idealized self, and soon, starts to create more and more mirrors of his ideal self through the following he creates.  You might be asking “How in the world does this fit in with Narcissus? Didn’t you say that Narcissus rejected everybody who followed or admired him?”  Well, the Fight Club is not so much an army of admirers, but they serve more as an army of extra reflections for the Narrator to look into, as he sees Tyler and his ideals in each and every person in Fight Club.  Wherever he goes, Fight Club is there.  Fight Club is the Narrator's luck, fame, and fortune.  Because of this, the Narrator doesn’t reject those in his following…except the ones who don’t conform to his rules and standards.   These rejected ones are seen as threats and are forced to stand outside Tyler’s apartment to take licks until they conform and become the very reflection the Narrator wants to see.  The Narrator’s continually perpetuating relationship with Tyler and the rest of Fight Club can be interpreted as sexual confusion, as suggested by Brookey and Westerfelhaus.  This is what the Narrator is responding to.        

Speaking of responses, we see a lot of Narcissus through The Narrator/Tyler’s relationship with Marla.  Much like Narcissus, the Narrator, and Tyler by extent, ends up rejecting Marla over and over, responding to her as a threat.  Lacking of a phallus, this is the reflection the Narrator does not want to see.  Since the Narrator, like Narcissus, is sexually confused and has already found the pool that holds the idealized reflection he wants to see, he rejects Marla.  

This is where the twist of the movie comes into play.  Unlike Narcissus, The Narrator discovers that he’s in love with his reflection, and in turn, opts to destroy it in order to regain normativity.  By destroying Tyler, and in turn destroying his sexual confusion, the Narrator, is now capable of being in a heterosexual relationship.  Marla, who was once a fear of castration, is now fetishized, and ends up becoming the object of the Narrator’s desire, and they could now live happily ever after.  Under Brookey and Westerfelhaus logic, the Narrator “escapes”  the sexual confusion that Narcissus wasn't able to break out of.  It doesn't help that Brookey and Westerfelhaus themselves have also cited narcissism as a close relative to homoeroticism.

I don't know how to end this, so I'm just going to put this here instead.  

Fight Club: Sexiest Film Alive

     The first time I watched Fight Club (1999) I was 12 years old, definitely not an age conducive to understanding the complexities - socially, economically, sexually - which provide the foundation for such an eye-opening, innovative film. Watching it 10 years later, my eyes have been opened again, but in a very different way. Now, knowing full well who Brad Pitt is and what he represents to American pop culture consumers - voted Sexiest Man Alive in 1995, 4 years before Fight Club was released, and then again in 2000, 1 year later - the film takes on a whole new meaning. Aside from the homoerotic undertones, which Brookey and Westerfelhaus energetically point out, another element to which I had been previously blind, is the idea of purposefully casting a white, heterosexual, highly-sexualized celebrity, and making him not the protagonist, but somewhat of an antagonist in a film which centers around heavy concepts, such as brotherhood, fascism (presumably), romance, and, of course, homoeroticism. Now, all of a sudden, it's not just Brad Pitt and Edward Norton experiencing a "bromance," or even Norton's character undergoing an out-of-body, alternate identity, split persona crisis; the "authorities" of this film consciously place Pitt and his character, Tyler Durden, on a pedestal both culturally - after all, Pitt has already become an icon to heterosexual American women - and sexually. The only difference is, for whose enjoyment is he being sexualized in the first place?

operation mayhem vs the machine

The narrator, Tyler and all the members
of fight club are responding to society's hegemonic masculinity by forming
their group and under Tyler's leadership having something to aspire to. In the
scene outside the bar that showed the birth of fight club, we see a homo-social interaction between Tyler and the narrator. They both randomly get into a fight
and at the end of this fight we could tell they both reached some sort of
satisfaction because we see Tyler and the narrator making plans to recreate
this activity at a later time. Tyler and the narrator also became a lot closer
as a result of the satisfaction they gave each other after their first fight.. a
good example is the scene where they both were getting ready for work, we see
the narrator in a robe while Tyler had a suit on and in this scene the narrator
helps Tyler adjust his tie and when this happens I immediately think of a
suburban neighborhood, three bedroom home with a white picket fence, man and
wife in their bedroom, man is getting ready to go bring home some bacon and wife
is making sure he looks good before he leaves the home. The only difference was
that they were both employed and instead of a man and woman it was two men. Overall
fight club and its members were trying to go against the machine that is
hegemonic masculinity but in so doing they became a stronger ruthless rebirth
of this machine.

Fight Club

I always thought there was something to the overly masculine plot of Fight Club, a movie which only really has one female character – who is a rather masculine female at that. From being involved in the Fight Club the men see themselves as more masculine. Being a part of a club, fighting just for the hell of it and not having a care are shown to be hyper masculine. Regardless of who they were before Fight Club, regardless of their society imposed sense of masculinity, they almost “level up” in masculinity when they are accepted into the Fight Club. They go around destroying things, little boys like breaking things…. They sit around drinking beer, as that’s what “men” do. The scene when they bring Bob in after he has been shot shows the idea that men don’t cry, they use their twisted sense of living and purpose to fuel their actions. The actions they do without knowing why. Much like actually society, they just follow the masses with the blind hope that the ones “in charge” have a plan. Thankfully more people are beginning to question this. There is still hope for the world. 

Boys Don't Cry

I know a blog post wasn't assigned for this piece, but I really enjoyed watching this film. I was unaware that this was based on a true story and that Hilary Swank actually won an Oscar for this role. If you're interested in the workings of gender identification in today's society and problems that not only young adults, but also children are facing when it comes to gender and sexual orientation, then this movie is a great watch. The film started off a little slow (in my opinion), but it picks up quickly. There isn't much back story in the beginning which may be why I felt it started off slow, but it's not really important.  This film, released in 1999, deals with ideas and material not socially normative for the time. In today's society, there are many girls with short hair and acting more masculine then feminine. It's not weird or unacceptable to see a women wearing a sweat shirt or something other than a skirt and high heels. Hilary Swanks' character, Brandon Teena/Teena Brandon, goes to great lengths to convince people she's a boy. She is aware of the genitalia she was born with, and can't ignore the fact that she was and has a female body. For instance, during one scene, she drives alone to the gas station to buy tampons. She also wraps her chest, so her breast aren't noticeable. Brandon's girlfriend Lana becomes aware that Brandon is actually a girl, but doesn't let Brandon or anyone else know that she knows.Their relationship was based on loving the person who they truly are on the inside, and not what gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. they are. I was shocked by the ending, without giving anything away, and glad the two "bad guys" got what they deserved.

Fight Club

If nothing else, the movie Fight Club was definitely a movie about how "tough" men can be, and how they don't take non-sense from nobody. When the film begins, Brad Pitt wants Edward Norton to hit him; for no reason at all. Now they are just leaving a bar, so at first glance, it may appear that Brad Pitt is just drunk and doesn't really mean what he's saying, but we quickly find out that he wasn't kidding and Edward Norton finally hits him. What starts off as a dare between two men turns into one big masculine fighting ring. It's weird to see how people would just do this for fun at night, and live their normative lives the next day. I know that I am a man, have male friends, and none of us fight physically with each other or anyone to demonstrate our masculinity. Helena Bonham Carter's character was an interesting one in my opinion as well. She poses as a very strong, independent women, who doesn't really have any cares. Her character is that similar to Pitt and Norton's characters except as a female. 

Fight Club

The movie Fight Club is about being masculine by fighting one another and taking part in rebellious events, yet it also shows non-formative masculinities through these actions. Fight Club begins with Tyler having Jack hit him. Other men join them a few nights later, which then makes it for a night outing for the males. To punch someone and be physically able to take that punch shows how tough someone is. To be tough and fight are forms of masculinity. The underlining non-formative masculinity also shows in this action because males are touching other males. They enjoy this action because it is a sense of toughness, rather not thinking of it as guys being attracted to one another. The fight club took place outside of a bar. By having it take place outside of a bar has a huge sense of masculinity because sports bars are where males meet, hang out, and drink beers. When two people fight, they always feel the need to take off their shirts. This is a way for males to show off their body that they work hard for at the gym. The masculinity of a shirtless man allows one to show off their muscles, which allows others to think that they are tough. The underlining meaning of a non-formative masculinity has other guys admiring one another's bodies. This would be guys looking at other guys, which shows that they are really not that manly. Later on in the movie, Tyler soon has the members of the Fight Club living in a house together. It was part of Tyler's project mayhem, which had the guys participating in rebellious actions. By breaking the rules, shows how one is masculine since they are not obeying the rules. The non-formative masculinity is shown here by having the men all living together in one house. Fight Club shows males being masculine through their toughness to be able to indulge pain but has many non-formative masculinities associated with the masculinities.

The fight club

One connection between the reading Hiding homoeroticism in plain view and the fight club is that, the reading opens another perspective for the audience on how they perceive the film.  I believe many people liked the film because of the extreme of masculinity in the movie because “Fight” according to our social norms is something that men would do, it represents violent and masculine. However, Brookey and Westerfelhaus don’t see it as a way to express Masculinity but the film is very homoerotic. Therefore, after reading the article then watch the film again; I noticed many little details in the film seem very homoerotic.  Such as when Jack and Tyler were in the bathroom together as Tyler was in the bathtub, when the guys in the clubs were shirtless and physically wrestling each other and when Jack were jealous of Tyler for not includes him in his plans. When you think about it, those are the feminine behaviors according to our social norms. The film really mixed masculinity with femininity. The article also talked about during the interviews that is included in the DVD, Fincher and the actors denial the homoerotic behaviors in the film, such as the scene when Tyler and Jack talks in the bar, the actors describe it as a joke instead of flirtations. I think there is no right or wrong on how an individual understands a movie, producers can deliver so many messages through the films that we just have to pay attention to the little details to receive it and sometimes watch it in a different perspective.