Week 10: Perón

I found Eva Perón to be incredibly compelling as a leader and historical figure. In my history of Mexico class, we talk a lot about how within Mexico women were either seen as prostitutes or angels and there was very little space for them to occupy in between. Evita existed in a complex space where she had tremendous political capital and agency yet was constantly demeaned by sexual insults. Culturally, where machismo is very prevalent, women's purity is of utmost importance. Sexually liberated women were seen as deviant and untrustworthy. Yet the distinction seems to be surrounding women in positions of political power. Carmen Miranda was celebrated for her sexuality yet had she tried to be in a position of power, I would find it likely that she would be berated for her loose image.
While I did find Eva Perón to be a compelling speaker, I was a little wary of her language use. She constantly frames herself as belonging to her husband. While I understand it was a tactic to delegate her power to him, I was a little taken back that such a strong female presence would position herself in this manner.

I thought that Dawson made a large flaw in his description of Eva Perón by waiting to mention that the people wanted her on the ticket at the very end. This seems to be hugely important in the history of Argentina, that citizens were eager and even angry to have her on the ballot. I also thought a lot about Necro Nationalism in relation to Evita. The constant transport of her body was at times disturbing, but also a reminder that she was symbolic. Her physical body and appearance were so integral to her identity that even after death they had to be preserved. The first time I actually heard of Eva Perón was when my mother showed me that an article recently published about her massive collection of shoes and clothes. It makes me question the standards women must upkeep in order to be symbols. Is physical beauty necessary? What about nice clothes and shoes? All of these aspects radically affect our perception of female leaders and figures.

Comments

  1. ElenaOctober 30, 2019 at 1:21 PM

    I agree that leaders are judged greatly by appearances and clothes, female leaders especially so. Physical beauty and nice clothes do make good impressions for all politicians, but I think that they were particularly significant to Eva because they were symbols of her rise in society. For someone who started out with so little, a stigmatized girl in a little village where people looked down on her for being abandoned by her father, to become the famous and beloved wife of the President, was very inspiring and important for her image. Her fancy wardrobe was material evidence of how far she'd come, which is why I think it was more even important to her than it would have been to other Fist Ladies.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 13: Towards and Uncertain Future

For this week, I decided to write about Chile. Chile is in the middle of a decisive moment as students went to the streets to protest against a rise in metro costs. The unrest is surprising as Chile lauds itself for being one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America. For my articles this week, I picked two opinion peaces that look into the nuances of the situation. The first piece, by the New York Times, titled Chile Learns the Price of Economic Inequality, examines the protests in the context of economic prosperity. While the Chilean economy is quite strong, the economic inequality means that only a few benefit from the wealth. Public spending on hospitals, public welfare, and more general methods of distributing wealth are virtually nonexistent. The article also points out that while the protesters began their movement after the rise in bus fare, tensions have existed for a long time due to this evident wealth inequality. The wealth gap in Chile is incredibly visual; San
Read more

Week 7: Porfirio Díaz

I think this primary source was the most interesting yet for me to read. Having always thought of Díaz as a violent dictator, it was really fascinating to see an American account of how he was the democratic ideal. There were a few spots in the article that I found particularly compelling. The first was how Díaz referred to an opposing political party as "enemies." It seemed so obvious to me at this moment that he was incredibly disingenuous about his political processes. Democratic discourse is not a question of enemies but rather fair opposition. In light of the fact that he rigged the election against Madero in 1910. The second was the American sentiment that saturated the piece. As an American myself, there is often this sort of trope of someone who starts from nowhere and then picks himself up and becomes wealthy. I think the idea that Díaz came from little and was able to become the father of modernization in Mexico was particularly consumable to an American audience.
Read more

Week 12: Speaking Truth To Power

This week's reading was incredibly powerful to read. I have learned about the Madre's before; their white bonnets seem to have become a symbol of resistance. The concept of the disappeared within Latin American politics is an interesting positionality. In the eyes of the state, individuals are reduced to bodies where no rights are guaranteed. Its such a devastating position as there is no sense of justice; the feeling is alien to me as I have always lived somewhere with a certain extent of due process. The Madres were successful because of their position as older women; the government could not kill mothers and grandmothers in the public sphere without large reproductions. This could be attributed to significant gender roles. As women were seen as fragile, homemakers, and child-bearers, there was an element of weakness associated with their murder. However, I believe this was true for the Madres because they had already gained global attention. The Argentinian government had no
Read more