Marriage in the Public Sphere

Kate Middleton and Prince William’s recent nuptials got me thinking about the interconnectedness of marriage and the public sphere.  Shows like, “Say Yes to the Dress”, “Amazing Wedding Cakes”, and “Bridezillas” (to name a few) on TLC, which expose the behind-the-scenes preparations that go into conducting a “successful wedding”.  The New York Times’ “Weddings and Celebrations” section is a weekly article in which announcements of marriages are published.  Tabloids and Fashion magazines alike (People and Vogue, for example) follow celebrity couples, hyping up their romantic lives so greatly that when they inevitably falter, the public reaction is more melodramatic than necessary.  Even movies and television shows of every genre highlight marriages (Charlotte from Sex and the City glorifies marriage to an extreme).  I appreciate that marriages have always been glorified throughout history, but I would like to research how the technological advancements that have occurred over the past 30 years have changed the public’s perception of marriage.  How did marriage become such a franchise in recent years?  When did people start buying paraphernalia with celebrity couples’ faces printed on them?  The influx of new ways to share information through the media and through other forms of modern technology has instigated a new era of blurring the lines between the private and public spheres.  I will be researching the different ways in which the media has become involved in the public sphere – specifically regarding marriage.

Not worth it.

I was recently browsing some of my favorite stores’ websites, and came across a few pieces of jewelry I really liked.  Initially, while I was doing this, I intended to write about new trends in jewelry – the “in” colors, etc.  But what I realized as I perused Anthropologie’s necklace section is that “play” jewelry has become seriously overpriced.  I appreciate that some semi-precious stones are harder to come by than others. I understand that the jewelry being sold at Anthropologie is hand-crafted with care.  I understand that gold is expensive.  But, naturally, I find it appalling that necklaces like those which I have provided links to cost close to what a refrigerator or some other large, electronic household appliance might cost.  I’m pretty sure some of these necklaces cost more than my television.  Who actually buys this stuff? Some of this stuff looks like the kind of jewelry I used to make in pre-school. Out of beans and dried pasta. Give me a break.

1)  http://www.anthropologie.com/anthro/catalog/productdetail.jsp?id=23850910&catId=JEWELRY-NECKLACES&pushId=JEWELRY-NECKLACES&popId=JEWELRYACCESSORIES&navCount=96&color=000&isProduct=true&fromCategoryPage=true&isSubcategory=true&subCategoryId=JEWELRY-NECKLACES

2) http://www.anthropologie.com/anthro/catalog/productdetail.jsp?id=23850928&catId=JEWELRY-NECKLACES&pushId=JEWELRY-NECKLACES&popId=JEWELRYACCESSORIES&navCount=96&color=000&isProduct=true&fromCategoryPage=true&isSubcategory=true&subCategoryId=JEWELRY-NECKLACES

Fur in Fashion

I don’t want to get into a debate about the morality of killing, skinning, and wearing an animal's fur as fashion, but I thought I’d write a little bit about how ridiculous (and almost hilarious) the concept of “fashionable fur” really is. I’ll admit that I do own “Ugg” boots.  I do own objects made from leather.  My mother has a coat in her closet made from animal fur.  That being said, though I don’t think about this concept often, it really is bizarre that humans wear the hides of other animals as fashion.  Seems like a primal concept, right? Why do people pay thousands of dollars to wear the skin and fur of dead animals? I find the concept of fur more disgusting than the concept of leather.  At least leather doesn’t still look like the animal it came from. 

I found a few links to ridiculously priced fur items.  Enjoy.

Raccoon, anyone?

http://www.barneys.com/Fur-Collar-Moto-Jacket/501248683,default,pd.html?q=fur


Fur baseball cap:

http://www.barneys.com/Felted-Fur-Dogear-Hat/00505013978785,default,pd.html?q=fur

Wear a fox around your neck:

http://www.barneys.com/Fox-Fur-Eternity-Scarf/00505014041556,default,pd.html?q=fur

Page 72 - Bullying in The Handmaid's Tale

Bullying is a despicable concept.  The idea that someone should find him or herself to be more significant than another person, and manifest this sentiment through the torment of this “lesser” person, is absolutely immoral.  In Margaret Atwood’s, The Handmaid’s Tale, societal guidelines are dictated by a gender-based social code (established by men) that inhibits bullying in the forms of sexism between men and women and classism between women and other women.  Atwood’s interpretation of the threats of the increasing sexism and classism that exist in our modern world is an exaggeration of what might actually come to fruition in the future.  However, this text is a good example of the negative threats that gender-based bullying poses on our society.  Atwood approached a modern concept by giving it a futuristic twist, a tactic we saw George Orwell employ in his novel, 1984.  What I appreciated about Atwood’s interpretation of the concept of gender-based bullying was her use of first-person narrative to engage the reader in the story through the protagonist’s thought process.  In this way, readers are privy to witnessing the backwards nature of the world Atwood created through the mind of a character that is sympathetic of others, thus providing the theory that human compassion has the potential to stay intact, even when society cultivates negativity based on gender differences.

In one particular scene, found on pages 71 and 72, Atwood presented a situation in which the protagonist was forced to belittle another woman, yet she felt guilty for doing so. The scene, though brief, is of a handmaid (Janine) who had been raped as a youth.  After repeating her experience at “Testifying,” a gathering at which the handmaids shared personal stories, though the truthfulness of these stories was never certain because “it was safer to make things up than to say you had nothing to reveal” (71), she was tormented by the rest of the women, who chanted “crybaby” at her, and told her that the rape was her own fault.  This aggressive bullying caused Janine to break down emotionally and eventually believe that the fact that she had been raped had actually been her own fault – that her promiscuity was the instigator.  Though, “for a moment, even though [the handmaids] knew what was being done to [Janine], [they] despised her” (72).  The moment that Offred, the protagonist, lapses out of her brainwashed mentality is when she admits, “I used to think well of myself. I didn’t then” (72).   Atwood uses Offred’s self-reflection to show that Offred is still emotionally removed from the “system,” though she is physically a part of it.

Atwood’s presentation of the concept of bullying and its intricacies between genders and within separate genders provides readers with the opportunity to see societal circumstances that should not be allowed to come into existence in our modern world.  I appreciate that Atwood was able to convey the protagonist’s guilty conscience by establishing a first-person narrative from Offred’s perspective.  This provided readers with a reminder that, even when society cultivates negativity based on gender differences, human compassion has the potential to persevere.