i can understand that. and i know where you're coming from. however there are feminists of all different styles just like there are of any other type of person.
AGREED! sleep is a good thing.
Showing posts with label Jack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jack. Show all posts
Thursday, April 10, 2008
SB,
humble. very cool. thats' nice to hear every once in a while.
for me personally, when i view the Coyote woman, although yes she IS in a relationship with him, she seems oddly apathetic and uncaring. as if she views him the same way he views her. therefore i don't think she cares about the rest of the women, because she uses him for sex. same as he uses her. and if she is infact the female version of him, she is the female version of the hunter. someone who is in power emotionally and can do what they want while having flocks of people at their feet, so to speak.
as for the second one, i can understand where the whole feminist aura thing can be considered lax in this story. which i understand and can see. however, for me it seems as though Houston is using the Coyote woman as a model. therefore i think the coyote woman is supposed to be somewhat of a positive figure, although i could be wrong.
humbly,
jt.
for me personally, when i view the Coyote woman, although yes she IS in a relationship with him, she seems oddly apathetic and uncaring. as if she views him the same way he views her. therefore i don't think she cares about the rest of the women, because she uses him for sex. same as he uses her. and if she is infact the female version of him, she is the female version of the hunter. someone who is in power emotionally and can do what they want while having flocks of people at their feet, so to speak.
as for the second one, i can understand where the whole feminist aura thing can be considered lax in this story. which i understand and can see. however, for me it seems as though Houston is using the Coyote woman as a model. therefore i think the coyote woman is supposed to be somewhat of a positive figure, although i could be wrong.
humbly,
jt.
Dear SarA Buncke
Lol. sorry about that. old habit. gotta break it. :oP
" I believe your words were "it seems like an ignorant feminist on repeat." Forgive me for assuming the "it" was Pam. Even though you now admit that "by the nature of her writing... she seems to convey that attitude." "
true those are my words. and yes i do mean that. Pam obviously isn't ignorant, otherwise she wouldn't be famous now would she? so yes i agree with you on that she is not an ignorant woman. her attitude that is conveyed through the story IS, however. that, my friend, is my opinion.
i believe it is yes. Mainly because of the contrast of the two women, and mainly because of the Koyote (coyote, however you spell it) woman. Her contrasting spirit to that of the main character, who is emotionally weak, gives the woman (Coyote woman) the air of an empowered and independent woman. therefore because there is such a model in that story, and that model clearly understands the situation, is not weak or emotionally attached, she is a feministic model. I believe Beltramo would agree if one was to say that a woman's sexuality in literature is the authors attempt at empowering such a woman through her sexual acts and freedom. under that nature, the Coyote woman is a feminist figure and therefore i believe this story to be that of a feminist and a woman attempting to live her life, written, undoubtedly, but a feminist author. (Pam is, whether you want to argue one way or another, a feminist writer.)
"I wouldn't say Pam Houston's attitude is that of an ignorant feminist at all. She's simply telling a story. I mean, she is a famous author, she can't be too ignorant, eh?"
:) we're all ignorant on some level. it's just to the degree of which you are. as for Pammy here, obviously she can't be that ignorant you are right. however even the smartest people have their generalizations and misconceived perceptions. Whether it is HER personal attitude being manifested through this story, or just the attitude of the story, the undeniable fact is that there is blame put on the hunter and the way he is portrayed and not given a proper identity. that sends a message. the message is pretty clear.
" I believe your words were "it seems like an ignorant feminist on repeat." Forgive me for assuming the "it" was Pam. Even though you now admit that "by the nature of her writing... she seems to convey that attitude." "
true those are my words. and yes i do mean that. Pam obviously isn't ignorant, otherwise she wouldn't be famous now would she? so yes i agree with you on that she is not an ignorant woman. her attitude that is conveyed through the story IS, however. that, my friend, is my opinion.
" I know you didn't say it wasn't a feminist story. In fact I believe I am the one trying to prove its not, and you are the one thinks it is, correct? "How to talk to a Hunter" is merely a fictional account of a commonly seen relationship in society, unfortunately. Its a tale of a man who takes advantage of a women who is way too vulnerable and ridiculously attached. She outwardly professes her love to him, and in return, he abuses her trust causing her internal destruction. Obviously Pam does not like the type of relationship this couple is experiencing because she portrays the affair to be a negative one. She's just warning her readers not to get mixed up with any of those badass heartbreakers. "
i believe it is yes. Mainly because of the contrast of the two women, and mainly because of the Koyote (coyote, however you spell it) woman. Her contrasting spirit to that of the main character, who is emotionally weak, gives the woman (Coyote woman) the air of an empowered and independent woman. therefore because there is such a model in that story, and that model clearly understands the situation, is not weak or emotionally attached, she is a feministic model. I believe Beltramo would agree if one was to say that a woman's sexuality in literature is the authors attempt at empowering such a woman through her sexual acts and freedom. under that nature, the Coyote woman is a feminist figure and therefore i believe this story to be that of a feminist and a woman attempting to live her life, written, undoubtedly, but a feminist author. (Pam is, whether you want to argue one way or another, a feminist writer.)
" Well, I don't recall any mention of female empowerment. Its merely a story of one persons' actions causing the downfall of another person. "
that's too simple an explanation for a story written by an author of the level of Houston. I dissagree. that is describing only one small event in the story and attempting to make it static, solitary, and the sole plot, which is not the case.
that's too simple an explanation for a story written by an author of the level of Houston. I dissagree. that is describing only one small event in the story and attempting to make it static, solitary, and the sole plot, which is not the case.
:) we're all ignorant on some level. it's just to the degree of which you are. as for Pammy here, obviously she can't be that ignorant you are right. however even the smartest people have their generalizations and misconceived perceptions. Whether it is HER personal attitude being manifested through this story, or just the attitude of the story, the undeniable fact is that there is blame put on the hunter and the way he is portrayed and not given a proper identity. that sends a message. the message is pretty clear.
- This is for Eric
"I do not agree with your statement "personally it seems like an ignorant feminist on repeat" because no where in the story is there a moment where the female should think that men are pigs."
Actually, i believe there is. Houston does not outright and bluntly say that men are pigs, as that would give way to controversy, something most people seem to want to avoid for one reason or another. However, through small details, such as the 15 messages from other women on his answering machine, his obvious views of women as another animal to hunt (only this time sexually), and even the title gives way to her views. "How to talk to a HUNTER." Many people have said this, and i will reiterate what they say for your sake. The hunter has no name. Therefore he is all of us. INCLUDING YOU. if all these small facts are to ignite a reaction in readers that ALL men (no name hunter) are predators, how is that not saying that all men are dangerous, pigs, and must therefore be dealt with in caution?
"Even though the men do control the relationship in the story and in society, there is nothing stopping the women from leaving the relationship, it is her decision in staying and doing a mistake in staying in it."
Four words. Emotional. State. Of. Mind. Her emotions and feelings for the hunter force her to blind herself intellectually, therefore stopping any thoughts of leaving him. If she were more detached from him, then yes, she would have the power and the ability to leave. However, as you like to say, "she's whipped." She's emotionally obsessed with this hunter and therefore can't and won't think straight or logically for that matter.
Men control the relationship in society? what society are You talking about? My history may be a little fuzzy... but i think familial hierarchies were a fad of the 30's and 40's. Not the 2000's. And i think Harstrick can attest that not all relationships include the man wearing the pants. (not a zinger at you, Alex, just remembering you saying that a bunch of times when mentioning your significant other)
"Your statement in someways is right, but no where in the story is the female in danger and should think that all men are predators, so I think you should reread the story to catch the different side of what I see because I know where your coming from, but in "How to Talk to a Hunter" the man is in control but in no way does he put the narrator in any danger."
I would call emotional distress, possibly ruining her future with any other male that deserves her, any monetary job she may sacrifice for being by his side, mental walls to blind herself from reality, and in all general senses of the words, emotional and psychological SUICIDE a danger. I don't know about you.
Actually, i believe there is. Houston does not outright and bluntly say that men are pigs, as that would give way to controversy, something most people seem to want to avoid for one reason or another. However, through small details, such as the 15 messages from other women on his answering machine, his obvious views of women as another animal to hunt (only this time sexually), and even the title gives way to her views. "How to talk to a HUNTER." Many people have said this, and i will reiterate what they say for your sake. The hunter has no name. Therefore he is all of us. INCLUDING YOU. if all these small facts are to ignite a reaction in readers that ALL men (no name hunter) are predators, how is that not saying that all men are dangerous, pigs, and must therefore be dealt with in caution?
"Even though the men do control the relationship in the story and in society, there is nothing stopping the women from leaving the relationship, it is her decision in staying and doing a mistake in staying in it."
Four words. Emotional. State. Of. Mind. Her emotions and feelings for the hunter force her to blind herself intellectually, therefore stopping any thoughts of leaving him. If she were more detached from him, then yes, she would have the power and the ability to leave. However, as you like to say, "she's whipped." She's emotionally obsessed with this hunter and therefore can't and won't think straight or logically for that matter.
Men control the relationship in society? what society are You talking about? My history may be a little fuzzy... but i think familial hierarchies were a fad of the 30's and 40's. Not the 2000's. And i think Harstrick can attest that not all relationships include the man wearing the pants. (not a zinger at you, Alex, just remembering you saying that a bunch of times when mentioning your significant other)
"Your statement in someways is right, but no where in the story is the female in danger and should think that all men are predators, so I think you should reread the story to catch the different side of what I see because I know where your coming from, but in "How to Talk to a Hunter" the man is in control but in no way does he put the narrator in any danger."
I would call emotional distress, possibly ruining her future with any other male that deserves her, any monetary job she may sacrifice for being by his side, mental walls to blind herself from reality, and in all general senses of the words, emotional and psychological SUICIDE a danger. I don't know about you.
To: Sarah
quickly, i never said that Houston was an ignorant feminist. although by the nature of her writing, and without any personal history, and this story solely as evidence, she seems to convey that attitude to the reader.
so, question from sarah: Jack Treseler, my question to you is this: what do you mean when you say Pam Houston is ignorant? What is it exactly that she is unaware of? That this story is so not a feminist story? or do you still think it is?
I never said it wasn't a feminist story. In fact i never made such a comment. Do i think this story has elements of a feminist view of the world? of course. However, i personally do not agree with the way Houston portrays men in this story. The only male character in this short story is that of the "hunter." The hunter is given no name, therefore he represents all of us (us being males) and in that regard her statement (or reference, inference, whatever you want to call it) that all men are players (based off the nature of the hunter), i find personally general, ignorant, and yes incorrect. However i do not have enough or adaquate information to say that Houston herself is ignorant. just the way she portrays her characters, and the attitude the story gives off i view as ignorant.
by using the phrase "ignorant feminist on repeat" i don't know if many of you have met one. i have met a couple. and lemme tell you that those i have met say the same things. Men are the predators and women are the victims. And again and again they say that. And me living with an educated feminist (mother) i've come to expect a better argument from those who consider themselves feminists. frankly, i got bored with the message that Houston sent out in that regard.
I personally do think this story is a feminist story, mostly based off the descriptions of the main character and Koyote. K seems like an independent, strong woman, and views the hunter the same way he views other women. In short, K is empowering. I still do not think that this view of women as animals or something to be hunted is right. However i also do not believe that the same views should be entertained by women. Whether in reaction to men or not. To be Truly empowering, and to Truly show men that women are more than meet, women, i personally believe, should rise above that mediocre mindset.
as for rereading the story, of course i will. However i also encourage you to do the same, Sarah, as both of us may have missed a few things the first time over.
so, question from sarah: Jack Treseler, my question to you is this: what do you mean when you say Pam Houston is ignorant? What is it exactly that she is unaware of? That this story is so not a feminist story? or do you still think it is?
I never said it wasn't a feminist story. In fact i never made such a comment. Do i think this story has elements of a feminist view of the world? of course. However, i personally do not agree with the way Houston portrays men in this story. The only male character in this short story is that of the "hunter." The hunter is given no name, therefore he represents all of us (us being males) and in that regard her statement (or reference, inference, whatever you want to call it) that all men are players (based off the nature of the hunter), i find personally general, ignorant, and yes incorrect. However i do not have enough or adaquate information to say that Houston herself is ignorant. just the way she portrays her characters, and the attitude the story gives off i view as ignorant.
by using the phrase "ignorant feminist on repeat" i don't know if many of you have met one. i have met a couple. and lemme tell you that those i have met say the same things. Men are the predators and women are the victims. And again and again they say that. And me living with an educated feminist (mother) i've come to expect a better argument from those who consider themselves feminists. frankly, i got bored with the message that Houston sent out in that regard.
I personally do think this story is a feminist story, mostly based off the descriptions of the main character and Koyote. K seems like an independent, strong woman, and views the hunter the same way he views other women. In short, K is empowering. I still do not think that this view of women as animals or something to be hunted is right. However i also do not believe that the same views should be entertained by women. Whether in reaction to men or not. To be Truly empowering, and to Truly show men that women are more than meet, women, i personally believe, should rise above that mediocre mindset.
as for rereading the story, of course i will. However i also encourage you to do the same, Sarah, as both of us may have missed a few things the first time over.
Something about a Hunter?
Player. In a .Management. Profession. (thought it applied)
Basically this story is all about a woman who can't get over a cheating boyfriend. The author builds her up as intellectual, smart, cunning, gorgeous, etc. Basically she is described as the type of girl most guys dream of. On top of that, she has no name, signifying that she can be any girl in the world.
The hunter is basically a player. Although to be more in the mind of an english teacher, we could say that the word "hunter" is a metaphor. Not only does this man hunt animals but he also hunts women, so basically he is a predator. Except, predator in this sense does not imply rape or sexual abuse or anything you would see on C.S.I. or Law and Order SVU. Predator here basically means what i said earlier, player. He plays women. In this day and age he'd be called a "pimp." (get it? player in a.... nvm). So anyway, this "predator" has no name, again meaning he represents every male. On top of that, the scene of these two starts out in bed, basically already insinuating a sexual relationship. Also, this guy has fifteen other messages on his machine from other women (dang he's good, fifteen? has he no life?)
Apparently, he likes country music, which alread puts him in my bad books. Then add that he is a republican and well.... safe to say i'm not his drinking buddy. The girl on the other hand loves rock and roll, is kind of spunky in a way (don't ask, i'm writing half of this while not awake. so don't blame me), and is a democrat. Sounds to me like the quintesential cool rocker chick guys fall for. Unfortunately throughout this story she is revealed again and again to let her emotions get in the way of her thinking. She is too blinded by her emotionial strings being to attached to him to realize that she's been cheated on with fifteen other women. (i think that's a new record...) So to me it seems as if the message in this story isn't so much "how to talk to a hunter" more as: "Ladies! yeeeeah!? (Run DMC anyone? no? thought not...)
Right, all jokes aside, I think the main message of this story is, like a feminist on repeat, men are pigs, not lovers (fish are frie.... sorry). So basically, i think the message is for women to have a mentality as quoted in the last part of the story (and possibly the coolest quote i'll ever write), "take it when he says 'I don't want to hug anyone else.' Substiture the 'hugging' for 'f***ing' and take it as a compliment."
So after writing all of that. i could have just said: men are pigs. women- be pessimistic and all will be good.
^ain't that a beezy.
-JDT
So far we have, "men are hunters and players, they play women, and women, poor poor women are always the victims." Personally it seems like an ignorant feminist on repeat.
Basically this story is all about a woman who can't get over a cheating boyfriend. The author builds her up as intellectual, smart, cunning, gorgeous, etc. Basically she is described as the type of girl most guys dream of. On top of that, she has no name, signifying that she can be any girl in the world.
The hunter is basically a player. Although to be more in the mind of an english teacher, we could say that the word "hunter" is a metaphor. Not only does this man hunt animals but he also hunts women, so basically he is a predator. Except, predator in this sense does not imply rape or sexual abuse or anything you would see on C.S.I. or Law and Order SVU. Predator here basically means what i said earlier, player. He plays women. In this day and age he'd be called a "pimp." (get it? player in a.... nvm). So anyway, this "predator" has no name, again meaning he represents every male. On top of that, the scene of these two starts out in bed, basically already insinuating a sexual relationship. Also, this guy has fifteen other messages on his machine from other women (dang he's good, fifteen? has he no life?)
Apparently, he likes country music, which alread puts him in my bad books. Then add that he is a republican and well.... safe to say i'm not his drinking buddy. The girl on the other hand loves rock and roll, is kind of spunky in a way (don't ask, i'm writing half of this while not awake. so don't blame me), and is a democrat. Sounds to me like the quintesential cool rocker chick guys fall for. Unfortunately throughout this story she is revealed again and again to let her emotions get in the way of her thinking. She is too blinded by her emotionial strings being to attached to him to realize that she's been cheated on with fifteen other women. (i think that's a new record...) So to me it seems as if the message in this story isn't so much "how to talk to a hunter" more as: "Ladies! yeeeeah!? (Run DMC anyone? no? thought not...)
Right, all jokes aside, I think the main message of this story is, like a feminist on repeat, men are pigs, not lovers (fish are frie.... sorry). So basically, i think the message is for women to have a mentality as quoted in the last part of the story (and possibly the coolest quote i'll ever write), "take it when he says 'I don't want to hug anyone else.' Substiture the 'hugging' for 'f***ing' and take it as a compliment."
So after writing all of that. i could have just said: men are pigs. women- be pessimistic and all will be good.
^ain't that a beezy.
-JDT
So far we have, "men are hunters and players, they play women, and women, poor poor women are always the victims." Personally it seems like an ignorant feminist on repeat.
In Responce to David's Post
On the subject of Ed's love for Terri, my main concern is not Ed's actions towards Terri. I think most people can agree that yes, he Did love her, but at the same time it was not a healthy love. Ed was possessive, oppressive, abusive, etc, etc. Basically Ed was everything you would expect in a hollywood sob story about abuse. Unfortunately this type of "love" is very real and does happen everyday. Back on topic, I personally think that the major problem and danger in a relationship like this is not the "love" of Ed, but Terri's willingness to believe him and become attached to him. Let me pose a question. If you were to be beaten and dragged by the ankles by your husband, threatened with a gun (.22 to the head? are you serious?), and your boyfriend threatened nightly, would you sit there by his side as he dies? I would hope not.
Terri's willingness to be by his side to me is scarier and not only more dissapointing but also unfair to Mel. Because Terri still seems to be enamored by Ed, even after he killed himself, her relationship with Mel is much more strained. When reading the original text (the one holderman gave us in class) the relationship seemed much more clear as to how deeply Mel was hurting because Terri can't get over Ed. For some reason, Terri is obsessed with the memory of Ed, and not in the good way (if there is a good way). She is so focused on her dead husband and his mempory that it seems to me as if she is just going through the motions with Mel, to have a husband just to have one.
Terri's emotional state and obsession with Ed is bringing not only her down but also her husband. Also, when the subject of Ed was brought up in the conversation in the story, not only were there more references to the sun and its position in the sky (to me not only representing time but also possibly the dwindling hope of a happy marriage?) but also brought the tone and attitude of the conversation down to a dangerous and depressing low.
-JDT.
Terri's willingness to be by his side to me is scarier and not only more dissapointing but also unfair to Mel. Because Terri still seems to be enamored by Ed, even after he killed himself, her relationship with Mel is much more strained. When reading the original text (the one holderman gave us in class) the relationship seemed much more clear as to how deeply Mel was hurting because Terri can't get over Ed. For some reason, Terri is obsessed with the memory of Ed, and not in the good way (if there is a good way). She is so focused on her dead husband and his mempory that it seems to me as if she is just going through the motions with Mel, to have a husband just to have one.
Terri's emotional state and obsession with Ed is bringing not only her down but also her husband. Also, when the subject of Ed was brought up in the conversation in the story, not only were there more references to the sun and its position in the sky (to me not only representing time but also possibly the dwindling hope of a happy marriage?) but also brought the tone and attitude of the conversation down to a dangerous and depressing low.
-JDT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)