Feminist Analysis of Cloud Nine
In 1979, Caryl Churchill wrote a feminist play entitled Cloud Nine. It was the result of a workshop for the Joint Stock Theatre Group and was intended to be about sexual politics. Within the writing she included a myriad of different themes ranging from homosexuality and homophobia to female objectification and oppression. “Churchill clearly intended to raise questions of gender, sexual orientation, and race as ideological issues; she accomplished this largely by cross-dressing and role-doubling the actors, thereby alienating them from the characters they play.” (Worthen, 807) The play takes part in two acts; in the first we see Clive, his family, friends, and servants in a Victorian British Colony in Africa; the second act takes place in 1979 London, but only twenty-five years have passed for the family. The choice to contrast the Victorian and Modern era becomes vitally important when analyzing this text from a materialist feminist view; materialist feminism relies heavily on history. Cloud Nine is a materialist feminist play; within it one can find examples that support all the tenets of materialist feminism as outlined in the Feminism handout (Bryant-Bertail, 1).
The system of patriarchy allies itself to economic power (Bryant-Bertail, 1). In the first act of the play, several references are made that allude to the economic power being held by the men. The play opens with the line “Come gather, sons of England, come gather in your pride” (Churchill, 810) and in Clive’s opening speech he makes several fatherly references; “I am father to the natives here, and father to my family so dear” (810). In the next song the line “The forge of war shall weld the chains of brotherhood secure” (810) can be found. It is interesting to also note that intermixed with these lines are references to Queen Victoria’s sovereignty. Several lines such as, “we serve the queen wherever we may roam” and “O’er countless numbers she, our Queen, Victoria reigns supreme” (810) can be found. The author intended these lines to be ironic and humorous. Even though the male characters are the ones saying them, they really don’t have any respect for her as a person, just as a figure.
Women are hierarchized into classes (Bryant-Bertail, 2). In this story many of the women are in separate classes. I...
... middle of paper ...
...up psychology is not isolated, but considered in relation to larger institutions (Bryant-Bertail, 2). The entire play is aimed directly at this tenet. In Act One, all of the characters think one way and act another. For example while Ellen may actually be a lesbian in love with Betty, she goes ahead and marries Harry because it is “the right thing to do”. However, in Act Two, the characters no longer feel the need to hide what they are from each other. Overall we are left to compare these competing mindsets not just to each other but to the larger institutional psychology; Act One is blatantly Victorian and Act Two is set in the 1970’s. The author purposefully chose these two eras because they so heavily contrast each other. The rigidity of Victorianism and the liberation of the late 70’s when compared with the characters show us that times may change but what people think doesn’t.
Works Cited
Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1995
Churchill, Caryl In Worthen, W. B. ed. The Harcourt Brace Anthology of Drama. Fortworth:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 2000.
Arranged Marriages have been around since time can remember. An arranged marriage is a marital union between a man and a woman who were selected to be wedded together by a third party. Historically, arrange marriages were the main way to marry. In certain parts of the world, it is still the primary approach. There are two types of arrange marriages. The first is a traditional marriage where the children can, with strong objections, refuse to marry their soon to be spouse. In a forced marriage, the children have no say in the matter. Bread Givers shows an excellent representation of the pressures on children from their parents to be married against their will.
The Knights of Labor was a secret union formed in 1869 by Uriah P. Stevens and James L. Wright, this was the largest labor organization in the 19th century, hitting 700,000 members at its highest point. They promoted the social and cultural rise of the working man, rejected socialism and radicalism, demanded the eight-hour day, and promoted the idea of republicanism. (Manser). The American Federation of Labor founded in 1886 by Peter J. McGuire and Samuel Gompers. (Difference Between Knights of Labor and AFL). They had
The biggest irony of this book is not that the women described here fail, or remain at the bottom--sex discrimination within societal structure has already been doing that since the beginning of time. The most
...ee elements. This can be seen as materialistic goods as well as the desire to minimize work by hiring others are ignored within the community. Our souls however, do not have this balance since the constant craving of materialistic things consumes our everyday thoughts and actions. Our appetites grow stronger by the day, enabling us to realize that we can never be rich enough to possess all the goods we want in life. Our wants seem to be unlimited, meaning that we can never fully reach the wealth, sense of freedom, and internal security that enable the Amish to embrace the highest level of happiness in life. Therefore, based on Plato’s account of the just person, the Amish are seen as people that are more just than we are since they do not possess an internal conflict within their soul, a conflict that has influenced our selfish thoughts and actions for years.
Kraybill (2014) note that one of the techniques the Amish use to preserve their cultural separation is that they steadfastly elude urban life and area, living only in rural settlements that provided seclusion and exclude them from any temptations. The distance created has empowered them to evade extreme obsession with buying material goods, household furnishings, vacation, clothing and the crazes of widely held values and beliefs. Moreover, they have successfully cloistered themselves from social movements, such as feminism, pluralism, and multiculturalism that would dramatically transform their lives in many ways (Kraybill 2014).
The National Labor Union and the Knights of Labor were founded in 1866. Employer resistance, public distrust and internal conflict, caused the union to experience a reduction in membership. As our country became ...
Through investigations of writers as diverse as Silvia Federici, and Angela Davis, Maria Mies, and Sharon Hays, Judith Butler, and Steven Gregory we have come to understand that confronting the categorization of gender differences is a complex and nuanced project. Whether one is an ontologist, exploring the metaphysical nature of gender differences (that may or may not lead down the road of essentialism) or a phenomenologist exploring how exactly it is that one “does” gender—to the extent that there even exists a concept called gender—one must employ a varied and multipartite approach. Writers such as Federici, Mies, and Davis sketched out a framework of the history of gender roles for us. From what Federici calls a time of primitive consumption through feudalism, to the time of slavery and rapid industrialization and, indeed, through our current technological revolution, we have seen the basic gender differences between the sexes evolve over time. To be sure, our notions of what is expected from both women and men have changed since prehistoric times, and they continue to evolve. Sharon Hays in the chapter “Pyramids of Innequality” of her book Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform shows us how, in the United States, poverty and access to the social safety net have been raced and gendered. She provides a springboard for further investigation.
Gender, as socially constructed differences between men and women and the beliefs and identities that support difference and inequality, is also present in all organizations (Gender & Society). It has been known that most women have continued to stick to the traditional jobs because it is just easier to do so. They do it to avoid any hardship in the work place and discrimination when applying for a job or working for a company. Non-traditional careers and jobs for woman are hard to find and when hired woman are segregated to the wage gap. Class relations in the workplace, such as supervisory practices or wage-setting processes, were shaped by gendered and sexualized attitudes and assumptions (Gender & Society). For example, in the work place managers were almost always men; the lower-level white-collar workers were always women (Gender &
This has heavy ramifications on women as a class because women come from such vast backgrounds—race, social class, financial background, sexual orientation, gender expression, cis/transgender backgrounds, age, ability, and any other backgrounds imaginable—women have to reconcile all of these backgrounds together as fellow women. Bennett would argue that the lack of knowledge of the past of women as a class “hinders our ability to trace continuities in women’s history,” specifically because women’s history is different with every separate tie to other backgrounds (Bennett 79). One might argue that the only thing that ties women together as a class in modern society is the ability to make patriarchal bargains. Even though not every woman is able to assimilate into the patriarchy as easily as white, cis, straight women, in modern society, more women than ever before have been able to make patriarchal
Since the 19th century, the women's movement has made fantastic strides toward obtaining civil rights for women in America. Woman suffrage has been abolished, and they are no longer viewed as second-class citizens. Unfortunately, the issue of gender inequality still echoes in today's society. The fight to change a society shaped predominately by men continues, and will likely pursue for decades to come. Whether it be social, political, or economic rights, the main idea is equality for all genders, man or woman. In modern society, it seems that such a simple concept should be accepted globally by everyone – so why do women still face the daily toils of demanding the privileges that should available to all? No matter the class of woman, it is likely they will suffer from inequality and stereotypes at some point in their life. We see this in the workplace, where women have been shown to earn less then men. Some women also face the dangers of sexual violence, and are left victimized for such crimes.
A young girl growing up in 21st century America has a much better chance of achieving a high-paying, high-prestige, management level job than most all of her predecessors in the early, middle and late 20th century. Despite this, however, women who have such a position, depending on the field of course, are likely to find themselves as the token woman among men, which puts her in a tricky position (Conley 311). A woman that asserts herself in a way seen as “masculine” would likely be negatively received by her male counterparts, making her job harder than it would be without such pressures (Conley 311). Should the woman fail at coping with this and fail at some aspect of her job, it becomes ammunition for her aggrieved male coworkers who see this as justification that women cannot handle such positions (Conley 311).
A great place to begin is by investigating when and where or even how did our society, the United States, become socialized to the point where roles and expectations are defined by gender. How have theorists or researchers expla...
Women have been considered the weaker gender since the beginning of time. The distinctions between men and women, such as roles within the family, have prevented women from achieving societal progress as men. Gender inequality and the Glass Wall Effect are known inhibiting factors in upward mobility within the workplace. Men experience professional upward movement, both in wages and position, while women are trapped by glass ceilings and glass walls. Education and professional achievements are not deciding factors and women who assert themselves can also be seen as bossy. History tells a story of progression and a continual struggle for women to be seen and considered as equals.
Money is probably one of the most important things in this world. Without it, life would be very hard. With it, you become economically stable making life would be easier in some ways. But the real question is, can money actually make someone physically and emotionally happy? There are many sides to this debate; some who say yes and others who say no. Though most people agree with the statement, “Money doesn’t buy happiness,” there is still a large amount of people who disagree with it. They believe that money does indeed buy happiness and that it’s the most important thing in the world. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, it’s just a matter of what you believe in and your values.
Money and Happiness are two things that we have all given a lot thought. We put lots of effort into these two things either trying to earn them or trying to increase them. The connection we make between money and happiness is strange because they are two very different concepts. Money is tangible, you can quantify it, and know exactly how much of it you have at any given time. Happiness, on the other hand, is subjective, elusive, has different meanings for different people and despite the efforts of behavioral scientist and psychologist alike, there is no definitive way to measure happiness. In other word, counting happiness is much more difficult than counting dollar bills. How can we possibly make this connection? Well, money, specifically in large quantity, allows for the freedom to do and have anything you want. And in simplest term, happiness can be thought of as life satisfaction and enjoyment. So wouldn’t it make sense that the ability to do everything you desire, result in greater satisfaction with your life.