NO SAGGIN'

For my act of resistance, I decided to raise the awareness of the origins of saggin'. I have always been disturbed when I hear people say that saggin' came from men who got "taken" (if you don't what that means...ask somebody cuz it's too inappropriate to post on here) in jail. FYI saggin' originated during the times of slavery. Wearing your pants up over your butt was a sign of respect, prestige, and social class. Slaves were forced to sagg their pants because it kept in a lower class than whites, and it kept them from being able to run away. This was true for men, women, and children. Over time, slaves adapted to this and learned to use clothing lines as belts so that they could be comfortable and able to run away to gain freedom. If a slave was ever caught doing this, the punishment was brutal torture and death. Slaves would be lynched to death for wearing their pants above their butts. For a person, especially black, to sagg thier pants, they are giving off a sign of self-disrespect and lower status in my opinion. Why would you do something that people fought, struggled, and suffered to not have to do? Blacks went through so much to be able to wear their pants above their butts, and it seems like all of that struggle and suffering was for nothing because people, blacks, still sagg their pants.

For my act of resistance/awareness I made flyers and handed them out to people on the street and at Oak Creek Mall in Chicago, Illinois. I also told people at the mall and at King about the origins of saggin' (above). Most of my reactions were positive. I got alot of people who said, "Wow, I didn't know that," "Really," "Interesting," and "I wish more young men knew this, then maybe they would dress more appropriately and presentable," among other things. However, many of the young men I gave flyers to and spoke to about the issue said things like "And so," "Yeah whatever," "That was then, this is now," and "This isn't going to change anything," among other things. I noticed that the boys I talked to at King still sagg their pants except one boy. I don't know what grade he is in or his name because I just randomly stopped him in the hallway and told him about the issue. Everytime I see this boy, now, he is not sagging his pants.

I really wouldn't do anything differently with this project, overall. However, I might construct a solid speech about it and/or make a little more public than I did.

Just as a side note....saggin' spelled backwards.....How far have we, blacks/humans, really come?

SAGGIN
NIGGAS (sorry if this is too inappropriate or too much to handle for some)

THE END

Never Underestimate the Power of A Woman

The theme, never underestimate the power of a woman, is very evident in Lysistrata. I think the most prominent and humerous part of the play that exemplifies this theme is when the women come out to fight the men. The narration says, "A horde of women, armed with household articles, begins to pour from the Akropolis." Not only is the imagery of this statement very, very funny, but it is significant to the role and power of women as well. It's significance suggests that the role of women is thier power, in a way, because these women were able to use their role in society - housewives - as their manpower for the war. Their weapon in battle were the things that society used to classify them and their role. The women were help down by the men and by society as housewives, that cook, clean, and take care of the children. The women turned that role around and used the pots they cook with, the brooms they clean with, and baby rattles they care for the kids with, (among many other things I'm sure) to fight the men who put them in that position in the first place. This turning of power is a demonstration that the power of women is way beyond what men and society see it as because not only did the women lash out against the men, but they were strong, smart, and clever enough to use their stereotypic role to do the lashing.

Climax

So, it was really hard for my group to pinpoint the climax of the play, to do our presentation. With Ms. D's help, we thought that the climax is when peace is declared. I believe that this climax was very interesting due to they way peace was presented and how peace was declared.
First of all, the men were supposed to make peace with the Spartans. However, Lysistrata is the one who presented peace. This says alot about Lysistrata's character, but anyway...yeah so peace was presented by Lysistrata.
Secondly, peace was presented as a young girl. This is ironic because peace isn't human, it isn't an inanimate object, it's an idea. Lysistrata, a woman, presented another woman/girl as less than object, but as an idea.
Thirdly, the men saw peace as an object. They broke down the girl's body as if it were the land they were fighting over. This is shown when the narrator referrs to Kinesias' actions by saying that he was "surverying Peace [the girl] like a map as he addresses the Spartan. (105)" When the men begin to decide who gets what piece of land, they were choosing Peace's (the girl) body parts.
Lysistrata just stood back and watched this happen, and approved everything. This says alot about what the women/Lysistrata think about themselves and what the men think about the women. This shows that the men and women view the women as sexual objects. It's ridiculous!!!

Two-faced women or desperate housewives?

I found it funny that, around page 70 in Lysistrata, the women start to slip away from Lysistrata. It seems to me that they are lying thier way out of the protest to run home and have sex with thier husbands. I hear so many men say that women are two-faced, sneaky, kniving, and liars. I think this play kind of made that true, but it's ambiguous because we don't really know if the women are leaving to really go home and take care of the house or if they are leaving to get away from the protest and to their husbands. Lysistrata said, "I've lost my grip on the girls - they're mad for men! But sly - they slip out in droves. (70)" She goes on to state how she saw two of the girls sneaking away in a very sneaky way (and brought one back) lol and how she one girl "just flat out deserted (70)." After Lysistrata said this, the First Woman came in and gave a stupid excuse of, moths are going to destroy some good wool she has at home, to get away. Then, the second and third woman came out and gave just as stupid excuses to leave. Lysistrata didn't let any of them leave because she knew what was really going on.
Does these women's actions just prove guys right? Are women really that sneaky, sly, kniving, and liars? It's crazy to me that this story seems to be proving the point that women are strong and powerful, but these actions completely contradict that.

Sisterhood

It didn't really amaze me, but it made me proud, when the women all stood up for each other to fight against the men. The police were trying to arrest the women because they thought that would possibly put down the protest. However, when they tried to arrest Lysistrata, Kleonike came to her rescue. When they tried to arrest both of them, Myrrhine stepped up to help. When they tried to arrest all three of those women, Ismenia stepped up to the rescue. This says alot of the bond of women, sisterhood. These women took an oath together, and promised to stick it out and fight this protest together. Is is excellent how they stood up for one another and fought together. This is a true bond of sisterhood. They all stepped up to fight for the honor, safety, and freedom of the text woman, and they were all ready to go down together, but not without a fight. Other than all of the other very evident themes of Lysistrata, sisterhood is one of the themes that you have look deeply to recognize, and it's most important to note that it is one of the most essential and important themes of the play. This is because it has alot to do with how and why the women abided by the oath the whole time (even it just was one day).

Men are always weak

If you really pay attention to the play, you'll see that the men were weak from the beginning. It would seem that they are just weak at the end, when they do what the women say (make peace), but they were weak all along. In the beginning of the play, the Chorus of Men retreated from the rath of the women. At first, they tried to stand their ground, but they eventually backed down from the women. It's almost like they ran away, scared. This is a sign of weakness, in my opinion. I kind of figured the men would give in and do what the women wanted them to do because of this retreat early in the story. If they can't stand their ground, keep their word, and fight back against the women to start with, they can't outlast the women in this protest.

Then and Now

There are many things that occur in Lysistrata that still occur today. One of which is the men's reactions to the women's protest. Now-a-days when women are disobedient or out-of-hand, in some cases, men feel that hitting, beating them will shut them up and set them straight. It probably doesn't happen as much as it did back in Lysistrata's time, but it certainly still does happen. The men also didn't like the abstinance protest, so they wanted to rape the women. This is still evident today. There are wives who make their husbands mad, girls who upset their boyfriends, and ladies to refuse sex to a stranger, and the men would rape them to get what they want and to get compliance from the women.
It's crazy, to me, how this play reflects current issues in an older day and age using very relevant issues, such as war (Iraq for example).

Sex = important? needed? desired?

I feel that this play really brings the importance of sex, in human nature, to the light. So many people see sex as something shameful, something that shouldn't be openly talked about. I was never this way. It is something natural to human nature in my opinion. Not just the act, but the feelings and results of the act. It can be an act of love and passion, and it brings children into this world, which is something beautiful and wonderful. I like the way Lysistrata opening talks about sex and expresses the desire for it within the men and women of the play.
This desire was most evident, in the women, when Lysistrata proposed using abstinance as a protest of the war, to bring the men home. Before Lysistrata told the women what the protest was, they were all ready to join it and participate to the fullest. They were ready to give thier lives and limbs. However, when Lysistrata said the they would refrain from sex as the protest, all the women changed their minds. It seemed that they needed sex in their lives. In those days, childbearing and husband-wife intimacy was a big thing and a woman's role. Sex was too important to these women for them to give it up in protest.
I believe that this importance of sex in the play was a mirror of the importance of sex now-a-days. Even though, it is not openly discussed anymore, people still feel that it is a need.

Hmmm.....disobedience = power of women

The significance of women disobedience in Lysistrata is a symbol of one of the themes in Lysistrata: Never underestimate the power of a woman. Many men believe that women are weak, easily influenced, and obedient. They feel that women will bow down to the power of a man, and comply with him. They think that women's power is so minimul that we are not capable of thinking for ourselves and being independent indiviuals.
The women's disobedience in Lysistrata counters this belief. It serves as a reality check, proving that women havve the almightly power to do whatever they want to do. This disobedience was well-organized, thoroughly thought-out, and planned. This shows that women are able to think for themselves and organize an outstanding protest.
Also, during the time that Lysistrata was written, women's power was taking care of the house and family, in men's eyes. This disobedience waws the women's way of showing the men that thier power (women's) went beyond what the men thought. The disobedience is a symbol of a turning point in their time and society.

Women - Quitters? Stick it out?

Even though an oath was taken, I do not think that all the women will hold true to it. In the play, the women were reluctant to agree to be abstinant, when Lysistrata first proposed it. Even though they all gave in eventually, I don't believe that their first instincts are going to subside. I feel that they will not publically disregard and break the oath, but they will have sex with their husbands in secret.
I believe that the only reason the women took the oath is because Lysistrata was pushing the point. It was almost forced to black-mailed, in a way. When an oath is forced upon someone, they are likely to not abide by the oath. However, depending on who forces the oath, in this case it's Lysistrata, they might comply. Because Lysistrata is such an important person in their society, the women might stick to the oath.
In addition, the women will not be able to withstand the oath because they want to please their husbands. In those days, pleasing thier husbands and maintaining a healthy and happy family was a big thing. The women held a strong role in the society as far as pleasing husbands and keeping the family happy. These women may not be able to go against their role and regular routines.

Abstinance = End of War

I don't think that the plan to be abstinant will cause the men to refrain from war will work, but it might if all of the women agree to participate and hold that agreement. I believe that sex is so curcial to humans, that men will not be able to live without it just to fight a war. Humans enjoy sex, mostly, and the men don't know how long the war is going to last. If the men know or even thought that the war would end soon, they would probably be able to go on without sex until then.
Also, if all the women don't comply with the protest, then the plan will not work. All the men would continue to fight the war, while having sex with the few women who are willing. This is how it would be today. I'm almost positive that not all women would join a protest of that sort. Men will still be sleeeping with the women who are sill putting out. Also, the amount of women who have sex for a living is enormous, and I don't think they would stop just for a protest.

So How Did Lovborg Really Die?

Well, it seems a little ambiguous how Lovborg died, and I would love to hear what everyone thinks about that. I personally think he shot himself, honestly. He may have wanted to look like he didn't, but he probably did. However, it does seem rather likely that Madam Diana killed him because Judge Brack's story of Lovborg's death makes sense. Speaking of Judge Brack, doesn't it seem kind of wierd that he seems to know everything about the death of Lovborg? He's not a detective, so why is he so informed? Could it be that he is the one who actually killed Lovborg? Who knows???? I want to hear what you guys have to say about this.

Was Hedda really pregnant?

So, all throughout the book, it was hinted that Hedda was pregnant. It started when George was being all excited about Hedda body "filling out." That normally happens when a woman is pregnant or going through puberty, which I'm sure Hedda has already done LOL. It continues all those times when Aunt Julie says that Hedda has something to tell George. So, was Hedda really pregnant or was she just getting thick? Was Aunt Julie's instinct right, or was she just wrongly assuming? IDK...I really want to know though because if she was, that was OC of her to kill herself and never tell anyone about the baby or anything. And if she was, why didn't she acknowledge that?

Aunt Julie vs. Hedda

If I were Aunt Julie, I would straight call Hedda out for a boxing match. Let her had insulted my new hat right in front of me. That was so rude of Hedda. Hedda knew good and well that the hat on the sofa was Miss Tesman's, but she tried to pretend that she thought it was Berta's hat. She just downright insulted the hat. She said it was ugly and all that, bascially. Miss Tesman went out of her way to get that hat just to please Hedda, then Hedda had the nerve to insult it. Miss Tesman handled that situation way better than I would have. She a good one. Miss Tesman just said that her hat was cute and new, and that she liked it. I would have snapped on Hedda. I have much respect for Miss Tesman because of this.

I hate Aunt Julie

I really hate Aunt Julie. She just proves the stereotype that men and society have set for women. I mean, it's cool in all that she wants to help people and be motherly. It's in human/women nature to be motherly (most of the time), but she takes it to the extreme. She feels like her life is nothing without having a "child" (someone to care for). When Tesman gets married, she is cool because she still has her sister to care for, but when her sister dies, Juliana just felt that her life was over. Just because she didn't have a "chilld" (someone to care for) she felt that she had no reason to live. In Act Four, she bascially said that she was just going to sit around and wait for another helpless, unfortunate person to come around so that her life will have meaning. It makes me sick to think that a wonderful woman, such as herself, couldn't just live a happy life knowing that she gave her tender, love, and care to George to Rina. It's time, in my opinion, for her to just settle down, "retire from being a stereotypic mother," and just chill out for the rest of her life.

Jealousy is crazy

I just don't understand why someone would be jealous. Jealousy is pointless. It changes nothing and just makes the jealous person miserable. This is clearly seen with Hedda. She somewhat stresses over the fact that Lovborg and Thea have a relationship going. Hedda spends a lot of time being rude to Thea, I think, because she is jealous of Thea. This is ridiculous. Hedda gets Lovborg to drink again because that was one of the things Thea had got him to stop doing. In addition, I believe that Hedda burned Lovborg's manuscript because she knew Thea helped him write it. What do you think about that? LOL She's jealous. That's funny.

Thea

What the H-e-double hockey sticks is wrong with Thea. She acts like a push over (kind of like George). She clearly sees that Hedda is up to no good sometimes, yet she gives in to Hedda's power. George doesn't seem to notice, but she does. So George's lack of actions against Hedda is understandable. Thea clearly states that Hedda used to be very mean to her, yet she is still subsiding to Hedda power. If I was Thea, I would tell Hedda about herself, just let her have it!!! I can understand that Thea is a very conservative and quiet character, but she can be that way and still not tell Hedda everything she wants to know, when she wants to know it. Also, she whines alot. It made me so mad when Hedda was trying to get Lovborg to start drinking again by telling him what Thea told her, and Thea just sat there like..."no, stop, don't, Hedda why are you doing this." That made me just want to kick her. GOSH!!!! Stop whining, and do something about it.

Suicide

Wow, so is Hedda like Adela or what? In "The House of Bernarda Alba" Adela killed herself because she thought that her power and freedom was stripped from her when Pepe "died." In comparison, Hedda killed herself in "Hedda Gabler" because she felt that her power was stripped from her when Judge Brack was able to blackmail her. (Now I may be wrong. So correct me if I am. I do believe Hedda killed herself for that reason, but it could also be that she didn't her secret about what happened with Lovborg to be revealed.) But, anyway do you guys agree that Hedda and Adela seem very similar in character? They do to me, and hey, it makes for a good World Lit Paper topic. Why is it that these women, Hedda in particular, feel that death (suicide) is a sufficient way to free themselves from the power of others?

George is too unsure of himself.

I believe that George is very unsure of himself. It seems that he needs confirmation on everything he thinks for himself. Whenever he has an idea or thought, he shares it with someone and says "huh?" or "uh?" He does that as if he needs someone to say yes or no to make his ideas and thoughts complete. Why is that? I can see if he asked for an opinion every now and then, but after almost every statement he makes? It makes him seem very unsure and insecure.

Is it just me, or George pretty stupid?

I don't know exactly wats going on yet, but I think Tesman is rather stupid. He doesn't seem to notice anything that is going on around him. It is pretty obvious that Hedda treats him wrong, but he seems not to notice. It is pretty obvious that Hedda was trying to get rid of him so that she could she could talk to Mrs. Elvsted alone. It is pretty obvious that Miss Tesman or Mrs. Elvsted don't like Hedda very much and vice versa, but George just really seems to not notice. Either this stuff is really going over his head, or he's just over looking it to keep things cool and dandy in his life. I, personally, think he's stupid, especially with that "uh" and "huh" stuff.

Hedda

Excuse my language, but Hedda is scandalous. I don't think she likes Tesman at all. Just from Act 1, I can't be completely sure what she wants with him, but I would guess it has something to do with money. She treats him like dirt, in my opinion. She never addresses with terms of endearment that husband and wife normally use, like honey, baby, etc. I just have one question about that... Why in the heck doesn't Tesman or Miss Tesman seem to notice the ill treatment that Hedda gives Tesman and everyone else for that matter? I wonder where this treatment is going to lead in the rest of the book....