
You are Gloria Anzaldua! You were one of the first wymyn to draw attention to the literary voices of American wymyn of color. You are a Chicana lesbian-feminist and one of the most vocal wymyn of color in contemporary US. Go you!
Huh? I don't know her, but should probably look her up. Well, if I took the quiz again marking the OTHER responses I agreed with, I'm sure I'd be someone else. I agreed with at least 3-4 per question! :( Lets see now...
ok NOW I am...

You are Judith Butler! Your postmodern queer theory has shaken up people's ideas of gender,sexuality, and sex. Your work has blurred lines between what it means to be a womyn and what it means to be a man. Queens and transbois all over the world worship your Birkenstocks!
OK, one more time...

You are Gloria Steinem. You are the McDonalds(tm) of liberal feminism, though you used to expouse some pretty radical ideas, you ended up working the system. Because it's easier? Maybe. But thanks for the only mainstream feminist magazine and for heading one of the most significant feminist lobbys in the history of the US. We wouldn't be where we are without NOW and Ms., as much as some of us are loathe to admit it.
OK.... and one last time...

You are Emma Goldman! You are the mama of Anarchist/Communist feminism and you inspired millions to embrace the labor movement. Without ever directly saying so, you directed efforts toward saving wymyn and children from exploitation. Oh yeah, you were also a total
sexpot!
AHHHHHHH who are all these people? Haven't heard of any of them except for Gloria Steinem, and that too in a vague manner. Honestly, I'd love to be someone like Frida Kahlo or Virginia Woolf. Frida because she was spunky, knew what she wanted, didn't buy into the whole gender crap but successfully straddled both worlds, expected loyalty if not fidelity, and had the courage to overcome and sublimate the limitations of her body and life in her art. As for Woolf, well, I've only read A Room of One's Own and seen Orlando (which I ddin't fully get :s). I loved The Hours. Saw it at a time in my life during which I could really identify with her inertia and the madness of being cloistered in a place where one doesn't realy belong, and the hopeless aimlessness of longing to be elsewhere, an even vaguer concept.
My main concern is - why are these women ugly? You don't have to be well-maintained with nail-polish and blow-dried hair and all that, but it makes the male chauvinist pigs and cocooned women think that feminism is the last resort of those women who weren't good-looking enough to 'get' a 'good' guy, and they hence all 'turn into' lesbians, and 'boycott' men and marriage as a case of sour grapes. For instance, when I lived in an all-girls dorm my freshman year (I didn't want to - my parents insisted, being a conservative with 'good' values blah blah). I have heard people under my window talking about how all the girls there were 'lesbian man-haters'. That was utter nonsense, because most of the girls were straight, in serious relationships, and simply from slightly conservative families. Alternatively, they were disciplined and did not appreciate the noise and mess that tends to comes with boys. Boys hence were scared to enter our dorm or socialise with us once they found out where we lived.
Of course, such stances totally display their ignorance, but they also points out to an aspect that perhaps seems superficial - feminism lacks the glamour that so many people in this generation are willing to do anything for. The '60's was witness the shock and erotica of the bra-burning collective memory - imagine bouncy-breasted women with flowing hair breathlessly proclaiming their freedom from restraint in a wild orgiastic nymphish display - at least, this is the image that would come to our minds. Sex and the City seems to have been the closest commentary of feminine sexual freedom that was displayed in the '90s, uptil now, but that many watched for the glamour of New York, the fashion, the figures, and the voyeurism inherent in getting a peek into the rather colourful lives of four pretty women. So much of the subtle commentary is lost in a surface viewing, like it was with me initially.
I guess the neatness and well-maintained aspect (no, I'm not a sexist, I think ALL people should look neat and bathe) is why I find hippies grossly fascinating. I just can't get seem to accept the concept of hair being self-cleaning, of the West not bathing very often in the 18th century, only washing their hands and faces, and having such few pairs of clothes. *wrinkles nose in disgust* I must read up on Emma Goldman but why does she look like an experimental subject? (in my mind I'm associating her with
Milgram's experiment for some reason!) She looks STUPEFIED (Harry Potter reference)! I still have to watch GOF! But I'm sure I'll be disappointed because I invariably am disappointed with movie versions of books.
Which Western feminist icon are you?brought to you by Quizilla
17 Comments:
Aru
This is so funny, guess who I landed up being??? Someone u mentioned u wanted to be in t quiz
You are Frida Kahlo! You are an artistic, passionate, vulnerable person, with openly bisexual tendancies and were the first womyn to have her own gallery show in Mexico. You slept with ... Trotsky?
To be honest, I just remember there was a movie done by Salma Hayek, I never bothered to check what she was abt, anyways the quiz was really weird, I mean too many long sentences and u cld take different stances, but aah I had a feeling Im gnna be her around 4 days back when i saw this quiz as I took the other one!! Strange....
Anyways, that experiment makes me wonder, what Id do? I dont think I can even give a small shock, how can some sadists give 450 voltage???
Oh you MUST watch the movie. Its FABULOUS!
hello Aranyi(rare name), its no surprise men hit on you - you are very pretty ... kinda remind me of Sarika.
But that's not what I wanted to say. Love your writing.
cheers!
Sarika
Oh my god, from shekhar kapoor now to Kamal Hassan>?
lol
Aranyi,
Well written. Agree with most (99%) of your assertions. Qften, stronger women without slogan mongering do more for their sex than the traditional feminist you are discussing here. In my personal experience, they are not the ones interested in bashing but serious work toward improvment. You know people like Madame Curie, Golda Mier, Indira Gandhi (even if one disagrees with her politics and style).
I would not take SATC too seriously.
hahaha thank you Saltwater Blues.
Adrasteia.. as long as I'm compared to unconventional, attractive women who add meaning to their lives and those of others beyond the traditional domain of the home, I don't care! Hehe.
Kush, long time no see! SATC deserves a longer commentary eventually and more attentive viewing by me. Funny how media can shape our vision. Case in point, the evolution of the garish women in our soap operas in India these days as opposed to the Ramayana Mahabharata types more than a decade ago. But you're right, talk HAS to be accompanied by action.
aranyi,
keep writing your thoughts. i do visit your blog often. most of the blogs i visit, i hardly write comments. i just read them. sometimes, i have nothing new, worthwile to say, sometimes i am busy to write a comment, sometimes who knows.
you better be careful, you might get attacked by a "card carrying" feminist for calling them not attractive.
once New York Times did an article, that all SATC actresses in real life were 180 degrees different. it is the "ingrid bergmann" effect - when you think screen presence is real. ingrid bergman used to play nun in movies, and when she eloped with a married man in real life - united state senate was not happy - this is back in 1950s.
i'll blog about ingrid bergman in december. she was an incredible actress and beautiful lady.
Hahaha! I'm sure they'd accuse me of being subjected to patriarchal norms of beauty and hygiene... which is crap. All I'm saying is that face it, whether we like it or not (and I certainly don't), no one is going to listen to you if you don't appeal to him/her, and in this era of visual media over radio or writing alone, presentation is important. It's not a question of selling out; its a question of working the system to your advantage in order to create the change to revolutionise the system.
aranyi,
you are preaching to the choir. i am with you on this. i have female friends that have said the same thing many times.
personally, i only talk to attractive females. maybe, i am mcp and superficial - it is in my genes, i just cannot help. they can attack me all they want.
did you go to one of the NYC schools (you do not have give any details) - you talk about NYC quite a bit?
Same here! I know people think I'm weird and prejudiced, but I can't talk to people I don't find attractive - and people will yell and say that there is no universal definition of beauty - and there isn't, it's what I perceive of the type of people they are that makes them beautiful to me. And there are some who get prettier or uglier over time as I know them, and that dictates my friendship with them.
Though sometimes, being an attractive woman does require a lot of effort, and there's always the risk of being limited to just that - an attractive woman, and having to wait a long time before anyone takes them seriously :(
ms. aranyi,
i have to disagree with you - there is a "near universal concept of beauty". they have done experiments on very young babies how they follow through their eyes, people with certain looks in every society. details might differ. everyone will consider following beautiful, no matter what culture you come from:
halle berry
aishwaryia rai
zhang ziyi
brooke burke
it is also true that they are beautiful people who may look unconventional (ingrid bergman* again, julia roberts, smita patil, indira gandhi (check her younger day pictures), etc.) but then they have sparkling eyes and very effervesent, dashing personality.
*both were married, when she had affair and a baby with roberto rosselini. i correct.
Near-universal, yes. I believe there are many such studies, that state that we tend to find neoteny - (the innocent baby look - big eyes, button nose, pouty lips) attarctive. I personally think they're all okay... though I can see how others find them attarctive given this theory. For me a personal connection is very important - what I meant is that someone can be considered the most beautiful person in the world, but if she behaves like an ass to me, or does something I don't principally agree with, my perception of her will alter and I won't consider her attractive anymore (unless this happens with the opposite sex, which tends to make us want them more!)
personally, i only talk to attractive females. maybe, i am mcp and superficial
Same here! I know people think I'm weird and prejudiced, but I can't talk to people I don't find attractive
Strange, one tends to chat up or read someone coz they are attractive and not coz they have something interesting to share or have a way with words....But then again I guess it is only human to be attracted to someone coz of that attraction
Yes,but does sound very superficial
I don't completely agree Adrasteia. While one may initially read/listen to someone because they're attractive, they'll only keep coming back more than a few times if there's substance... if there's more to a person... maybe reliability, or even a surprise element. We don't go to blogs to look at people's faces or bodies unless they're photo blogs. Same goes for a relationship or marriage. So maybe it's about confidence/faith in oneself and inherent goodness after all in teh long haul?
aranyi,
god, i really got you into trouble. adrasteia, i spoke only for myself. i am pretty dumb - therefore, i think all this "interesting" concept is over-rated.
PS: adrateia, I am only speaking for myself. you can attack me on my blog.
Aru,
U misunderstood what I spoke,I didnt advocate that fact, what I said was when U guys wrote that u chat or talk to attractive ppl, I assume ppl do that even for reading the blogs, and I feel thats ridiculous because its never the looks that makes someone read or interested over a period of time, it is just the person,the character,their substance like u said, their thought process that does!! So I didnt agree with that point, like i said its superficial!!
@ mr tandon
I am not attacking her, dont worry, and even if I did,trust me she can take me down anytime...lol...As far as ur views, entirely ok with me, coz they are urs and this is a democracy!!
tee hee, you sound like a man Kush! Yeah, its important for me that a man be interesting because i like to talk and listen, and men don't WANT women to talk at the end of a long day! But adrasteia, you're right... I tend to read attarctive people's blogs too (more for women than men though - men have to be funny/cutting cos I don't relate to the content as much)
Post a Comment
<< Home