My discussion question from Tuesday.

Reflecting on our discussion, I think the thing I liked the most was how much we didn't want to be forced into answering my question of whether you'd choose to euthanize your child or let your child be used as a brain. It's interesting to say that we wouldn't choose euthanasia right off the bat, but imagine being forced into simply being a ship. With human emotions, but unable to control them. I would personally choose euthanasia. A hard decision, but would I want my child to feel inferior for their whole lives? No. And yes, letting them live to become a ship would be useful to society, and they can still think, but I don't think I could let my child become something that has human feelings, but can never sense touch. Touch is so integral to the human experience. If the option was simply to let the kids live out their days (as many as they have) then I would go with that, but the story seemed to make it into a "either you kill them, or we use them for their brain" sort of thing. I really have no idea how I would react in this sort of real life situation, but it's interesting to ponder.

The question of Hair from Thursday

The discussion for Thursday was asking if hair had any impact on the nature I guess of a character. In the long run hair is only a superficial thing that can be changed whenever, but when you really think about it hair can also be a vital part to any character. For instance the braid that Katniss sported through most of the hunger games, would her character have been as effective had she had long, curly, flowing hair? Keeping hair in a braid, although feminine, definitely has a masculine side.  The idea of needing to keep your hair back and away from the face adds a more mature and serious outlook to the character, especially one that is put in danger all the time. It could be argued that hair and the way hair is styled, heck even the color of hair, has a lot of importance to the character. It can be seen as a source of beauty for the character, or in the event the character dislikes their hair, a source of anger and quirkiness that adds to the flaws making them more “relatable”. Hair is not just a visual tool used by authors, but a part of character development that is essential to how we view things in our mind. 

Does genders importance extend to animals?

While reading Deerskin, I continually was brought back to the idea of not only gender, but of animals and their importance as well. The biggest idea I had was what if Ash had been a male dog? Would the whole experience had been as heartfelt? Ash was the constant companion to Lissar and through Lissar’s troubling times with her father  was always there not only as comfort, but as a friend and a sort of guide to the right path to continue on. This begs the question of whether or  not Lissar would be the same person at the end of the book had Ash been male. It’s not central to the storyline of course, but with her sort of “godmother” watching over her and helping her out, and the caretaker of her as a child being female, one can only wonder if women are the only people who can comfort her during the majority of her life?

Gender inequality in Aliens

Throughout Aliens I noticed a trend that resembled quite a few other books, movies, and in general anything that had a female lead. There seems to be a distrust of female leaders. This can be from the idea that she’s not as smart as a male leader would be. Clearly Ripley was just as smart, and even more qualified than any of them to deal with the aliens, however, her lack of military skills kept her from having their full confidence. Obviously we still had characters like Vasquez who were strong females that took lead roles, Vasquez however, was portrayed with typically “masculine” attributes. This isn’t something that is only present in Aliens. In tons of other movies and books the same idea is used. But why does a girl always have to be distrusted simply because she’s a girl? It’s like only a male can lead and know what he’s talking about, even if a woman is clearly just as qualified. We even see this in presidential elections, it reminds me of when Hillary Clinton ran and everyone assumed she’d make a  bad leader because her emotions would get in the way. 

The Idea of having no gender.

To be honest, the idea of people living on a planet and not having any defined gender does in fact, intrigue me. My only confusion from the book itself is the fact that we are told they have no gender, but are given characteristics that shape the way we see them. We are told they are "genderless" and yet the characters are referred to as being boy or girl. The use of the words "he" or "his" is what I'm referring to. In every case Estraven is depicted as "he" did this, or "he" said that. Am I missing something, does the author not know how to describe a person without using gender referencing? Technically speaking shouldn't we be referring to all of the characters who are genderless as "it" until they pick a gender? Or simply calling them by their name. Repetitive, but not as misleading as tacking on gender specific words. I guess what I’m saying here is,if you’re going to create a book where everyone is genderless, shouldn’t you fully describe them as being without a gender? Now every time I read anything about Estraven I completely think he’s a guy, I envision him as being a guy, I’m even referring to him as a guy. Its so hard to wrap my brain around the idea of a gender neutral state, when everyone seems to have a sexual orientation regardless.