What does it mean to be a strong woman? We look to culture’s stories as cues pointing to who we should be. So when we read a book or turn on a TV or go to a movie, what sort of women do we see? These days, the media presents us with thin women – tall, hipless, increasingly flat-chested women. We see women like Keira Knightly and Natalie Portman, whose looks are consistently described as “boyish.” We see women like Sandra Oh as Dr. Cristina Yang, with high-power, high-tension careers. All these media idols may portray characters that are powerful and strong. But are they women? Unfortunately it seems that, at least in the eyes of the media, you can’t be strong and feminine at the same time. Oh sure, you can be both sexy and strong – Hollywood has bombarded us with all manner of gun-totting, bikini-wearing bimbos in years past and present. But Charlie’s Angels and the Bond girls aren’t found in nature. They aren’t women – at least not real women. Are there any characters modern women can look to when they need inspiration to find both real femininity and real strength? I suggest that, before you watch movies and television for any indication of what it means to be a strong woman, ask your mama what it means first. Don’t ask her when she’s baking you cookies or wearing her June Cleaver pearls. Ask her when she’s protecting you – because that’s her at her best. That’s when she’s strong, and that’s when she’s a woman. That’s when she’s a mama bear. What hikers fear most in the wild is an encounter with a female bear protecting her young. The mothering instinct is a force of nature, a force that will tear you apart with a swipe of its paw. True women, both feminine and strong, are the women that possess this instinct and utilize its force. Though there is certainly a dearth of strong women in today’s popular stories, a few may yet be found. One place to look is L.M. Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables. Little girls emulate the starryeyed Anne, but women should follow the example of Marilla Cuthbert, Anne’s caretaker. Though not Anne’s birth mother, Marilla does well enough. The embodiment of “tough love,” Marilla raises the orphan Anne with her brother Matthew. Now Anne possesses a number of unfortunate personality quirks and throws quite a few temper tantrums. Anne’s misbehavior garners the disapproval of many in the community – Rachel Lynde is shocked when Anne yells at her and Mrs. Barry is disgusted when Anne gets her daughter Diana drunk on raspberry cordial. Marilla is less than pleased with Anne herself at times, and in the PBS version she claims, “That girl is next door to a perfect heathen.” Yet, like a true mama bear, Marilla protects Anne from the disapproval of the community and keeps her even though she is rather a nuisance. Marilla even admits that she loves Anne for what Matthew terms “her queer little ways.” And yet Marilla is by no means lax with Anne. As she is strong in defending Anne from public opinion, Marilla is also is strong in raising her. When Anne makes a mistake Marilla forces her to take responsibility, making Anne apologize to Mrs. Lynde and Mrs. Barry for her poor behavior. Marilla’s parenting method is stern, yes, but it steadies Anne’s dramatic and chaotic personality. Ultimately, the influence of a strong mother figure like Marilla is what the orphan child needs most. Neither condemning her for her idiosyncrasies nor turning a blind eye to her flaws, Marilla nurtures the best in Anne.
Mama bears are not confined to just children’s literature – a few can be found in movies and TV. Though perhaps a little less respectable and proper than Marilla Cuthbert, Roseanne is another superb example of a strong mother figure. Unfortunately, Roseanne and her television family usually get a bad wrap. Dan, Jackie, Darlene, Becky and D.J. are all rude, obnoxious and crass, but Roseanne beats them all with her loud and foul mouth. However, I respect Roseanne’s enormous attitude, and view it as a strength rather than a weakness. Roseanne is nothing like most mothers on TV, past or present. In order to hold a crappy job and raise a bunch of rowdy kids, Roseanne needs to be stronger than anyone else. While even modern TV moms tend to defer to their husband’s authority, Roseanne makes sure Dan and the kids know who controls the household. When D.J. claims that he doesn’t have to follow Roseanne’s orders because, “Dad said I didn’t have to and Dad outranks you,” Roseanne swiftly fires back, “Are you new?” And it’s a good thing Roseanne’s in charge. When it comes to child rearing, she really does know her stuff.
Forget Father Knows Best – watch an episode of this show and you will know that Roseanne Knows Best. Fortunately, Roseanne’s parenting consists of more than just harsh words. Despite her outer armor of blunt confidence, Roseanne possesses a tender love for her children. When D.J. asks if he was a “accident,” Roseanne says he was a surprise, poignantly explaining, “an accident is something that you wouldn’t do over again if you had the chance. A surprise is something you didn’t even know you wanted until you got it.” Thus, while Roseanne’s mean-spirited one-liners may sound like harsh braying to some, her attitude is simply a mark of her authority in the household. While Roseanne certainly shows her husband who is boss, there are other women who take the idea of asserting their authority to a much further extreme. The vengeful assassin Beatrix Kiddo is more praying mantis than mama bear. Her mother instinct leads, not just to harsh words, but to murder. Although most classify Kill Bill as a revenge flick, I see it as something else. Beatrix begins her quest seeking revenge – after all, Bill did kill her unborn baby. Or so she thought. When she discovers that, on the contrary, her daughter B.B. is alive and well, Beatrix ceases to have any cause for revenge. And yet she still kills Bill. Why? Before she becomes pregnant, Beatrix is not so much a strong woman as a tool. She has the physical strength to kill with grace and ease. Yet she is not truly strong, for her actions are all according to Bill’s orders. As she tells Bill shortly before she kills him, “Before that strip turned blue, I was a woman. I was your woman. I was a killer who killed for you. Before that strip turned blue, I would have jumped a motorcycle onto a speeding train... for you.” And yet she continues, “But once that strip turned blue, I could no longer do any of those things. Not anymore. Because I was going to be a mother.” When the strip turns blue and she learns of her pregnancy, Beatrix undergoes more than one transformation. Not only does a child begin to grow inside her, not only does she becomes a mother, but she becomes a strong woman. Once this happens, her actions change little. She still kills. Yet, while before Bill decided whom, when and why she killed, Beatrix makes her own decisions now. When she finds out her baby is alive, she decides to kill Bill in order to protect that baby. For as long as Bill is in the child’s life B.B. won’t be safe, as Beatrix explains to Bill, “She deserved to be born with a clean slate. But with you, she would have been born in a world she shouldn’t have. I had to choose... I chose her.” Thus, while Bill gives Beatrix the opportunity to live life “jetting around the world making vast sums of money and killing for hire,” it is her daughter that allows Beatrix to live life as a truly strong and independent woman. Now ladies, I’m not saying you should become mothers. Well... actually, I am saying you should – but only if you want. There are many ways to mother, and not all of them involve giving birth. You can mother a sibling, a friend, a lover or even an ideal. No matter who or what you nurture, the act will give you strength. However, you will be hard-pressed to find strength if you suppress your nurturing instincts. While most famous for its gentle lullabies and its Eskimo kisses, the nurturing instinct is most powerful when it is fighting. We won’t find strength outside our femininity, but within it, at the very root of what it means to be a woman. So embrace your inner mama bear, and while you’re at it, give your mama a hug, too.

Change defines life, as life is defined by change. Physiological transformations, growth, maturity, adjustments in beliefs and personal mantras all characterize the development of people. Personal outlooks are especially susceptible to change. Throughout development, there is a tendency to focus one’s deepest beliefs, most secret wishes, and personal values on an external entity. People seek out and idolize these identities, as they personify what they believe in. Heroes embody what people want, who they are, and who they aspire to become. The heroes people choose to believe in and idolize tell so much about their subconscious personality. It is an interesting inverse relationship between the evolution of the different heroes idolized, and the evolution people themselves experience. One might be inclined to think that as individuals grow more complex they would be drawn to a more complex hero; that as they age they seek out heroes that fulfill the highest tiers of personal need, as defined in Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. But in actuality it seems that as the more complex people grow, the simpler the heroes they believe in are. As human beings age, it seems to be a trend amongst those who have the capacity to mature and gain wisdom, that the heroes revered seem to be venerated for much simpler characteristics, than when they are of a younger age.

In the glorious days of childhood, in the days when schedules were dictated by cartoons and after-school snacks, outlook on life was decidedly simpler. But it was then that there was an unshakeable trust and devoted admiration for heroes who fulfilled the most complex needs a person could have. The heroes loved, be it Batman, Superman, or the Fantastic Four were all perfect examples of identities which have transcended the most complex of the hierarchy of needs, that being the need of self-actualization. Self-actualization, as defined by Maslow, is the highest achievement of human beings in fulfilling their instinctual needs. Self-actualization is characterized by the desire to make the most of one’s unique abilities. As children we see Batman as the embodiment of this; he is a personification which is unquestionably moral, upright and valiant. As a young, perhaps immature child, those who are worshipped are those who satisfy the most complex of all human needs. In youthful years everything is boundless therefore it is completely logical to worship a characterization which itself is boundless, limitless.

But as time goes on, as we grow up, we change our outlooks on life and on our heroes. During our teenage years and young adult life there is extreme social pressure to be accepted, loved, belong to a group, to feel esteem and receive respect from others. Life seems to be dictated by a social hierarchy and the stratification one does, or does not enjoy socially. As a teenager, one is all consumed with the power of cliques and social idealism. No longer is there admiration for superheroes that fulfill the need of self-actualization, but a reverence for those whom fulfill the human needs of love and esteem. Love and esteem are more basic needs sought by those who are by definition more mature. Those who both provide and epitomize social supremacy are revered. Socialites like Paris Hilton, singers and actors, social icons such as James Dean are valued. Also, girlfriends, boyfriends, or those with whom sexual intimacy is shared, are esteemed – perhaps more than necessary. It is in our most mature state, our established adult age that we seek heroes who fulfill our most basic of needs. We value the people who left positive marks on the world, no matter how large or small they were. We value our parents, who were able to put food on the table each night. For it is at this age we find out how hard it is to just provide the essentials in life, and we honor those who were able to do it. A mother, who raised a family of four, holding down two jobs, and making sure her children had the basics in life, is seen as an embodiment of true hero-like qualities. Those who fulfilled the most basic of human needs including safety and physiological necessities are honored. It is an interesting inverse that is seen. The older we get, the more our respective heroes exemplify more necessary, basic, or perhaps simple needs. It is in youth that views seem to be boundless, heroes limitless. As time goes by, as perhaps the weight of the world takes it effect, a tendency occurs to revert to reverence of personifications of the most basic of needs. Is this a sad truth? Is this an inclination of a subdued spirit, or subconscious identity? Or is it a realization in reality, that not everybody can achieve self-actualization, yet remarkably, some people can achieve even the most basic needs in life? The choice is up to you; should we continue to worship superheroes, who have no impact on existence, or extol those who do impact reality, even in the smallest of ways?

To be a Hyphenated-American is to have an alter-ego, one of the last effective ways to be two people at the same time. Becoming an effective Culture¹-Culture² is to learn how to be one when required and the other when required, and both when nothing is required of you at all. It is the option of seamless transformation for a cause or a purpose. It is pulling two heads out of one brain without giving yourself an awful headache. There is often a misconception that being Hyphenated-American is a really big deal, involving a life-changing, heart-rending choice between two really big deals. Soon there are pressures to be Culture¹ or Culture². Both lives call for a full family/social/religious commitment, and to do both can sound like a tall order.

However, Hyphenated-Life usually starts with smaller choices:

My mother is probably right.
Does this occasion call for an ao dai or a cocktail dress?
Should I bring a bottle of wine or a traditional dessert?
Should my spouse be Vietnamese or American?
Two dollah sevendy fai sen pleece.
Free glazed doughnut?
Tuxedo Mask, you came!

...the answer to all of which is a smile and a polite “Yes,” when you affirm both choices yet you know exactly what to do. How will you live, love, and worship? Maybe it doesn’t matter. The navigation process becomes intuitive and flowing like the river. Soon you stop using your brain and start using your heart. It is at that point that ancestor worship is not pagan idolatry, Ba Ngoai’s limited English is beautifully charming, and it is not shameful to introduce Baba to the American boss. To be Vietnamese-American is to wonder what life is like as American or Vietnamese, and then to be thankful for having both. I am two wholes and not two halves. Transformation makes it possible for two wholes to break the laws of metaphysics and exist in the same space. The idea of transformation had to have come from somewhere. One of the last effective ways to exist as two people requires growing up with Transformers and transformations, the idea that you are not alone in a world of being Thing¹ and Thing² in one of Dr. Seuss’ acid dreams. Though fictional, characters like Sailor Moon and Spider-Man have the same problem. They wake up in the morning and go to school or work, only to deal with the hassle of fighting a monster for the umpteenth time and wishing it was lunchtime already. Lunchtime would provide them with the opportunity to do some more manageable transformation, turning a more lowercase thing¹ (variable known as “sandwich”) into thing² (“glucose”). Seamless transformation is crucial, sandwich-related or otherwise.

A great number of little Vietnamese girls have an obsessive connection to Sailor Moon or other anime, and a great number of little Vietnamese boys identify with comic book heroes like Superman who transform into their alter-egos. In the next iteration, they would learn to love 007-esque spy movies or femme fatale flicks. More of a standard trend than a coincidence, it’s an attraction to one’s search for a more complete identity ... or at least more so than those who are un-Hyphenated. Sailor Moon has wished countless times to be “just” Usagi. Any character in these positions has wished at some point to live a “normal” life, to be only Thing¹ or Culture¹, with little success. Like living as Culture¹-Culture², any of them are actually Moon-Usagi and Pluto-Setsuna.

All that odango and thigh-length green hair, it’s all just part of being. It’s a constant state of transformation and a sweeping gesture, a love for wisdom and a key to a jewelry box.

At some point, the Hyphenated-American realizes he or she can have both in an American world where you really can eat your cake once you have it. Wonder if hot cakes should ever sell better than banh bao and feel like a million dollars without feeling a thing, and why you can knock someone all you want but their socks stay put.

It’s a natural result of having a two-party political system in the United States: People tend to identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats, sometimes because they agree with a party’s respective platform and sometimes because they violently disagree with that of the opposing party. True, the number of self-declared moderates is nothing to ignore, but people take that position because they cannot choose between what they see as their only two options of political affiliation. Insofar as one determines their affiliation through a comparison of their beliefs to those of one of the major parties, calling oneself a moderate is no different from being a member of the Democratic or Republican Party. Americans rarely do other than place themselves alongside, against or between the two parties, and it this practice, made possible through the recognition of an archetypal Republican or Democrat, that this essay seeks to criticize and offer an alternative to. Because this essay makes use of certain words in a very narrow and specific sense, their definitions must be made clear before the subject is ventured too deeply into and everything becomes all muddled. Beliefs refer to the individual opinions a person holds on specific issues. Holding true the right to an abortion in any situation for any reason, its immorality in all cases or its use only to save the mother are all different beliefs surrounding the issue of abortion. Political theory is the whole or significant portion of a person’s beliefs and the underlying philosophical reason they are held. A person who holds that the death penalty, abortion, war and eating flesh are unquestionable wrongs and may never be practiced for any reason can be understood to uphold an absolute sanctity-of-life political theory.
Associations, when used in this paper, are the particular political philosophies or organizations one identifies with. Associations may be held with everything from formally organized and mainstream parties, such as the previously mentioned Democrats and Republicans, to American political fringe philosophies like populism and socialism. To the extent associations are recognized or created after one critically considers personal beliefs and political theory and moves beyond a simple acceptance of the associations of peers or family, it is to be celebrated that this individual was engaged enough to come to this decision. However, as admirable as the intentions may be, this is not enough. A consistency in beliefs must be created and held through one’s identification of their political theory. Associations must be made after a critical analysis of what one believes and the reasons that these beliefs are held. It is unfortunate then that, by and large, it appears as though most understand their affiliations through comparison to archetypes. They create a picture of the ideal Republican, often Ronald Reagan, or a quintessential Democrat like Ted Kennedy (of course there are any number of current pundits that can fill either of these positions as well); they specify the beliefs of that image and compare them to their own. An enumeration of parts was not good enough for Socrates when Meno tried to define virtue, and it should not be good enough for us either. The process is not so very unlike a person considering which vehicle to purchase. Should I buy an Escalade? A Ferrari? A Toyota Tundra? A Beetle? It depends on what features match my needs and ...by and large, it appears as though most understand their affiliations through comparison to archetypes. They create a picture of the ideal Republican, often Ronald Reagan, or a quintessential Democrat like Ted Kennedy...lifestyle. I’m a college student with a moderate income, so I can’t afford that much gas. I don’t have any aspirations for long distance travel either. Weather’s pretty decent most of the year. I think I’ll go with the moped. This thinking is appropriate before making a major purchase. It is not appropriate to the establishment of a political affiliation.

Were it possible to observe the thoughts of one determining Republican, Democratic or moderate affiliation, the process would likely look something like this: Okay, so I’m for a large standing military force and prefer the rights of business over environmental protection but am against gay marriage. I must be a Republican. I value the personal right to privacy over security and am all for gun control. I think I’ll call myself a Democrat. I don’t really care about most issues but hate the death penalty and abortion as I hate hell, all Montagues and forgery. Since neither party endorses both these views, I guess that makes me a moderate. Americans look at and compare themselves to shallow archetypes and judge their political associations from there. This is absolutely wrong. Their political associations are based completely on casual connections or the lack thereof between their beliefs and those of a perfect member of a major party, and they are thus crippled. What happens when a new issue arises or they are confronted by a controversy that they never before considered? They have no foundation upon which to determine their position. They have no answer until their party comes up with one, or they must consider analogies that may or may not be fitting and try to deliver some response from this admittedly weak position. There is a better method and a better result.

When determining one’s affiliations, the right questions to ask are, “Do individuals have the utter right to do as they please as long as they do not interfere with others’ expressions of freedom? Do they not? If they do not, who has the right and responsibility to ensure that certain actions are not carried out? The strongest? The most intelligent? The most popular? The most religious?” and, perhaps most importantly, “Why?”The right questions are not “Who agrees with me on this issue? Who doesn’t? What party also believes in progressive taxation, a robust space exploration program, a laissez-faire government and criminalization of recreational drug possession?” To some extent, this can be blamed on the parties’ own inconsistency in their political theory. Though the parties may have originated with a singular mission (the Republican Party’s formation as a response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and slavery) or strong underlying political theory (Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party’s opposition to a strong central government), the remnants of such have long since disappeared and been replaced by platforms intended to appeal to the majority and re-elect party members. Still, individuals must not be lazy and take the easy option out. Rather, they must be willing to develop their political theory and find their associations from that vantage point. To this end, I hold up libertarianism and its adherents as the ideal. All of their political beliefs stem from a central philosophy that every individual has absolute freedom in their actions as long as it does not harm another or prevent their own expression of absolute freedom. If they are asked to consider a hypothetical question of politics or what should be done concerning an emerging technology, they will be able to give an answer and determine an appropriate response consistent with the rest of their beliefs. When determining things with such important implications and consequences as associations, there must be consistency, an underlying idea and foundation to beliefs provided by sound political theory. The appearance of archetypes in modern American politics is a hindrance to that but not an insurmountable one.