AIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For my act of Reisitance Talor, Alyia and I decided to make shirts that displayed a chloroplethic map of Africa's AIDS concentration by country. In displaying this shirt we wished to convey to the public the large percentage of some African nations that are effected by this easily spread virus. The main point of our shirts was to highlight the dact that in the southern part of the continent(i.e.Zimbabwe) as much as twenty-five percent of the population is infected with the virus. We also,in our act were trying to raise awareness as to the effect that the virus has on the personal, economic, and social structure of these countries. All these sectors due to the large percentage of infected people feel the negative impact of each life lost.

I thought that our act of resistance was well executed and had many implicit demands of the reader. Not only did it show the country most devestated by the virus it also showed how dense and massive infection levels were in some parts instead of simply showing that there was infection. I felt that by showing the variation in the percentage of the population infected by using a chlorolethic map caused people to ask questions and inquire about the shirts as well as the situation. Being as that many people didn't understand the map by just lookig at it; they inadvertenly were forced to find out more about the problem and raise their awareness about the issue when they asked for further explaination. Also I think another adavantage of the chloropleth was that it wasn't like other AIDS Awareness shirts which simply presented AIDS as a problem that neeeded to be solved but presented it as a problem that is very real and that is/does effect millions of people internationally.
I think that aside from the obvious connection made by geography students when they saw the map their was a general amazement by those who saw the shirts and found out more about AIDS. I don't think that people were as willing to inquire about the shirts as we had liked them to be.
I think that if we were to do this again that an explanation or key explaining the map would be very helpful. Not that the map didn't speak volumes. I think that the shirts would speak volumes on an international level or maybe just when being viewed by people who understood chlpropleths but maybe not by the general public.
I think that the shirts did raise more awareness to the issue of AIDS infections. I think that the inferences that could be made about the impact that it has on all socio-economic sectors of a country were our chief sucess in that it really makes you think about AIDS Awareness as more of a "war against" instead of just the search for the cure.

If Arostophanes were Hades Lysistrata would be his proverbial pomegranate

This book to me was really deceptive. I guess I expected more from the characters.
So before I read the book in its entirety this is what I thought each character analysis would be like:
Lysistrata: a crazy, idependent, and self-sufficent character who through her vulgar language and revolutionary actions convinces the womyn of both Athens and Sparta to abstein from sex. Lysistrata also by "sticks it to the man" by lighting the akropolis on fire. Lysistrata is the Grecian epitome of "kicking ass and taking names later"
Lampito- the antagonist in this play constantly indermines Lysistrata's suggestions by constantly suggesting the brutality and rudeness of the Athenian army while secretly alluding to the jealousy that she feels toward Lysistrata.
Kelonike- the unlikely heroine in the story who brings peace to Greece.

But everyone turned out to be bffs and get along really well. I want more conflict!! If someone doesn't get stabbed in the Bluest eye I'll be quite disappointed. j/k...I think.

Too punny for words

Yes that was maybe the lamest title ever but IDC because it was so darn punny. (ha ha I make myself laugh) Anyway I was just reading some one's blog and they were talking about the end where the men and the women party. When the men talk about the drinking are they talking about drinking or is this part of the metaphor used by the womyn wherein their...I don't know what I should call it (We'll their vaginas )are the cup of fine wine that must not be diluted by the water/sperm of their men? If so is this drinking referring to Peace and their truce?
I was really confused on this part. It seems to me like they were actually drinking but them I'm not sure. I think this play has so many puns and metaphors that you don't know when things are literal and when they're being metaphorical.

Lysistrata- Stalin but better

I know... in truth no one is like Stalin or better. But I was just watching the YouTube clip Ms.D just posted and I relized that Lysistrata is very similar to Hedda in the fact that she manipulates the people around her to get what she wants even though they may not be happy in the situation.
Case in point: the womyn and the oath that she forces them to swear. They obviouslyly didn't want to abstain from sex nor did they want to deny their husbands an essential part of their relationship or but themselves in harm's way but somehow Lysistrata "convinved" them. I think the fact that she offers enternal comradory is just low and really manipulative that she has all these womyn thiniking that they're going to be friends for ever if tehy agree to this oath.

Also I don't think that Peace willing gave herself as much as she was "persuaded" by Lysistrata.
Can we really look at Lysistrata as a hero if she used manipulation as a means of achieving peace? Can we call this play revolutionary if it is about a manipulative woman? Does her manipulation make her any different from Hedda or Bernarda?

The Women

So this movie came out this year and it has Jada Pinkett Smith, Meg Ryan, and Debra Messing in it and it relates more to The House of Bernarda Alba than it does this play because the entire movie has no men in it and it is pretty much a story about womyn for womyn staring well...the subject. And while watching this movie I realized that most of the conflict while created by men is between the womyn and so I applied this to Lysistrata and I was like whooa!!
It got me thinking if the theme of The Battle of the Sexes is one that has two opossing sexes or if you could simply apply this theme to the womyn. You could just as easily classify the womyn in this play as warring factions as you could the two armies. Initially they have different opinions and fight over who is right and how they should handle the situation at hand. Also the older womyn who claim to be more experienced are afraid to some extent of the younger girls among them who many fear their husbands will settle for in their absence.
Yes their is an obvious conflict between the men and the womyn but their is obviously some in fighting which I think completely changes the nature of this undeclared battle

Obligation

I was just thinking about how necessary it was for the womyn in this play to fight against their husbands by abstaining from sex. I wonder if they could've achieved the same end using different means. Really, this is the only way you could get your husbands to listen to you is by denying them your body? Random : If Grecian society was so liberal in its expression of sexuality would these men have been so attached to their womyn if they could find sexual solice (sp) else where (in each other)?

Lysistrata w/out abstinence:
I think that the womyn would've gotten their husbands home a lot sooner if they had presented their husbands with the consequences of their actions. By this I mean bringing to their attention the harm and damage that they are doing to the lives of their children. Instead of Myrinne's son being a mere prop used by Kinesias why couldn't he be the force that ended the war.
Imagine how different and more powerful the play would've been if the womyn chose to take their children to the front lines and line the children of all nations in between the two armies and told the men to chose between their children or the war. Which would they have chosen? Would they have come to a truce sooner than they did with their womyn?

UN

Okay so I think the United Nations Preamble totally copied Lysistrata. Everything discussed in this play as a means in which nations can support each other is written more colloquially in the preamble.
However, I do think that the theme of United Nations doesn't appear in as many parts of the book as it should being as how the women in wanting peace were calling for this kind of national unification. Which makes me wonder if the "power" of this theme is diminished when Lysistrata when trying to convince the men of how powerful they have been together brings up past wars and the eminent one against the Persians. If we're uniting nations shouldn't we being doing in the international arena as well as the domestic one? By urging Grecian men to unite in order to fight yet another war wherein they are killing other men who have wives who probably feel as badly about the war as they do, are they really uniting at all?
Is unification still effective even if it's done to annihilate another group of people? Should we proud of Franco and Hitler because they were unified? Should we be proud of any country involved in WW1 or 2?

Sobreity absolves the possibility of a Hellenistic era?

The theme of Nakedness revealing all(which is a pun) is also applicable to the initial problem of the play: the war itself. If we look at the power and the control each nation wanted to usrp in order to control the entire country as wine you could say that while drunk with the power and glory that it had acquired, Athens revealed its true intentions of controling all the other city-states. So to make this a little bit more clear

Symbolism

1. Nakedness= loss of inhibitions/honesty


2. Wine= power


3. Wine--> loss of inhibition= revealation of intent


4. Athens= drinker

Not that that list helped but what I'm trying to say is that...

"Bros before Hoes" One of the lesser known themes of Lysistrata

I think this play focuses on a theme of malsculine prevelance over genuine femininity(whatever that is) where as in our other novels we've seen all our slightly masculine female characters fail or be villianized by society {side note: Is it the authors who victimize these characters or is it our modern day society? I think we are more focused of gender roles in our modern society than maybe authors such as Ibsen and Lorca wanted us to be. These men spoke out against these gender roles that we so strongly cling to today.}I mean in the other novels the more masculine characters always sufffered in some whether by losing their families or dying. In The House of Bernarda Alba, Adela the more feminine of the daughteers was a "martyr" because she stood up for love and wanted to be everything that is female and no one saw the power and difficulty that Bernarda held. To us she was the villian. And in Hedda Gabbler Hedda masculine nature led her to sucide and ruin while the feminie Mrs. Elvsted fell in love with George.
Lysistrata is different because in order to be sucessful the womyn have to abandon their femininity and focus all their efforts on appealing to the male ego. They have to "think like men" and take away what is most important to a man.

Also in saying that sex is something very masculine and that womyn enjoy it as much as men is Aristophanes saying that women are as masculine as men are?? Just throwin' some stuff out there.
I could be wrong in associating physical gratification (SEX) with masculine ideology. Isn't femininity all about feeling good. Maybe sex is more feminine than it is masculine?
There's a lot to think about.

One step forward many more backward

I know that we're suppossed to be reading this text and seeing all the wonderfully feminist themes but I realized that this book really does more harm than good.
Yes, you can look at it as a revolutionary novel wherein womyn finally rebel against male tyranny and idiocy but is that what this book is really about? From a Marxist perspective yes, kinda because they do decide to stop "shutting up" but do they really say anything with their voices. Are they heard?

I'd like to argue that book is very counter-productive from a feminist perspective because not only does it abuse the power that lies within the female body and the sexuality of womyn it also alienates to some extent the individuality and freedom that a womyn have to look forward to in their lives in terms of sexual freedom.

This book is saying that all womyn are good for is their bodies and it is the only way they can achieve anything. Why doesn't Lysistrata simply speak to her husband and gain his respect and influence him to convince his comrades to withdraw/ end the war?

Do womyn not have voices? Are we not people too? Can we communicate without our hips? Our curves attract you but can't my ideas do the same?

I think this book dilutes the sensual nature of womyn and villanizes them, painting the portrait of a woman as devilish creature who manipulates men to their wish through sexual denial and deprevation.

I'll ruffle your outskirts (lol...aah low-brow humor how you satisfy me)

Okay just a few quick points: I think this story is funny so far. Not audible laughter funny but more like a light chuckle. Or a hidden smile funny. Not like watching an old person fall down the stairs or an SNL skit (which would be the more unfunny of the two).
Characters:
Lysistrata: Byotch! *insert whip sound here* Not really but she comes off that way because she seems so pissed at these other womyn for not showing up. Don't they have to walk long distances? Calm down.

Kleonike: I imagine her to look hawiian. Think about it... Anyway she seems like Lysistrata's bff for way back but at the same time someone who is searching for approval. Needy. Like Brutus to her Ceaser(Mean Girls reference)


Quick question: When they say inspect(Lampito&Ismenia) what does that mean? I got an interstingly strange impression of the whole thing.
Myrrhine: I could see really opposing Lysistrata in this play because they both seem so strong and vocal in comparison to the other womyn who are more quite and seem...squemish.

*I used womyn in this section in honor of Talor and feminist womyn everywhere

Okay I think I get it!!!

What if the play isn't about Heda at all? I think that the play is all about Lovborg. So I think Lovborg is individuality within this corrupt society and that Thea represents youth... you know like children and how the innocent are attracted to individuality; how the pureness of childhood makes the individual stronger against all other societual vices (drinking in Lovborg's case).
So the play is simply the story of society crushing individuality and scorning individuality and the possible realization by the individual that fitting in to society means absolutely nothing.
In saying this I think that Hedda does represent society but that her death is symbolic of society realizing that it can't change or escape its cyclical process entrapment and oppression and upon this revealing that the only way we can change society is to kill it (okay...keep following it gets good)
which means we have to totally destroy society<---- which means destroying classes and the class system and living in a classless society to ensure the happiness of society

BAM!!!Man I'm good. It makes sense don't question it.Everything is pro Marxist and I just proved it.

Character Analaysis

So I chose to do the men in the play and...No one in this play is flat. Except maybe Berta but I think she might have some role in the whole schme of things too. Umph. So far I have George as a round and dynamic character pretty much because venthough it's not obvious he isn't as oblivious as he leads people to believe. He has a little bit of evil in him yet. IDK what quote best illustrates his roundness though.
Brack I put as a round dynamic also b/c he comes up from just a fling into so much more.
Lovborg I'm stuck on. Can he be dynamic if he's un-progressing[there is a better word but I don't know it;regression?] I mean he starts off good and with all thes facades of "I care about you Hedda"
"I care about what society thinks of be but yet I'm having an affair" and "I'm so over drinking". WTF this should be easier. I think I just made it a lot easier but I still feel as though<---(The Ms.Thomas voice in my head keeps me from saying "like")I'm lacking information. My essay seems dry and choppy.
Ugh!!

Female sterotypes live

I don't know if I mean sterotype or the archatypical young wife. She is like Hope(Young Goodman Brown's wife) and the wife of the birthmark lady. She is a victim of her naivity. She acts all tough and stuff but in the end she ends up under someone's thumb and unloved. She had George and she completely ignored him and treated him like crap and I think he finally realized that and threw her unto Judge Brack. He[George] realized that she was CRAZY beyond all reason. She was a bit too into Lovborg's sucide for his liking and so he turned his love unto the woman who had the more acceptable response to the news.(It is kinda jerky that he just dissed her like that but she was not a good wife/person when around him)
The thing that I don't like about this ending is that Brack comes from out of nowhere and just dominates. He shuts everything down. This man tries to blackmail her into loving him. I guess this should be expect that just when she feels comfortable enough with Tesman to actually call hum by his first name which signifies her increased affection ofr him, that all her wrong doings in the past would blow up in her face.
Overall I think Hedda is a strong woman but was naive in thinking that she could controll everyone and not get played eventually. She underestimated him. Brack is like Stalin.

Everything I touch turns ridiculous and vile!

Hedda is so selfish. She pretty much helped a man commit suicide and all she can think about is herself. Its sorta sick that she in controlling another human being felt that the thing that was absolutely necessary and emminent was death. She purposely created stressful and tragic situations for Lovborg so that he would feel helpless such as losing his most prised posession(she could've given him the manuscript at the exact moment she saw him despite the accusations), the woman he loved,and essentially his future. It's one thing to create the conditions but it's another to start the fire.Ohh, maybe that's what the stove and fire are symbolic of- action. She when setting Lovborg up with the gun goes to the fireplace and burns the manuscript-adding to the fire of his dispair,setting his actions into motion. Then when she hears about Lovborg's death she is sitting by the stove.She comments on how impressed she is at such a wonderful act which suggests that she is impressed and that this information feuled her fire and that she feels more willing to ACT now.<---- I feel so smart.
I think suicide was something that Hedda had/was contemplating long before Lovborg and Thea ever walked through her door. It is obvious she felt no control over her life and felt trapped in this loveless marriage and this dangerous love Triangle.
I think that the guns not only symbolize her power but her preoccupation with death. She is constantly "playing" with these guns. Maybe she was planning her suicide the whole time.

People don't do such things

Um... Act 4 was kind of a disappointment. I mean WTF Lovborg?
The man had so much going for him:
an awesome manuscript that could be replecated
an awesome girl who was totally in love with him
<3
and he had just regained control over his life.
This play is utterly depressing. I am usually a crtique of the new-age happy-ending and everyone wins type literature but this play makes me love that kind of sappy writing. In the end evil[Hedda] won. Good[Lovborg] committed suicide and love[Thea] and simplicity[George] were left trying to put the pieces together.
Seriously I refuse to believe that Lovborg killed himself. If he was so over Hedda and no longer under her spell her giving him a gun would not have affected him that much. If someone gives you a gun that doesn't mean you have to kill your self.
I do find it sweet however that he was so pained by losing the connection that he and Thea had that he went back to find it.
But why did he have to die? He was the only decent male character in this play. The only man not concerned with power,greed, or devored by Hedda(until the end that is).
In retrospect I see now that Loovborg was a foil to all the other charcters in his independence and ~morality. Its not morality really as much as he had control over his own actions for the longest.
In comparison to George he is more refined, educated and scholarly because he looks at the world and evaluates it and extrapolates from the information that he acquires while Geoge's head is always in a book and he knows little about the world and spends all his time in the past instead of relishing the present and planning for the future.
Lovborg and Brack are also complete opposites because where as the Judge is concerned with power and status, Lovborg is concerned with himself and doing what he feel sis best for him like publishing a manuscript that is his true self while having the courage to take any critisim of him and his work that would arise.The Judge is so scared of outside forces especially Lovborg upsetting his routine that he becomes savage and brutish when trying to preserve his way of life.

Motifs/ Theme Ideas

I should really get some sleep! ANyway I've been look at the stage directions and it got me thinking. Not only does Hedda move around continuously(its like she has restless leg syndrome or something) but she also has a specific spot: The glass door. That woman loves her some glass door. I think that a motif is opposities or hidding one's true's feelings by placing one's self in an opposite posstion or diaplaying an opposite emotion. Like Hedda whenever she's lying is in front of the Glass door which would usually symbolize openness.Also not only the glass door but when ever she gets angry about something she laughs. It seems that in order to secure her image as a "lady" she acts opposite to how she feels? Message! Maybe Ibsen is commenting on the roles that women have to play in society??? Possibly.
Also I noticed that George says:"Can you Imagine!" while Hedda says"Ican Imagine?" even when they're not in the same conversation they use this identifying phrase. George asks a question because he is the unsure one and righteous Hedda simply states it. I thought it was like a functional opposite call & response. I think its kinda cute.

Whoa!!

This was one crazy act because it was all:
"Suprise"
"I'm a secret scum-bag"
"I wanna be the only cock in your hen house or I'll KILLyou"
"Ha, Ha creepy stalker dude"
"I love so much it breaks my heart"
To explain: So George is a super jerk-face because I think he's so insecure and scared of the fact that Lovborg's book is gonna be a thousand and one times better than hus that he purposely didn't give him the manuscript after he found it. The fact that he keeps saying,"for his sake ofcourse"<--- Ummm, No you're doing it for you and the money and prestige that is the professorship. I was hella heart-broken when this happened because I had so much faith in George's simplicity and naivity. How dare he be as manipulative and caniving as his wifee.[not a type-o I really want to bring back the word wifee] So anyway to Eilhertwho is just the sweetnest most compassionate man EVER!! The self-sacrifice. The love.OMG. The way he and Thea refer to the manuscript as their baby. Aww...
When he says"But killing his child-that's the worst thing a father can do" I almost cried because eventhough it was his future that Tesman stole, he was thinking about "the purity of Thea's soul". So selfless. I think they might be the only loving relationship in this play.
Brack- Can we say creep. He is so crazy. He wants to be the only one having an affair with Hedda? Really guy that's a life goal? That's something you want to fight for? The fact that he is so adiment(sp?) about it too is hilarious. You're not even supposed to be the cock in her life. And what was that craziness about not having to shoot tame roosters? Was that a threat against Tesman? I will call him a cock killer from now on for two reasons

• it's funny
• I'm actually that immature

Hedda McWhore-Meanie(it's one word) was just as vile in this act as the others. She actually got pleasure out of seeing Thea's heart broken in front of her. That's horrible. This is the first time I haven't loved Hedda. She's just unnecessarily mean. Like WTF you get no immediate reward from her pain. He doesn't love you. You don't love him. WTF<--- It's upsetting. When she's all "Now I'm burning-I'm burning your child" what does that mean? Is she the child? Is she going to hell? Why isn't she bothered by this?

Awkward Moments

So...there's three people in this room and two of them are ex-lovers.Wow!! Thea is so sad in this section .She starts crying and stuff and is all"Don't be mad" and "I love you".
Hedda is more out there than we thought. So we know that she and Barack are openly crushing on each other and that she and Eilert have done more than crushing.
OMG i <3 how she is so blunt with men. She tells everyone that she may be married but isn't in love then she tells Lovborg that she never loved him either. Awww, poor guy thought he had her wrappped around hius finger.
Random: I pictured Eilert as a tall youthful modelisque blonde guy. Like Aaron Eckhart. Yeah someone attractive but a badboy. I was quite disappointed when I found out that he looked old.
Anyway to the more important comfrontation between Hedda and Lovborg.
She shot at him. ha! I could see him running away. Then enters Thea. Hedda plays them against each other so well. You can tell that she[Hedda]'s really mad at the fact that Eilhert loves Thea or at least is trying to throw that love in her face that she makes it her temporary misssion to destroy their relationship. The way she drives him to drink and go to the party is brilliant. I hope to be that manipulative one day. Makes me so proud.*tear*
Then she goes all Carrie on Thea. She's gonna kill her. lol. Murder...not as funny as previously thought except when its done with a smile and a hug

Triangular Arrangements

Oooh...She a [vular word for promiscuous woman]
lol.
Okay anyway what was that obvious flirting with Barack.
I could imagine him creepishly stoking her leg the whole time they were talking. If Tesman hadn't walked in at the time he did they were totally gonna make-out. Despite the fact that she says she's not gonna be that kind of woman who cheats on her husband, the fact that she was so willing to tell the Judge that she didn't love Tesman shows that she isn't gonna cheat on him but she doesn't want anyone to stop lusting after her.<--- Completely understandable. A bit selfish but she is in this loveless marriage and from the little that we do know about her you can tell that she's never really loved anyone in her life.
I can't be the only one who thinks Hedda's blonde.She just acts in this controlling and ruthless way that I associate with angry blondes.
Anyway back to her flirting. Is George blind? She was all over Barack and there's no way she could turn off her flirty face like that. Flirty faces take time.
LOL the fact that George's boring-ness is so predictable makes him so sad. Its not his fault he's a nerd. He loves research and can't see that his pregnant wife doesn't love him.<---- We've all been in that situation.Or I have at least. Me & my pregnant wives. Anyway...
I like how the judge talks about "something to stirr her"
The fact that she shunns the responsibility if a child is hilarious. She' s so selfish.

Hedda Gabler Act 1(Drama Fest-a-poloza!!!)

OMG!!-Catfight much?
I reallly liked the interaction between Hedda and Ms.Tessman. It was all :
"Chick you stupid"&
"Whatchya gonna do about it then?" &
"Tessman say what?"
lol- Yes that's exactly how it went. To me Ms.Tessman was about to slap a ---you know where I'm going. But she knew that this is horrible little girl is the one her nephew chose and she had to respect his decision.The whole time I could just imagine this elderly woman being so scared and trying no to show it.
For me the fact that Hedda isn't your typical wife made this act worth reading. By the time I was five pages i I kept thinking about Hawthorne's The Birthmark and how extremely P-Oed I'd be if Hedda was one of those chicks. You know the one who is overtly submissive to her doctoor husband despite the fact that he is slowly taking away her individuality. Luckily, Hedda is nothing like that but instead a complete and utter contol freak. Imagine Hedda being Rachel McAdams in Mean Girls. (That was Rachel McAdams right?) The way that she talks to Ms.Tessman, slowly manipulates and gets information out of Thea, and completely OWNS her husband makes her the perfect mean girl to me.
The way Hedda controls and dominates every situation in her life makes you love her while trying to hate her for being so mean to evryone else.It's so obvious that she doesn't love George and that she has a thing for that Lovborg guy. I think he's her Shane Oman. Yup they are/were all over each other at one point. Also isn't it a super cowinkydink that both of their past flames are in the same town and supposedly dating?
Awkward but suspecious. Mostly Awkward

Hedda Gabbler

The book's big and orange- this much I know. I'm gonna guess that someone in it's named Hedda Gabbler.