Don't mess with the feminist

Do not take that title as a joke! I've once done a paper on the feminist movement in Las Vegas during the 1950s-80s. To research for the paper I read a book called "Storming Caesar's Palace", which I highly recommend. During the time in the book millions of people, black and white, rich and poor, young and old, moved to Las Vegas to take part in the expanding metropolis. The city's geography was set up so that the poor, black immigrants to the city were essentially cut off from the downtown upper class area. But more to the point the government's welfare system was purposefully set up to keep them tied down to the system.

The response? A full out publicity war on Las Vegas luxurious casino's. The women, fed up with the system the state government forced them into, walked calmly into the casino Caesar's Palace, and sat down, they did this several times and to different casinos. It shut down the casino floors and ended up costing the owners millions of dollars in gambling and a slump in tourism. This forced the casino owners, wanting to make money again, to pry Navada's governments hands to change the welfare system to be more accommodating. It lead to a reformed welfare system, improved utilities and schools in their area, and a growth in the single mothers' ability to control their lives.

What happened after? The women wanted complete control of the development of their part of the city. They knew what the area needed and how to go about it the best way. So instead of allowing the state and city government to just make the changes and going back to ignoring them, them took control of the situation and forced them to listen up.

That's why you should not mess with a feminist. They do not take crap from no one, and nor should they.

"How did I know that someday - at college, in Europe, somewhere, anywhere - the bell jar, with its stifling distortions, wouldn't descend again?"

One of my favorite books... THE BELL JAR by Sylvia Plath was mentioned in the chapter about Gender and Sexuality in our text by Kean and Campbell. Don't ask me what the book is about page-by-page (I read it some time in High School...), but from what I remember it's about Esther Greenwood's spiral down in life. The book starts out with her internship in New York City and ends with her in a mental hospital. Esther becomes depressed and suicidal. In the text, they explain Esther as being confused about who she is "'supposed to be' according to the gender roles of America in the 1950s." (216). I knew Esther had a lot of inner struggles, but never saw it as her having to fit into gender roles, specifically. It's interesting to re-analyze a book you've read in the past. I always find that required readings in High School and middle school often go unnoticed...

In class we were asked how we felt people would have initially reacted to Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton's "Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions". I believe Pat Robertson summed it up best when he was quoted as saying "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." No, not really. Just kidding.

I don't actually believe all people felt the same way about the feminist movement as Pat Robertson does. But he does present an interesting viewpoint (no matter how extreme it may be) towards the feminist movement. While Feminism has changed a lot in the way our society operates, no where is this more apparent than in the way the current family is set up. The notion of the family dynamic has turned away from the original mom and dad and kids. While Pat Robertson addresses many issues (in many illogical ways) what sticks out from his quote is the part about feminism being an "anti-family political movement". While the family has changed definitions thanks to the feminist movement's agenda, I would not call the movement anti-family. Instead I would refer to it as a "new family", because since the feminist movement we have woman in the workplace, more single-parent households, and homosexual families. The feminist movement did more than give women a voice, it has empowered other movements to step forward, and demand equal rights.

Macho Man

In the Campbell and Kean chapter, one of the statements that caught my attention states, “One of the implications of this was a fear among males that their ‘masculinity’ was under threat.” This is in reference to the post 1945 “split character” of the pull of women back into domestic households as well as the pull to the workforce. This “fear,” which was held by many men during this time period, was heavily focused on the idea of “bread-winning” and authority. With the option for women to remain in the workforce, even when men were not at war, rattled the structure of the typical American family of this time. I find the relationship between masculinity and the success of a woman to be quite interesting. Is the femininity of a woman altered if she is married to a successful man? Maybe this double standard of what makes a man masculine compared to what makes a woman feminine, needs to be address; specifically when dealing with second-wave feminist views.

Campbell and Kean uses the examples of Roseanne as well as other to show that the media has tried to show women as being independent. The examples that they use are good at showing people that women are not just a person who lives at your house and cook. However, some modern television shows are belittling the work women have done to show their independence. Shows like The Jersey Shore depict women as being dumb and gold diggers. This is obviously a problem since shows like these are quite popular which means that younger people are seeing these shows and some might even be modeling their lives off of these women.

Women's Liberation (1845-1959) may it rest in peace.

The 60's... the age of sexual revolution... the pill... and tons of unprotected sex

Sounds hella fun right?

But let's look at this from a different standpoint. Not a point of religion or society, but how about morals? Let's look at how the morals of todays society are skewed by the 60's. How acceptable is it to see a half clothed woman in music videos? How often do college guys talk about their weekend escapades? Is this because of the 60's and the sexual revolution and the birth of the pill? (hahaha i know great pun right?) what do you think Elizabeth Cady Stanton would think if she could see society now. It's my belief that from 1845 up until... hell I'll say 1959 women were taking huge strides. However, now when you look at it, some men still look at women as objects, as play toys and cooks. It's honestly of my belief that this entire regression is due to the "sexual revolution" of the 60's. Yeah I know that womens lib was making a heyday in the 60's and 70's but honestly, I think that was just an attempt to get back to the way it was. Have we gone through another regression since then? from 1979 until 2010 have we regressed back to the times when men still thought "Oh crap my dog can talk?" Elizabeth Cady Stanton was an extremely intelligent woman, she believed in formulating thoughts and beliefs and getting them down on paper, not burning bras. Was 1845 a different time? Yes. Will her beliefs still apply now? I believe yes as well.

It is an exciting time. Women have come a long way in terms of equal rights and social status. However, gender roles are still reinforced implicity and explicity in different ways everyday. The media plays a significant role in reinforcing gender roles without us even realizing it. Take a look at magazine advertisements and TV commercials. On TV, women are most often seen cooking, cleaning, and advertising cleaning merchandise. In some ways, one can argue we have a long way to go.

Inequality

When I really stop to think about gender and sexuality, it kind of upsets me and also confuses me at the same time. I don't understand why women ended up as the lower being and men as the higher. Women have to work for everything twice as hard as men, it almost seems like men don't have to work hard at all, looking at statistics prove this to be true. The Seneca Falls convention is a great example of women having to fight for rights and equality, along with this next example from Sex and The City; the women either have to fight or try to get the attention of a man, while men don't need to do much, also how the one women tried to "have sex like a guy". Why do we have this barrier, why couldn't we all have just been equal from the start? Unfortunately this didn't happen from the start, so making changes in the right direction is really all anyone can do.

Gender

This article talks about women role in American Society.The role they play in the work force and in the home. The effect that gender plays on power and the way society sees you. The article shows the diferences between different sex and the way they are treated.The author explains how we are not born with gender roles we develop them through our society. As people we learn was is the norm or the accepted by society. The article talks about the struggle of women in America and the roles they played while struggling in a society that gave men all the power.

Women in society

Chapter 7 touches on the aspects of family life during the 1950s and how women were expected to find a husband and raise their family in the suburbs. According to a "Baby and Childcare Manual" published in 1944, women should only leave the home for, "a trip to the beauty parlor, to see a movie, to buy a new hat or dress, or visit a good friend." I think the ideas of old psychologists are interesting because the things they advised people to do seem so ridiculous and ethically wrong in society today. Obviously, the ideas from this manual were written during a time when the roles of family members were defined much differently. It makes me wonder what people will think of today's self-help type guides, 50 years from now.

The article talks a lot about the biology of sexuality. At one point, it is even said that medicalization refers to calling one thing healthy and the other an illness. It then says that the medical practice must eliminate or control the deviant. This idea really alienates a person as an other is society. Why do people have to be placed into one of two created categories and why is one category considered as sick? It also seems that of these two categories, only one will be accepted. This also gives rise to "sexual adequacy" and people striving for it so they can fit into that "healthy" category. This reminds me a lot of the show Nip/Tuck. Christian is completely obsessed with how he looks and how many women he can sleep with. Also, most of the surgeries they perform are sexual based. I think the show is in a way mocking society's obsession with sexuality.

Differences in Gender

when I think about the differences in males and females, the first thing that comes to mind is how women, despite the progress of woman's rights movements in the 20th century, are still not truly equal. Women worldwide are still oppressed in some way. Weather it is how some members of our society view women as objects of sexual value or the harsh social conditions women in many of the countries in the Middle East endure, women are still not equal. I think that Campbell and Kean do a good job in explaining gender and development of the sexes, especially women. What are the current issues for woman's rights and what is being done to address these issues?

Sexuality and Gender

In the article, John Gagnon, says, "people become sexual in the same way they become everything else. Without much reflection, they pick up directions from their social environment. They acquire and assemble meanings, skills and values from the people around them." It seems that almost everything that contributes to an individuals make up is socially constructed such as race, gender etc. I feel that our families and society definitely help us assemble our gender roles and sexuality through gender cues and the use of images in the media, however I think that we all have an innate sense of our individual sexuality, gender and sexual preferences. Gender norms within society, offer us a guideline to follow but we ultimately will conform to our natural preferences and desires. However all of this said, I do think that society's influence can be great despite our own natural feelings and can vary depending on the culture.

Women and society

In today's society, the role of women is still not equal to the role of men, but the gap between the two is much smaller than in previous decades. Angelina Grimke makes a comparison between slavery and the oppressed position of women in America. She writes, "the mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher rights and responsibilities than to woman". Women were not allowed to vote or hold property like slaves and merely tended to the home and children. It has taken a lot of time and effort from many people to create 'equality' among men and women in this country. However,in many other societies, ancient or current, women did have many privileges that were not seen in America until the 20th century. Women in Mongol occupied or Tang China participated in politics and did not have their civil liberties infringed upon. These civilizations lasted for hundreds of years and progressed smoothly due to the equality of all of its citizens. I think that if America had really practiced equality at its birth our nation would be in much better position socially and economically.

Grimke's grim outlook

After reading the Chapter from Kean and Campbell, I felt that I got a very skewed view of the whole issue of gender in this country. The quote by Grimke paints a picture of how women were treated during her era, the 1800s. She explains how women are "converted into a mere drudge to suit the convenience of her lord and master." This view is far off from the world of today and I feel such comparisons are no longer fair to make. No longer are women expected to stay at home and look after their children. Parents now assume more equal roles in the upbringing of their kids. Being raised in a household where, more often than not, my father made dinner for my family and cleaned the house on weekends, I see that it is no longer as much of an issue of society, but instead that of the individual. At this moment in time the sexes have never before been on such a "level" playing field. I feel that in the cases where extreme gender roles are instituted, it is more on an individual basis as opposed to a blanketing societal phenomenon that Grimke had combated.

Sexuality in society

How many different types of ways can society find to judge people? Black, White, Disabled, Freak, Poor, Gay, etc. No matter who the person is, society can find a way to make them seem less then "normal". Everyone is different therefore everyone will view things in a different perspective. To some people, being homosexual is no big deal, to others it is a sin. It is vastly discussed throughout the nation but it is a topic that you can not get everyone to agree on. There are groups of people protesting for gay rights, but there will always bump into that group that protesting against it. No matter how hard either side tries, things just won't ever go their way.

Sexuality and Identity

The chapter on gender and sexuality emphasizes that fact that sexuality has always been a form of identity. There has been an expected "norm" of sexuality which categorizes people. If people differ in their sexuality and step outside the norm, such as homosexuality, those people are identified as outside the norm. This is also true for women who don't want to be identified as a simple housewife who cooks and cleans all day, but goes out for more opportunity. In past society, it was much harder to step outside the norm and form one's own identity. In today's society it is definitely more accepted and there is much for opportunity for one to express oneself. I still feel that there are challenges that people still face today. Women still are not entirely equal to men in a lot of areas, and it will take a while, if ever, for the level to be completely balanced. There are also many movements in favor of gay rights, but there will always be people who oppose. It will be interesting to see in the future how much more progress is made.

Women and Slavery

When I was reading what Kean and Campbell said about gender and sexuality I liked how the brought other people opinions into the dissusion. I liked the comparison that Angelina Grimke mad about how oppressed women and slaves were not much different. When she questioned how women should have-to adopted into certain roles of society and men can just assume there roles. She uses the words doll/child/pet to describe how women are put into roles while the man always has the label master with his name. When reading over all this you realize how far women have come. Women still have that house wife status but sometimes that just happens because of kids or its just easier for them to stay at home. I have noticed a lot of my friends moms and my mom work till they had kids and by the time we all hit 11 or 12 years old they went back to work. What Elizabeth C. Stanton and Susan B. Anthony did and fighting for women rights helped get what today's modern woman off and going.

Gay Rights

Campbell and Kean start to discuss homosexual rights in the gender and sexuality section of the book. The generation I am living in, I thought I was completely aware of how homosexuals are fighting for their marriage rights and fighting for an equal part in society but I had no idea there were raids or all the movements over 30 years ago. Until reading this, I never would have known what the raid on Stonewall Inn was. I personally think gays and lesbians have every right to fight for the things they want. We are all human beings regardless of our interests and prejudice and harassment should not be tolerated. The topic of "normal" sexual behavior comes up. What does that even mean? What other people do in their lives should not be a concern to others, it has NO effect on their life at all. I just think people should stop caring so much about what others are doing especially when its not hurting anyone or anything.

Gender and Sex

Its amazing looking at the differences in the woman's place in society today compared to fifty years ago. Campbell and Kean discuss women during the World War II period and it was ook for woman to work when their was war but during a period of peace they had to go back to return to their "script". This was ment that woman were to stay home and take care of the home and family while the man worked to support the family. They discuss the movie Rebel Without A Cause and how James Dean's character Jim is confused by his dad is at home cooking and cleaning while his mother is at work making the money. This is an example of todays society. Women are holding high powered positions above men. This was tough fifty years ago due to the fact that it was a male dominated society. I also think the big difference between now and then is that men were looking for women to start a family with and todays society looks at women as more sex objects. They do not want the commitment of marriage and just want to sleep around. I feel that sex has grown to being more for fun than for love.

Sexuality and Gender Roles

The Delphy article raises several important points about sexuality and how the rules of sex are different depending on gender. But the most prolific argument the author makes is how ones' gender determines which social role a person will occupy, with the author stating that women are almost always have to settle for less in life due to something that was beyond their control, similar to how being born into a certain race will lessen one's opportunities in life. While this argument may hold in third world countries where women have no access to education, let alone advancement, it is quite a different story in developed western countries, which is where I disagree with the author. In the United States, for example, it is my perspective that women have as much, perhaps maybe a little bit more through means of affirmative action, opportunity as men. Discrimination against women in the corporate world is still hanging on, but on the whole, the playing field in the United States is more level than it has ever been. Women have the same opportunity as men to attend all of the elite universities and service academies, and indeed more women than men attend college in the United States. In addition, the amount of women entering prestigious fields such as medicine and law have been on the rise dramatically over the last 30 years, and it only keeps getting more and more equitable as time goes on. The US had a past of blatant discrimination toward women, but many of the wrongs have been righted in today's America, where the playing field gets increasingly level year after year.

Gender over the years

Discrimination against women and the set roles that have been placed on them in the past is something that for the most part, has been overcome. I agree with most of the views and examples that were expressed in the text about the movements and progression of women's rights. I also feel as though these negotiations between dealing with equality in society have been resolved in the past decade or two. Women have gained equality and respect in the workforce and at home. I think that women looked upon as equal and as competent in men . The boundaries have been slowly but surely been broken.

Gender

Gender and sexuality problem is one of the big issues in the history. The concept of gender and sexuality is basically generated by the people and the experience of life. Hence, gender and sexuality is one of the social construction. Throughout the American history, women always had no right in the male-dominated society. In the male-dominated society, women were usually treated as children, pets and dolls. Because of the patriarchy, women always defined as dependant, weak and silent. I believe that it is stereotyping toward the women. In the text book, the"creeping woman" in the story, the Yellow Wallpaper, that mentioned in the chapter impressed me a lot. I think that it is very unfair and inhuman to lock a woman in a bedroom and make her becomes animal-like human. In the later history, feminist such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton attempted to fight for equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities to women. The chapter has mentioned that Angelina Grimke suggested that women duties are not characterize by sex or gender, but represent by diversity of the relations in life, the various gift and talent committed to their care and the region that they live. After struggling for a long period of time, women always obtain the equal social and political right and sometimes get more privilege than men in current day.

S-E-X

In the article, Tiefer writes, "Nonfiction media are dominated by a health model of sexuality." Not always. What about the real life people on reality TV shows such as The Jersey Shore or The Real World, where sex is represented as an emotionally-detached pastime? And the romanticized expectations of sex the author talks of; what about the casual sex and friends with benefits on shows like Gossip Girls or Laguna Beach? I think sex has been portrayed as a more casual experience in pop culture today. Guys are on the "conquest" and girls are out to be that "conquest." These real-life people are also experts in that arena. We are learning a great deal about the sexual experience from these guys, too.

A Dolls House

In the chapter Gender and Sexuality Ibid talks about how men used to a still do treat women like a doll,child, or pet in which he is the master. This reminds me of a book I read last year called A Dolls House. Nora is the main character and is portrayed as a traditional wife cooking and cleaning and taking care of the kids, while she commits acts on the down low which is very different and would be looked down upon. In today's society women have so much more opportunities to make something out of their lives. Women are generally more excepted in society now providing for themselves and becoming successful. They have just as many rights as men now and are taking seriously in society today having just as much "power" as Ibid uses.

Subjectiveness In sexuality

From what I can really understand from this article is that sexual experience is subjective. I liked the part where she talked about what makes an MD or a PHD able to talk about whats normal in the sexual experience. And really, nothing does. Just because someone has a medical degree doesn't really mean that person can say what makes me or anyone else happy sexually. Obviously, some certain sexual acts are literally against the law (rape), but other than that who really has the authority to say what is normal or acceptable sexually. If one person really enjoys using food in bed (like that one person mentioned in her letter) then who really cares? I mean, if you personally don't enjoy that say so, and maybe you guys can find a happy medium maybe you can't but it doesnt make that person wrong for enjoying certain things sexually. It's like saying one way to play poker is inherently "better." I would agree that one's experience in poker is subjective, whether they like 5 card or texas hold em or what have you.

Vampire Popularity

Why do you think that vampires are so popular in modern culture? Is it because they are now personified as a sex figure? Is it because they can be associated with an outsider? Is it because people enjoy the "antihero?" Or is it a combination or something different all together?

Vampire

I think the evolution of Vampires, is good for the marketing of Vampire movies and novels. If present day Vampire were like Vlad aka Dracula then I don't they be as interesting. The modern day Vampire movies are very interesting, but the topic of Vampires are very interesting.

WHY?!

Phew, I made it! Just got back from Greg Mortenson and all (AHEM.) Well, anyways... I think it's pretty cool that we've been talking about vampires! It's interesting learning about the origins of Dracula and the current portrayals of vampires in the media! As we have learned, vampires seem to lure audiences in.

BUT WHY?!

I myself enjoy vampire-related anything, but I'm not entirely sure why. So... I looked into it. Here's something I found really interesting:

"The craze, which is undoubtedly teen-girl-driven this time around, could also be a backlash against the crude and overtly sexual themes of other teen-targeted content like Gossip Girl and Beverly Hills 90210 or the noncommittal boyfriends of The Hills and The City." ("Vampire Mania" by Kiri Blakeley, http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/23/vampire-mania-twilight-forbes-woman-time-bad-boy.html)

Do you agree? Disagree? Neither? BOTH?!

The Evolution of Vampires

My first impression of vampires would be very close to Bram Stoker's version of Dracula. A mythic creature that drains blood from its victims to survive. It is strange to see vampires portrayed as outcasts that want to be loved. They are no longer objects of fear and horror but are now looked at with intrigue and in some cases, understanding. The modern vampire is someone that we can relate to much easier than Dracula. I think because people can relate to these modern vampires is why shows such as True Blood and the Twilight series are so popular. Has the introduction of the modern vampire changed society's view on vampires?

Past to Present

Modern vampires have recently become an obsession in our society, we have turned them into something entirely different; Why do you think the image of the vampire has changed so much throughout the year? Also, what makes modern vampires so mysterious and sexy?

Vamp

When I think of vampires I think of blood sucking immortals. Growing up movies portrayed them as to be scary and all they want to do is suck your blood. As of the last couple years this idea of vampire has transitioned from monster to sexy. Twilight is a perfect example of this. Bella should be scared of Edward but she is intrigued and attracted to him. I also saw this trend in the episode in true blood. Its starting to become an annoyance that people are becoming attracted to these blood sucking animals that we grew up being scared of. Why did film makers, writers, etc. choose the vampire as the new romeo? Do you think that the vampire trend will die off and a new sexual drive for a monster will emerge?

What does the change in the vampire really mean?

Vampires in past centuries were seen as scary, creepy, monsters who were a threat to society. Now it seems as if they have taken a complete change of character and have been accepted into a part of society today. Shows such as True Blood and Twilight have shown this. Vampires have become these majestic, attractive, sexual people with feelings. Does this change in the vampire reflect how our society has changed over time? Do the vampires that are resembled today bring out characteristics of how people act in mainstream society today?

Why Vampires?

When thinking of Vampires I think of blood thirsty males who seek out people to suck there blood so they can continue living. I really think Bram Stokers Dracula. I have never read the book but I have seen the movie plenty of times. Now you look at these new vampires the are all about love and lust, like in True Blood and in the Twilight series. Why do the people who right these movies and pilots for these shows think that what people want to see? Along with the the vampire crazy why do people love them so much and why do they love the new vampire more? I personally like the old one more but I still found myself interested in the new vampire to. What drives the the vampire craze? What makes the love and lusting vampire more attractive than the dark sides blood sucking Dracula? They even have a children cereal now for kids so it is drilled into our heads at a young age.

Blood Lust

In Mary Williamson's Conclusion, she makes reference to the link between capitalism and vampires, through the works of Marx. She then goes on to say that, "The vampire enters the permanently transient culture of capitalism, adapting and evolving in order to keep pace with the cultural moment." With this theory in mind, what is the current adaptation of the vampire saying about our culture and society today? Is capitalism to blame for "Twilight"?

Stoker

Williamson references many different interpretations of Stoker's Dracula that work to provide examples of how the narration may represent different aspects of Stoker's society. There are Freudian infrences made regarding Dracula's apparent "Oedipus complex" as well as a section devoted to the feminist point of view where it is argued that the scene where the vampire Lucy is killed is really just a glorified "rape" scene. Can't entertainment ever just be accepted at face value? Aren't some of these concepts a little over analytical? Or, should there always be an accepted place for deeper analyical interpretation of entertainment?

Vampires and Social Construction

Vampires throughout the 20th century and into the 21st were often used as a foil for elements of society that have been repressed or hidden from the mainstream. Female sexuality and the concept of sexual pleasure are most often the concepts that vampires have been a symbol for. Previously a creature to be feared and spited, vampires in modern times have become a symbol for guilty pleasure, and in the case of shows such as True Blood and contemporary celebrations of Halloween, something people are greatly interested in and intrigued by. Most, including myself, would argue that the image of the vampire has been perverted and exploited by the modern media for profit and a quick way to generate stories. Is this actually the case? Has the evolution of the vampire simply a reflection of the times, or has it been manipulated by the media or popular culture? Is the vampire the same social symbol it was 50 years ago in terms of social convention? Or has that changed as well?

Attractive Vampires?

It is discussed in chapter two that a woman named Margaret Carter "suggests that while the nineteenth-century vampire might have inspired sympathy despite its curse, in the late twentieth-century it 'appears as an attractive figure precisely because he or she is a vampire'" What do you think changed dramatically over the generations to make vampires less scary, and more attractive and/or appealing? Why is it that shows such as True Blood or movies such as Twilight show vampires as an intriguing idea rather than something to run and hide from?

Vampire

Based on the reading, there is a different point of views toward the vampire in nineteenth century and the vampire in twentieth century. In the nineteenth century, most of the people felt fear to the "otherness" of the vampire. The famous example definitely was Dracula, who was a monster-like vampire. The point of view toward the vampire had shifted. In the twentieth century, people were not afraid of the vampire anymore and started to interest to the "rebellious" and " domesticated" of new vampire. The concept of "new vampire" is involving with the theme of family and friendship. Has limited knowledge in the past affected the superstitious views of vampires?

Vamps

Williamson says ,"the vampire offers a way of inhabiting difference with pride, for embracing defiantly an identity that the world at large sees as "other." Has the current image of the vampire helped the disabled, the freaks and the "others" in society embrace being a "glamorous outsider?How has the emergence of the sympathetic vampire changed how vampires are viewed throughout history? Why do vampires stand out in a society with various mythical creatures (werewolves, beasts, etc..) that also expose the themes of sexuality and gender?

Vampires hold on society

Why do you think the image of the vampire has changed so dramatically over time from the scary monster to an innocent caring lover? Is this why vampires have become such the craze lately? Do you believe that vampires will continue to be such a big part of American Society in the years to come? And why do you believe Vampires have such interesting appeal to us?

Vampires have transformed throughout history. The portrayal of vampires in the media today is very different from Bram Stoker's Dracula. It is also now possible to find female vampires. Do women vampires behave differently than Dracula or stereotypical vampires? Do these female vampires symbolize something different than the males?

Dracula who?

In the second chapter of "The Lure of the Vampire" Milly Williamson says " Dracula no longer holds the center stage in the world" How did this happen? Why are vampires associated with Halloween, twilight, true blood" If the movie/book based on the original Dracula was still being updated, would Dracula still be the center of the vampire world? Or is he simply outdated?

Legends of vampires as well as other monsters have been around for centuries. Only very recently however, has the vampire so thoroughly invaded our culture and lifestyle. How could this have happened and what factors might have facilitated this? How did vampires become so much more beloved and at the same time hated, than monsters such as Frankenstein or werewolves? What impact do newer tv shows such as Vampire Diaries or True Blood as well as movies such as Twilight have on our understanding of vampiric culture and lore?

Allegory

The sexual, promiscuous nature of vampires, this 'otherness' that they are able to portray and emanate; is this an allegory of a certain group of people? Just like how Charlie Chan was a caricature of the Chinese, are vampires a caricature (or an embellishment of stereotypes) of Eastern Europeans who do not practice Catholicism, hence their weakness towards symbols of Christ?

Steve Wohlberg

I don't know about you, but I think anyone experimenting in witchcraft or other likewise activities has a mental defect that is deeper than just an idiotic religious belief. I think it's absurd that this sort of "anti-vampire" movement even exists and here's why:
1 - People should to do what they want as long as it's not hurting anyone else.
2 - Anyone who truly believes drinking blood will bring them immortality or other such benefits is so dumb that their opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
3 - Is this demographic big enough to constitute a threat?
4 - Why is it a threat? (relates to point 1)
But I'm just one person: what do you think? Is this a serious a problem that needs to be addressed? Or is it just a bunch of immature adults living out a fantasy?

Why De-Fang the Vampire?

In class we learned about the history of the vampire. The vampire's history is not seeped in romanticism and sexuality but instead is one of a monster, not unlike a werewolf or Frankenstein. But in recent times, people have taken on the vampire as a representation of their own differences. So the question I ask is, who has had the most affect on the vampire culture? Those who are creating the vampire culture, or the fans of vampire culture? In other words, are these people truly adopting a culture that they see themselves relating to, or are they the ones creating the culture?

"Buyer Beware"

"Anti-Vampire" activist and author Steve Wohlberg says, "In fiction, the vampire denotes power, sexuality, romance, and immortality; but in reality those who experiment with occultism, witchcraft, and drinking blood can easily slip through an alluring doorway into darkness, immorality, and despair. Buyer, beware!" Do such shows and movies such as True Blood, Twilight, and The Vampire Diaries blur the line between reality and fiction? What kind of messages are youngsters and teenagers extracting from them? Do you think such shows send "mixed moral messages," according to Wohlberg?

Relation of Otherness

Milly Williamson states in the intro that "the vampire offers a way of inhabiting difference with pride, for embracing defiantly an identity that the world at large sees as 'other'". With the obsession of vampires in entertainment over the past decade, has this notion of otherness been covered up at all by the modern form of entertainment? Has the obsession changed and lost the original value that was the base for the obsession with vampires and dracula?

The Vampire's Otherness

Milly Williamson discusses how the less attractive, rebel figures who choose to live outside of society during 19th century vampire fiction have been transformed to have an appeal to the average person and gain a sense of sympathy. What factors of our society do you think have contributed to the shift in the way we see "otherness?" Why does the vampire craze of True Blood and Twilight attract so many young girls? And will this depiction of vampires last?

Vampires

I honestly learned a lot from the lecture on Tuesday. I didn't know any of the history behind Vlad the Impaler. I knew about vampire but only as society today sees them. Today people see vampires as halloween figures. They are known for sucking blood, having fangs, turning into bats etc. At the very beginning of the book, second sentence of the introduction, Williamson talks about critics reminding us that vampires can infect us with their otherness. That is exactly what people think about vampires, they are seen as "others". Although i do not know much about vampires, i am aware that there is much more to them, and I'm enjoying reading this book.

Change of Vampires

I was not aware that vampires had a history dated to the medieval times. I always thought that the beginning of the vampire legend began with Dracula and Transylvania. I was able to see that Dracula was just a version of vampires, and the legend of the vampire was created way before him. I also heard legends of Vlad the Impaler, but did not know that he was considered a national hero. Its extremely interesting how the legend of the vampire developed from medieval times to now. Now they are brought into culture even as a form of entertainment, such as Twilight. Back then they were mostly feared, but today they are considered fascinating in many ways.

Vampires and Their Origins

I had always harbored an interest in vampires, an interest that heightened during autumn leading up the Halloween, but until class on Tuesday, I had little to no idea on the origins of vampires or Dracula. Hearing about Vlad the Impaler's past shocks me little, his behavior and ruthlessness were very common in his day. Eastern Europe during this time period has a fascinating history, and being able to view it from an American Studies perspective had been especially interesting. That being siad however, the pop culture notion of vampires has gotten way out of hand. Media such as Twilight and Buffy the Vampire Slayer have perverted the image of the vampire to the point where it most likely irredeemable. However, Bram Stoker's Dracula, as well as the original tales of Vlad the Impaler and the documentaries surrounding him, give a much more down to earth view of the vampire: a creature to speculated about, not romanticized about in pop culture.

Educational Vampires

In chapter three, Williamson begins to discuss the vampire in written novels and then the transformation onto screen. Specifically, Williamson deal with "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and the impacts on the American public at that time. Two episodes from the series were never allowed to air because they "were thought to 'resemble the traumatic events that unfolded in American schools during the spring of 1999.'" (53) I am bringing up this re-occuring theme in American culture, because Vampires are not the only entity to be targeted as "too violent for youth". Music, artists, video games, and other pop cultures phenomena have been the blame of most violence in the teenage communities today. The author Parks' feels that this depiction of Vampires in the media context is actually confronting violence rather than encouraging it. I think that its quite interesting that Vampires in the media can be viewed as learning tools for teenagers.

Changing my thoughts

After watching the vampire special the other day in class, it gave me a different opinion on vampires and the stories that go along with them. There is legitimate history with vampires and its not just a folk tale or anything either. I have watched all the Twilight series movies and read the first two books. I liked the books and the movies. But i never really looked in to the history behind it all. Vlad the Impaler was very interesting tale and story of what he use to as a Ruler over his kingdom. In Williamson article i liked the part on gender and how it plays a roll in vampire history and how it is portrayed now a days. The Dracula part interest me as well. I am interested to find out more about Vampires and there history

Honestly, I Don't Know What Else to Say.

I HATE WHAT VAMPIRES HAVE BECOME!

The noble past of the vampire myth, from Vlad Tepes to what? A sparkly vampire hell bent on purity? Really? That's what the vampire novel has become. My last hope of a quality modern view on vampires are the Darren Shan novels about the Vampires Assistant. There it's a battle between the vampires and their "Evil" (??) counter parts who are giving the vampires a bad name. Instead of draining a person completely of their blood the vampires take what they need for sustainance, where as tha vampaneze (the "evil" counterparts) drain a human completely. I believe this is a more moralistic view point on a vampire. Instead of a battle between premarital sex or not it's about a REAL life and death decision. Coming back to my original point in the battle of the belief between the popular vampire. From Dracula to Edward Cullen

I HATE WHAT VAMPIRES HAVE BECOME!

Vlad

The most interesting part of the history surrounding the developement of the vampire lore was that Dracula as a vampire was created by Stoker. I never knew that the vampire aspect of Dracula's identity was created externally by the Irish author. I knew of Vlad as a historical figure, but never realised that the reason why we think of him as Dracula was due to Stoker's mythology.

Vampires In today society

In today's culture vampires are still a big part of the media and today's topics. Williamson's article tell's how the story of dracula and vampires throughout history have been of a man's tale, now the womens roles are just as important in these stories. True blood is one of the major vampire shows on tv now portraying a young girl as the main character. She shows love and compassion towards the vampires. I feel the young girls feeling of affection towards the vampires is common through many stories dealing with them. The new vampires are portrayed as the others but also have there own group of people, rather then the old stories of just one single monster such as dracula.

I guess I'll just go with: Vampires

First off I'd just like to say that I hate Twilight, True Blood, and every other foo foo depiction of vampires. Vlad the Impaler, though he might have been able to fend off the Ottomans, was a grotesque and horrible person. The depiction of vampires as of late is boring and lame at the least. Sorry for those that like it, Twilight isn't how vampires are supposed to be. Give me 30 Days of Night vampires and I'm all set.

That being said vampires are creatures that peak human curiosity, much like the zombie craze that is also happening this decade. They are beings that frighten us and entice us to know more. Therefore we have a wide spectrum of interpretation of a vampire. Some come out for on the Vlad the Impaler's viscous side and others that lean toward the pansies of Twilight.

Vamps

I find it amazing that Williamson was able to write an entire book about vampires and how it relates to various aspects of society over a few hundred years. I think she used a lot of jargon and I expected it to be a little bit more interesting considering she was talking about vampires. I think that the transition of the vampire from an "other, to being adored and sympathized with by fans was inevitable. It is customary to fear something that is unknown or relatively new, as seen with disabilities. Most recently, society has been more willing to spin scary images into friendly, romantic, images that appeal to younger audiences. I view vampires as mainly a cultural phenomenon, and the themes of gender and sexuality just add to the "melodrama."

"Bite Me"

One of the things I found interesting from The Lure of the Vampire was the chapter on Gender and Dracula. Williamson goes into sex and the vampire and its relation to masculinity. Williamson says, "Dracula, it seems, is a man's tale. And not just a man's tale, but a heterosexual man's tale." (7). After reading that, I remembered our goal: figuring out why vampires have become such a phenomenon. In my opinion, vampires are very closely related to sexuality and domination. Vampires, like Dracula, are powerful figures that embody a type of dominance over people. Williamson mentions how the concept of the vampire has been used by men to ease their fears. However, if this is true, why are vampires also popular with women, too? OH WAIT... in the words of my best friend Maria: "I'd let Eric bite me..." (yes, Eric from True Blood). It's interesting how vampires have been made into sexual creatures. All of the vampires from Twilight, Vampire Diaries, and TRUE BLOOD all happen to be pretty good looking. (And the majority of the protagonists are heterosexual males, too!) Coincidence? I think not. Williamson is onto something...

Vampires

After reading this article, I've come to realize the subject of vampires is one that has transformed greatly over the past few centuries. Williamson portrays the original vampires as outcasts of society, creatures that we were to be scared of. People who felt like 'others' in our society could feel like they could relate to them. In recent portrayals, the modern vampires have been shown to be the protagonist, rather than the antagonist. The new vampires are ones that should be admired, not feared, and always seem to end up being the hero. The one constant idea that has transferred from the early depictions of vampires to now, is the female's sympathy and affinity for the vampire.

When I saw the subtitle "Doctors, Vampires, and Dissection" I was immediately interested. With my father being a mortician, I have always had a morbid obsession with death and anatomy. The idea of a female anatomical figure being more detailed than a male is kind of strange to me. I understand the metaphor of removing the pieces of the sculpture to removing clothes. The book describes it as a "women revealing her sexuality." Today in text books, the figures are almost always male. Perhaps this is because the female body is not modestly dressed as during the 19th century. Also, during that time, the majority of doctors studying anatomy were male. Now, there are both females and males, so why are the diagrams today not represented more equally?

The Vampire Freak Show

I feel as though our culture always has and always will be intrigued by "freaks" and "the other." Could it be that horror movies serve the same purpose as the early freak shows? Are they a reflection of the times/public sentiment, beliefs, especially those about gender, etc.? Did the people who watched these films watch them to feel reassured in their thinking processes? Williamson writes, "If the 'New Woman' could be turned into a 'silent body,' her resistance to convention could be treated as a case to be solved." I think this statement is a reflection of the attitudes that many men shared during the Victorian Era. By dissecting the woman as an object as most of the men in these vampire films did, it made it easier for them to gather information about them and assert their dominance over them. It also justified the patriarchal structure that existed. These sexually characterized women were to be feared, but at the same time they were desired, and then killed. Interesting.

Vampires

Traditionally, I had no idea that vampires were even studied like this. I am completely fascinated by all of this because I guess I just never thought that in depth about them. I always thought it was just a made up concept but it seems that there is so much history of them as shown by Williamson. I personally am a Twilight fan but I know that doesn't really give justice to the history of vampires and what they are typically supposed to be like. However, I think that Twilight isn't necessarily a bad thing because it is something different and many people are interested in it. Williamson describes vampires to be some sort of other or an outcast in a way which I think is an interesting concept because it does show a sense of fear that people should have towards them. I think that the whole idea is really interested and I am very excited to learn more about them!

Vampires

Vampires certainly have come a long way from the traditional demons to the present gliterry, heart dropping studs that the fiction series Twilight has made out to be.

The "otherness" as explored by authors in the twentieth and twenty-first century perhaps alludes to the depicted"others" within our own society. Our phobias had shaped the vampires into blood-sucking demons (perhaps to portray certain cultures as well) and now it is directed towards these exoticisms that we had once shunned.

Vampire

Williamson started the book, The Lure of the Vampire, while studying of the novel Dracula. She believes that Dracula has dominated the understanding of the vampire in the twenty century. In the similar way to the ordinary people, I think that Vampire is a group of people who is immortal and feeding on blood originally. It is interesting to find out that the real Dracula in the history was only a cruel prince but not a vampire and drank people blood. The article suggested that the concept of the Vampire was changing over time. For example, the Dracula was considered as sexual repression in the Victorian age. The dissection part of the first chapter is very impressed me because I feel it is inhuman that the Anatomy Act was created to give the right to dissect poor people and they treated the corpse as an "object" and a "nuisance".

Vampire Opinion

The modern day depiction of a vampire would often make us think of a fanged ghoul that drains blood from its victims. The origins of vampires goes back to the 15th century with the stories and history of Vlad the Impaler. But the popularity and fascination behind the modern vampire is its
"outsider" characteristics. Milly Williamson uses several examples of the vampire's appeal to the outsider or outcast. People that are fans of vampires can relate to the vampire's existence as an outsider.

Vampires

Williamson's text contradicted today's modern take on vampires. His view, from the 19th century shows how the depiction of vampires has changed over the years. From the myths, to the early movies and shows, and to the latest hits true blood and twilight. In the past couple years with the emergence of the Twilight series, people's view of vampires has been altered drastically. From "outsiders" to almost heroes. The modern vampires are still considered relatively on the outside but in a heroic way fighting other vampires. However, another constant idea is that females have a tendency to share their pain and sympathize for them.

The "New" Vampire

Williamson points out in chapter two that during the 19th century, the "otherness" of vampires made them seem like a terrifying threat to real people. Today, the same attributes of vampires are what makes them so appealing and attractive to Americans. This book was written in 2005 so it was before Twilight became really popular, but I think this is a prime example of how in the 20th century, vampires have become a fantasy that Americans almost lust for. Young girls have become obsessed with Edward from Twilight because he is depicted as a cool, isolated, untouchable other. Had the Twilight series came out during an earlier century, the author may have made Edward more of a bad character that girls would be afraid of.

Identification With Vampires

Williamson states that during the twentieth-century authors have used vampires as someone an "outsider" could identify with instead of a villain. This struck me as interesting because when I look at some of modern uses of vampires they are generally the hero of the film or show. For example, the Twilight films or Underworld and shows like Angel and True Blood. While some of these have the main vampire fighting other vampires the main protagonist is still a "good" vampire. Williamson also states that vampires are outside of society which is why some people can easily relate to them. My understanding of the people Williamson is referring to are the socially awkward. Being on the outside of society vampires give these people a hero is like themselves.

Vampires and the "other"

What stood out to me the most in the Williamson text was how the idea of vampires were embraced by some women. Nina Auerbach states, "Vampires were supposed to menace women, but to me at least, they promised protection against a destiny of girdles, spike heels, and approval". Williamson believes that vampires demonstrate a way to show with pride the "other" or the outcast. She claims that vampires are victims of a mistaken identity and their pain is symbolic of a yearning to matter. Another element of the text that stood out was the femininity of vampires. Linda Williams suggests that a strange affinity develops between a girl and the monster. This is not a sexual desire but a sympathetic feeling to the monsters pain.