Gilmore Girls

Today in class we were talking about the different examples of single parents in the media. We touched on Full House and Mama Mia but we didn't talk about one of the most obvious examples of a single mother surviving in today's society: Gilmore Girls.

Lorelai Gilmore and her daughter Rory have a slightly unrealistic relationship for most of the show - not all mothers and daughters get along that well - but I feel that Lorelai depicts the 'ideal' single mom.

Unlike some of the media mothers who recieve an enormous ammount of money that assists them in raising their children, Lorelai works her way to the top of the totem pole. She starts off as the maid of a hotel that she will spend the majority of her Rory's early years working at. She's able to save up enough to buy a house and becomes the manager of that very hotel she had been cleaning in the beginning. This is a much more realistic (although not always attainable) goal for single mothers today who don't recieve the majority of someone's money in their will. Gilmore Girls does a good job of showing the organizing that Juffer talks about in Single Mother. Although she does receive help from her extremely rich parents with Rory's schooling, she still insists on being self sufficient with her home and her bills.

Another thing we talked about in class was the support of a community. Lorelai and Rory have exactly that. Stars Hollow is a very small town and they have all known - and helped raise - Rory since birth. With their help, Lorelai is able to balance being a mom and also being able to have relationships (there are a few men on the show that become steady boyfriends).

Overall, Loralei is a self sufficient, independant woman who, with the help of her community, has figured out the juggling act of being a single mom. I think Jane Juffer would be proud.

Not So Innocent

I can't believe I'm actually writing about this, but my inspiration for this blog actually came from yesterday's episode of Gossip Girl. In it, the students are doing the play "The Age of Innocence" which is based on the novel by Edith Wharton. Now, just as some quick background information, "The Age of Innocence" is based on New York's rich society in the 1800's. Gossip Girl is based on today's rich society of New York. Anyways, "The Age of Innocence" is full of scandal and...of course...gossip. So, while the students are performing, there is drama of their own going on back scene. To make the story short, drama erupts on the stage and the students end up taking their frustrations out on eachother while still in the spotlight. Now, one of the known critics in the audience comes up to the director after the play and says: "I loved it." He states that the juxtaposition of the kids' drama onto the play's drama was perfect and that the deconstruction of the second scene was brilliant. Now, I've been trying to figure out just exactly how the kids' explosion of teenage angst was in fact the deconstruction of "The Age of Innocence" and I've come to the conclusion that the critic in the play didn't have a clue either. A modern representation of the rich 1800's society may make it more relatable to the teen audience, but, if I've grasped at least a little of deconstruction, which I hope I have, that doesn't succeed in deconstructing the text. I was trying to come up with binary oppositions for "The Age of Innocence" and please tell me if these are wrong.
Rich Poor
Scandalous Proper
Betrayal Loyalty
Secrets Openness (?)
Fake Real

Now, if we look at "The Age of Innocence" vs. Gossip Girl we get this:
Rich Rich
Scandalous Scandalous
Betrayal Betrayal
Secrets Secrets
Fake Fake

Hmm... not very good oppositions. The problem I do see, however, is that in these binary oppositions the rich are always associated with scandal, betrayal, and dangerous secrets while the poor get off as always being the good, loyal, and proper people. However, rich is seen as "postive" in today's world while poor would be "negative." This seems a little messed up to me. In both Gossip Girl and "The Age of Innocence" the rich society is all about putting up a front of being everything they're portrayed as not being (loyal, proper, honest, ect.). And this is where I get stuck. Apparently this front the rich are putting on in both 'texts' is exactly how the poor are portrayed. Like we said with the J-Lo song: the rich are "protesting" a little to much how good of people they are. But what's lacking then? A conscious? The ability to think of others besides just themselves? I think perhaps it's an absense of reality. They put up a front in the story because they're actors, they're above the "real world" that the poor are experiencing every day.

I hope that that made some sense...please comment on this because I think I changed my mind about 10 times when writing this!

No Free Will

It took me awhile to connect what we were talking about with the unconscious in class to anything. But I started thinking about the definition of the unconscious and was reminded of a unit that we went over in my philosophy class last sememster. We discussed how, if the unconscious has its own logic, then who's to say that it isn't controlling our decision making? Choosing to eat american cheese over swiss may seem like a simple decision, but isn't it possible that everything we do is determined by past experiences and the impact that has on our unconscious? Is it possible that, if our unconscious does have its own logic, we have no free will? Repressed memories and feelings from experiences in the past that are in our unconscious could be governing everything we do, whether we think it's a conscious decision or not.
Being determined is a scary thought, but if you think about it, every action has a reaction, even if that reaction is formed by our unconscious. Where do our likes and dislikes come from? We don't determine them ourselves when we're born. We can't tell ourselves that rap music is our soul music when in fact it makes us want to kill ourselves. Is there a gene that determines whether or not we like rap music? Not one that I've heard of so far.
So where does this come from? If not our conscious, and not our genealogy, isn't it possible that it is part of our unconsciousness's logic? I'm not sure if we'll ever know, but it seems like a good enough explanation to me! We don't consciously remember every single thing that's happened to us during our life time - it's not all in our working memory. But maybe it's still in our unconcsious. Choosing to go to St. Ben's, although I'm still not sure what the deciding factor was, could have been because of other choices I've made in the past and the effect that they had on me. Even if I didn't think about that when making my college choice, perhaps my unconscious was for me. Kind of scary, huh? Thinking that a different part of us is determining what choices we'll make in the future?

Just something to think about...