While more friendly responses to Moira/Max's transition have described her "as a stone butch who becomes a queer trans boi, moves through a female to male transgender identity that seems committed to binary gender identity and hegemonic masculinity, and finally, settles in to a more ambivalent relationship to masculinity and queerness," this gives Moira/Max far more agency than the show actually grants her, because it pretends that the various transitions in his/her life are indicative of a complex characterization, rather than a relatively blatant deployment of stereotype (Reed 170). Transgendered individuals lead lives just as complex and multifarious as anyone else, but rather than demonstrate this complexity, the L Word essentially relies on gimmicks and stereotypes in its representation of transgenderism (even if it does make some efforts to discuss the difficulty faced by transgendered individuals in the workplace) (Barclay and Scott 499)
To see how fully this is the case, one need only consider Max's eventual pregnancy, revealed in the episode "Leaving Los Angeles," in its immediate historical context. The episode aired in February 2009, just a few months after Thomas Beatie, "a transgender man who had had 'top' surgery and been on hormone therapy but had stopped taking testosterone in anticipation of getting pregnant," actually did become pregnant (Currah 330)
Ultimately, one cannot help but conclude that the L Word's ideological message is one of subservience to authority and maintenance of the status quo, because it seems intent on denying bisexuality and transgenderism the same kind of respect and representation that was denied female homosexuality for so long. This represents one example of a recent trend, that of "the alignment of gay and lesbian sexual politics with politically and economically conservative and nationalist discourses and projects" (Denike 85)
This is why one must engage in a close ideological critique of the L Word's rhetorical and narrative devices, because it is only by examining the traces of latent ideology which present themselves in language, rather than the overt ideology declared by the show and its supporters, that one can begin to understand how the L Word alienates bisexuals and transgendered people even as it claims to do the opposite. As mentioned above, an ideological critique is focused mainly on "the ideology manifest in the artifact and the rhetorical strategies that promote it over other ideologies," with a particular interest in those traces of ideology that reveal a dominant, subjective approach inherent in the artifact but otherwise hidden due to the self-cloaking tendency that is inherent in all ideology (Foss 248)
In short, the show assumes from the get-go that its focus, and its audience's expectations, will revolve predominantly around strictly homosexual women, because this is the subjectivity with the most authority. This makes sense, considering the fact that bisexuality was not even recognized as a distinct form of sexual expression until relatively recently, but it also highlights how the show, rather than pushing forward towards more expansive representations of different subjectivities, seems intent on taking the "safe" route by proclaiming itself to be primarily interested in that form of female sexuality deemed most acceptable in contemporary society (Herek 264, Schneider 73)
To begin this analysis, it is necessary to define an important term that will help to identify and discretize the traces of ideology revealed in these episodes of the L Word. Thus, one must begin by noting that ideology reveals itself in rhetoric through certain words or phrases, which are frequently called "ideographs," after a term coined by Michael McGee in his 1988 essay "The Ideograph: A link between Rhetoric and Ideology" (McGee 1)
(One can quite reasonably argue that the L Word's representation of lesbians is not substantially better than its treatment of bisexuals, because it depends so much on patriarchal conceptions of female homosexuality, but that is a topic for another study). This focus on lesbian women specifically has been noted by previous critics, although without the attendant recognition that this focus comes at the expense of other characters (Moore 3)
Moira's story begins relatively hopefully, with Jenny helping her in her transition to Max, as seen in the episode "Lonestar," but by the final season, Max has effectively turned into the show's token transgendered character, present only inasmuch as he can be used to make the show feel relevant to its immediate historical context. While more friendly responses to Moira/Max's transition have described her "as a stone butch who becomes a queer trans boi, moves through a female to male transgender identity that seems committed to binary gender identity and hegemonic masculinity, and finally, settles in to a more ambivalent relationship to masculinity and queerness," this gives Moira/Max far more agency than the show actually grants her, because it pretends that the various transitions in his/her life are indicative of a complex characterization, rather than a relatively blatant deployment of stereotype (Reed 170)
On the surface, it would appear that Sally has everything a woman could want -- an attractive, affluent husband, a beautiful house, some degree of wealth and fairly good looks herself. Atwood informs the reader of this fact when Sally reflects that, "She has what they call everything: Ed, their wonderful house on a ravine lot, something she's always wanted" (Atwood 783)
In fact, such a combination frequently serves as the ultimate fairy tale paradigm for a number of women. There are also elements of this model demonstrated in the original Bluebeard fairytale in which a woman marries to achieve wealth and through that wealth attains happiness (Hermansson 312)
In Perrault's work the climax produces unequivocal good -- the wife can distribute her noxious husband's wealth among her family and live as she sees fit. In Atwood's version, however, the climax helps to cast doubt on virtually everything that Sally has perceived through the story (Lyons 313), which emphasizes the distinction in point-of-view between these two fables
Carolyn Merli (2007) both mentions this propensity and also is disposed to "consider the "post modern" strategies of one of Atwood's, Bluebeard's Egg." Postmodernists will find a variety of pieces of evidence to justify an analysis of Atwood's titular work from this collection via this perspective, such as her temporal displacements (Ridout 856) in which the narration leaps forward and backwards in time despite the chronicling of a single dinner party
Neo-Aristotelian Criticism In September 2005, Jane Fonda gave the keynote speech, entitled "The New Feminism: Reuniting the Head, the Heart & the Body," at Women & Power, a three-day conference hosted by the Omega Institute for Holistic Studies, an organization oriented towards "focusing on health and wellness, spiritual growth, and self-awareness, as well as V-Day, "a global activist movement to end violence against women and girls ("About Omega," "About V-Day"). Fonda's speech was significant in terms of feminist theory and discourse, because as the title suggests, she was attempting to outline a feminist praxis that might transcend the various "waves" of feminism concerned with "replacing one archy with another" (Fonda 2005)
While it remains difficult to ascertain whether or not Fonda included these portions solely for the sake of these audience members and the particular context of the conference, it is worth pointing out that these portions are not integral to the larger point of Fonda's speech. Neo-Aristotelian criticism is the ideal tool with which to approach Fonda's keynote speech, due to the equal focus Neo-Aristotelian theory places on all of the various elements of a rhetorical performance by applying "the five canons of classical rhetoric": invention, organization, style, delivery, and memory (Foss 30)
While it took some additional experimentation to disprove Emoto's claims, this statement is simply false. Violent crime did not drop twenty-five percent over that week, and in fact, there was no statistically significant drop in crime over that time period, despite efforts to massage the data to make it appear otherwise (such as excluding ten different murders because they occurred within thirty-six hours of each other) (Hagelin et
While the latter two are somewhat less important in an age when few rhetors recite their speeches from memory, Neo-Aristotelian theory remains particularly effective for analyzing speech because it builds on classical studies of rhetoric while remaining flexible enough for widespread application and adaptation. As with Aristotle's original formulation, Neo-Aristotelian theory views the study and analysis of rhetoric as the attempt "to acquire a working knowledge of the instruments of persuasion," and thus each element of the rhetorical artifact is analyzed according to this standard (Hoffman 112)
This takes the form of benefit performances and screenings of plays and documentaries, educational workshops, festivals, community meetings, and conferences such as Women & Power. For the most part, V-Day's involvement in the conference is straightforward, and any influence its involvement might have had on Fonda's speech would be negligible, as one can presume that both would already be arguing for roughly the same ideals: "solidarity, justice, equality, and non-violence" (Kelly 124)
Emoto and Fonda claim that water molecules will arrange themselves into more beautiful configurations depending on whether or not the words or thoughts are positive. Fonda presents this claim as fact, stating "this is true," but in reality, no scientist has ever been able to replicate Emoto's work, and it is regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community (Radin, Lund, et
The logos of the speech is further subjugated to the pathos due to the fact that the majority of Fonda's arguments are examples of inductive reasoning, and so the focus remains on the specific example or anecdote rather than the more general conclusion. Thus, even as Fonda deploys "reflective deliberation, strategic thinking, and emotional maturity" in her appeal to the audience, she does not seem to seeking deliberation or thinking on their part, but rather emotional attachment and goodwill, something that is evidenced by her use of certain external proofs, or ideas taken from elsewhere that support her overall effort (Thompson 258)
Its corporate culture has been described as mold-breaking. "what a mold: a startling amount of office hugging and kissing in lieu of handshakes; elaborate practical jokes; and on-the-premises beer drinking at headquarters, as long as it is after 5 pm" (Bailey 2008)