Saldívar-Hull's Argument

I think Saldívar-Hull's Argument is a good summary for what “Women Hollering Creek” is about as a whole. Particularly the claim that it “decenters white feminism and destabilized class assumptions”. In the story we see how Cleofilas is completely worn down and subjugated by the abusive relationship she is in. We get a first hand account of the struggles that a typical Mexican-American women would have to face, and this kind of perspective was drowned out by white feminism or simply overlooked due to racism. Sandra Cisneros attempts to bring to light the domestic plight that Mexican-American women had to face, perhaps to provide them a voice, or show that the Mexican and White women had to face the same kind of struggles. Because white feminism overshadowed minority womens rights, I think the piece “decenters” the white feminism dominance and shows Mexican-American women perhaps had it even harder, considering they were not only fighting against sexism, but racism as well.
Also, the claim that it destabilized class assumptions is expressed when we consider that situation that Cleofilas and her husband are in. Living in the border region of the United States which was ripe with racism and inequality. In my opinion, Cisneros is trying to show how Mexican couples and White couples are similar in that they both must work and raise children, but in the details we also note the air of racism that they must live under. I think that because Mexican-Americans were regarded as second class citizens, perhaps the dominant class did not really take notice at the wide array of relationship problems and abuse that is not just a thorn in White society, but something that is prevalent in all societies.

Chicana Feminism Within Woman Hollering Creek

In Saldívar-Hull's Argument: "Woman Hollering Creek" she "fictionally articulates a Chicana feminism that simultaneously decenters predominantly white feminisms and destabilizes class assumptions." Within the argument, she states that, "Cisneros makes it clear that Cleófilas' migration to patriarchal domesticity and the north is not the product of a singular engagement with "romantic" constructions of marriage, but of a lifelong engagement with media representations (the books, the songs and the telenovelas) that define and ultimately discipline women's passions." I don't particularly agree with the assertion that she makes, though. Cleófilas goes north for practical reasons: her husband works and lives there. I also believe that Cleófilas goes into marriage with a both a dreamer's and a pragmatist's attitude about marriage. She understands the domesticity of it: she's been carrying out the functions of "wifely" duties for many years now. She understands the tradition of maintaining home and hearth as they have been drummed into her, even without a mother figure to teach her.

While, I support Saldívar-Hull's assertion that Cleófilas has been surrounded by images of what love is on the telenovelas and in magazines, I also believe that she romanticizes love in that manner because didn't have a loving relationship to learn and grow from. Her mother died and there is no mention of a stepmother, so she doesn't have a real life, practical model to learn the ways of what happens between a woman and a man, so she gleans this "knowledge" of all encompassing, all consuming love from the examples that she does have: fiction. Like any young woman, she has an idealistic view of what marriage will be like and, like each person that goes into the unknown, there is always the possibility that your expectations of a situation will not live up to the reality.

When the blinders are removed and Cleófilas sees her circumstance for what it is, she goes along with the only other option that presents itself and returns home. She has no money or home in the U.S. without her husband, she doesn’t have any training or prospects to get a job, and she has two children to provide for. I support Cleófilas' decision to return home. Yes, it is returning to a "patriarchal domesticity" as Saldívar-Hull puts it, but at least in her father's house she won't be physically abused.

Telenovelas

In this article, one of the arguments that Saldivar makes is that mass media, such as telenovelas shape women's conciousness and delimit their knowledge of the world. She uses several example from the short story Woman Hollering Creek to support her. Cleofilas does indeed compare her life a few time to telenovelas, but she is struck by reality when she realizes that her marriage will not have a happy ending. I do agree that women, not only Mexican women are influenced very much by stories such as telenovelas. Many american women grow up listening to fairy tales where young girls are rescued from their awful lives by Prince Charming. These fairy tales and telenovelas do impact us a lot, but I don't believe that they "shape our conciousness." Cleofilas did wish for her life to be like the telenovelas, but don't we all at some point expect a Prince Charmig? Telenovelas are simply made for enternainment, and I do not believe they delimit Mexican's women,or Cleofilas knowledge of the world. Cleofilas simply expected a happy marriage and was let down, just like all the other divorced women all over the world.

Chicana feminism on Woman Hollering Creek

Sonia Saldívar makes the argument that “Woman Hollering Creek” “fictionally articulates feminism [which] simultaneously decenters predominantly white feminisms and destabilizes class assumptions.” To support her argument she infers that after Cleófilas leaves her husband and returns to Mexico, she has transformed into a new woman, “the agent of alternative visions” thus converting her into the new Chicana feminist pioneer. Saldívar assumes that Cleófilas will liberate herself from the oppressive world of men by telling her family the story of Felice, the story of a new type of woman.

In my opinion, I believe it will take more than Cleófilas “hollering” her story, to liberate her. Returning to Mexico, positions her back to the role she had before, the role she wanted to escape when she got married and moved north. Instead of staying in the United States and establishing herself as an independent woman, with the help of Felice of course, Cleófilas decides to move back, to run away, defenseless to the Third World, a place known for its exploitation and dominance on women.

This inevitable cycle presented by Cisneros, does not show a woman who can stand up for herself, who dares to shout instead of hollering. With this is mind, Cleófilas can not be a symbol of Chicana feminism, but another victim in a patriarchal society.

Analyzing Seguin's Argument

"Woman Hollering Creek" fictionally articulates a Chicana feminism that simultaneously decenters predominantly white feminisms and destabilizes class assumptions.

One crucial element of Seguin's argument lies in this passage where she describes Cleofilas' context and already interprets her significance as a "border" character as it relates to the Chicana feminism she will come to represent:

"WHC" also problematizes an unacceptable dichotomy that US scholars often inscribe between gender conditions in the US and those in Mexico...This is a story in which Cleofilas, a young Mexican woman, moves from one Third World patriarchal context to another with the hope of escaping economic limitations and fulfilling romantic illusions. In Cleofilas' migrations Cisneros suggests that the material and gendered conditions of domination and exploitation imposed on subaltern Mexican women in the US are connected to the exploitation and domination from which they seek to escape in the pueblos/towns of Mexico" (449).

Already, Cleofilas is "decenterizing predominantly white feminisms" by articulating the struggles of a Mexican woman in an Anglo world where she is fighting similar, but not identical, struggles against a patriarchy that persists in both economic worlds. Seguin's claim that Cleofilas' moving from one "Third World patriarchal context to another with the hope of escaping economic limitations and fulfilling romantic illusions" is central to her argument that Cleofilas feminism crosses the borders of both race and economic class and presents a feminism that flows through both boundaries.

Woman Hollering Creek

I did not quite understand the argument being made, so I will try my best at providing a claim for it. The quote from the text that stands out the most to me is: "Like other Mexican women who regularly watch Spanish "novels" in the US and Mexico, Cleofilas is totally immersed within a fully mediatized culture witch instructs young women that their goal in life is marriage, adn that marriage to a US citizen is synonymous with social mobility and unbridled consumerism". From this quote it I get the impression that from watching television, reading romantic novels, flipping through various magazines, or the gossip around the town, some Mexican women make it their goal to marry an American. From what they hear, see, or read, they believe that they will encounter the best lives if they marry into an American family. However, based on the story that is told in Woman Hollering Creek, Cleofilas does not end up experiencing the life that she dreamed of. I also find it interesting that Cisneros names Cleofilas American neighbors Soledad and Dolores, meaning solitude and pain. Even though they are American, they still got stuck in the "media" idea of what the life of a woman should be like. Throughout the entire text there is no mention of the class system, the writing is solely based on the feminist aspect for the Mexican woman; the crossing over to a country where life is supposed to be better and bring happiness, but for some end up being the opposite and worse than what was being experienced back home. I know I am not going in the right direction at all, I am very confused about what to write or the point that I am even trying to make. I understand the story, but the argument is what is confusing me.

Woman Hollering...

For this blog discussion, we're temporarily departing from our usual close analysis of the fiction to turn our sights on literary criticism. As we modeled in class with our analysis of Dr. Limón's reading of "I Am Joaquín," you will use your blog discussion to analyze Sonia Saldívar-Hull's "Woman Hollering Transfronteriza Feminism."
The OED defines "analysis" as:

1. The resolution or breaking up of anything complex into its various simple elements, the opposite process to synthesis; the exact determination of the elements or components of anything complex (with or without their physical separation).

The task of analyzing a critical piece such as Saldívar-Hull's then relies on taking the argument apart in order to determine how she arrives at her argument. With that in mind, I'll offer the following as a summary of her argument, and in your posts, you will either offer at least one claim that she uses to back up this argument OR identify what you think the argument is, how it diverges from the summary I've offered, and, again, at least one claim that supports that reasoning.

Saldívar-Hull's Argument: "Woman Hollering Creek" fictionally articulates a Chicana feminism that simultaneously decenters predominantly white feminisms and destabilizes class assumptions.

Remember: Identify at least one claim and explain how it works to structure the argument.