Posts by Ashley:
- Define the online feminist blogging community. How does it exist online? Is it beneficial for feminists to have a presence on the internet? Explain. How did you become involved in the community? How do you, personally, use the community? Does it benefit you in any way? How? Does such a community make online writing a commodity to be promoted and “sold,” or does it help provide awareness in a different way?
- Tell me about how you came to be a blogger. Why did you start blogging? What did you write about at first?
- Tell me about your blogging experience now. Why do you blog? What do you write about? If it is not the same as when you started, why did you change?
- Tell me about a time you were misread or misunderstood on your blog. How did you feel? How did you react? Did other readers/members of the community come to your aide?
- Describe your process of writing online. How is it different than your other writing practices? Do you have a routine you follow when you are writing online?
- Describe your online reading habits. How do you find interesting online reading material? How do you share reading material? Does this finding and sharing help create an online community? Explain.
- Liza Donnelly
- http://lizadonnelly.com/
- Sharna Fulton
- http://www.chloepinkcartoon.blogspot.com/
- Amanda ReCupido
- http://www.undomesticgoddess.com
- Mary Lee Shalvoy
- http://maryleeshalvoy.wordpress.com/
- Esmeralda Tijhoff
- http://www.fonkel.net/
- Rebecca Welzenbach
- http://littlehelpplease.blogspot.com
- John
- http://submissivemale.blogspot.com
Vegetarianism: Politics, Body Image, and a Little Personal Struggle
August 17th, 2009I have been a vegetarian for 7 years. I gave up eating meat upon my graduation from high school (do the math 🙂 ) for two reasons, both health-related. First, my dad had a pretty bad heart attach toward the end of my senior year, and my whole family tried to be healthier; I tried vegetarianism because of its benefits for the heart, and it stuck. Second, because of the stress of graduating and moving away combined with the end of my fall activity (Marching band. I know. Geek alert.) I gained a few pounds in the spring. This wasn’t much to speak of, considering I was probably a bit underweight to begin with, but the fear of the freshman 15 had me searching for a healthier diet. Needless to say, animal rights played only a small role in my decision and, because of this, it does not bother me when people around me eat meat.
It wasn’t until I got to college and was surrounded by like-minded people that I realized the political implications of my vegetarianism – how it is better for the environment, the economy, etc. It wasn’t until I became involved with the feminist community that I realized the feminist implications of my vegetarianism (see links below for more information on feminism and vegetarianism). When I read and heard these things, I was proud to say I was a vegetarian, and I continued with the exclusion of meat.
Recently, however, a few things in my life have changed drastically. I moved home, switched jobs, met a wonderful man, and started grad school all within a few months last summer. This drastically changed my eating habits; it is very difficult to make good, well-rounded, healthy, vegetarian meals and follow a workout schedule when you’re working a full-time job and taking graduate courses and having a social life. I end up making quick meals or eating out, neither of which are very healthy and, while I haven’t gained any weight, I feel different. I find myself sad more often, wearing baggier clothes, feeling… just gross. Tired and lifeless. I’m not quite sure how to explain it. Recently, I also find myself eating more often because I am hungry more often. The vegetarian fare isn’t keeping me as full as it used to. This makes me want to eat more fatty foods to satisfy my hunger. We all know where this ends up.
So, now, I’m left with a choice. I know I could be healthier and feel better and eat less if I started eating meat again. I’ve already started eating fish or seafood about once a week and I have been feeling a lot better. However, that would mean abandoning one of the most powerful political and feminist statements I feel I have ever adopted.
What’s a girl to do?
If you have any information, advice, or have been through this crisis of vegetarian faith, please feel free to add comments.
Links for more information about vegetarianism and feminism:
Veggie Eats – The Undomestic Goddess
Is Vegetarianism a Feminist Issue? – Adventures of a Young Feminist
Carol J. Adams’ site – Author of The Sexual Politics of Meat
V for Vegan: Horizontal Women – Kin
The Feminist-Vegetarian Connection
Day 6: Vegetarian Feminism – Veggie Styles
Carol Adam’s Vegan-Feminist Manifesto – Vegifem: Perspectives on Vegan Feminist Ethics
Weekly Rundown: 8/8-8/14/2009
August 14th, 2009There is so much great stuff out there, I can’t possibly comment on all of it. I can, however, link it here for your enjoyment. Have you been reading or writing something interesting or important? Share a link in the comments!
Shelly is Winning – We Are the Real Deal
An incredible story about one woman’s battle with anorexia.
5 Simple Steps to Start Exercising – We Are the Real Deal
-and-
Exercise Won’t Make You Thin – Time
Hmm… I think exercise is important to everyone for mental/physical health. Not so sure why Time Magazine is focusing on thinness as a main motivator for exercise rather than overall health. I’ll leave it to you to decide what you think.
Julie & Julia – Adventures of a Young Feminist
I can’t wait to see this one!
It’s not easy being green – A Little Help Please…
Great advice to a teen starting a new school situation, and a reminder that young people are very fragile, even if they don’t show it on the outside.
White House Launches Fatherhood Initiative – NPR
Encouraging responsible fathers. This may be a good step in the right direction for equal partnership in caregiving.
Why ignore misogyny? (Because it hurts less.) – Feministing
On George Sodini targeting women when he brought a gun in a gym in PA and started shooting.
Feminist Refletion on Zooey Deschanel – Adventures of a Young Feminist
I love Zooey Deschanel (and her sister, Emily, who stars in Bones)!
Wrestling against Restrictions – FMF Choices Campus Blog
On female athletes in Iraq. A fascinating post.
It’s Hot Outside, Let’s Read a Book Instead – FMF Choices Campus Blog
Looking for a good, feminist, read? Look no further!
Play Cool, Kids, Play Cool – Feministe
An awesome post by @frausallybenz that combines girls, boys, My Little Pony, The Male Gaze, AND The Rules. Well done.
Women Who Inspire Us – Feminist Peace Network
Amazing women. I am truly inspired.
Can a busy woman give reliable evidence? A judge says no – The Globe and Mail
This just disgusts me and saddens me. She’s a busy, professional woman and her evidence is discounted in court because of that? Ugh.
There are no safe spaces – Feministing
On how a seemingly safe, violence-free, internet space can turn ugly at the drop of a hat.
We Don’t Need Another Wave (review) – Young Feminist Adventures
We need a movement!
Feminism through cooking – Deeply Problematic
Can you be a feminist and still cook? RMJ says yes, and I agree!
As always, excellent responses to the Undomestic 10!
And, a little humor from Toothpaste for Dinner:
What is the ideal husband, anyway? Is it as elusive as a good wife?
To read all the “Weekly Rundown” entries, click here.
Comments Off on Weekly Rundown: 8/8-8/14/2009
So, why do we blog, anyway? (I am deeply disturbed…)
August 12th, 2009I’m firing off this post quickly today because I’m seeing two growing trends that are troubling to me:
1) Bloggers becoming angry with their commenters
People are entitled to their opinions. I am a firm believer of this. One of the best things I have found about the feminist online community, both through this blog and through Twitter, is that these women (and men) aren’t afraid to tell you how they feel about a subject. And if you go a little far in one radical direction, there will always be someone there to gently pull you back to Earth. There are nuanced views of all civil rights movements; if you work for civil rights, you exist on a continuum, not on one side or another of a fence. Most people who, for example, say they are for women’s rights, do not agree with every little tenant of feminism. Maybe some are for closing the wage gap, but don’t want to talk about more radical issues. (I’m one of those, to be perfectly honest.) Maybe someone doesn’t believe what you said is right, or views it differently. There is nothing wrong with that. You might even be able to learn something from their views (if nothing else, how to argue your point to people who disagree).
Don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with a heated discussion, and there is nothing wrong with getting angry, but to shut down a commenter just because he/she has a different view than you (and expresses it in such a way as to add to the discussion, not if they’re just being a jerk) isn’t helping anybody. It’s closing down important discussions that need to happen in order to help people see that our views are valid and important. Why do we blog, anyway? This is a public space, a public forum, and we want our voices to be heard. Others want the same thing, which is why they comment in the first place. To squelch such a desire seems completely against feminist principles.
2) Feminists fighting for women’s rights at the expense of others who are equally oppressed
In disturbingly high numbers, I’m seeing several feminist writers/bloggers see the accomplishments of other minorities and saying things such as “Well, that’s great, but what about the women?” Don’t get me wrong here, women are not done fighting for equal rights, but any group who has been historically marginalized needs to fight for those basic human rights that we all desire. Why are we not celebrating all victories everywhere without a comment, however off-handed, that basically states, “That’s all well and good for them, but what about us?” If we are ever going to gain our human rights, we need to realize that this is not an us/them situation. It’s just us. Humans.
This whole post will probably make a lot of people mad, and I’m OK with that. Please feel free to express your anger in the comments section. (Feel free to agree with me, too, if you choose.)
Gendered Teaching (and Learning)
August 12th, 2009I stumbled upon this article: “New Study Ponders the Effect of Professors’ Gender on Students’ Success in Science.” The article basically summarizes a study that found that women graduating from the U.S. Air Force Academy that scored high on the math portion of the SATs were more likely to do well in – and consequently major in – science if they had a female teacher in their introductory science courses. What follows is an outline of my thoughts while reading this article, and as you read the article yourself (it’s short, I promise), you can see if your thoughts matched up, or if you disagree with me entirely (I’d be interested to hear from someone who does). If you don’t want to be tainted by my thoughts, go read the article now and come back.
Thoughts:
1) Excellent. Another article proving that women can do things better than men. This is typical of the attitude toward teachers, but still, excellent. Also excellent that this study came out of the U.S. Air Force Academy, a place that historically, typically, and agressively employs a male hegemony.
2) Why are economists producing this study? Is there some economic benefit to having women graduate with science degrees? Do these economists dabble in feminist studies in their spare time?
3) Interesting: It makes absolutely no difference if male students are taught by men or women, but it makes a difference if female students are taught by men or women. I wonder if this is because female students benefit from a female role model, or maybe something embedded even deeper within our society and upbringing.
4) I wonder if this study would work for upper division courses as well. Do female students need that gentile push from from a woman to get them started, or are they also more successful if they have women teachers throughout their academic career. Also, this is an interesting study, particularily to me, because I have heard several times that it takes an understanding, nurturing teacher to help students when they first enter a school (high school, college; science, math, English, it doesn’t matter) in order for them to be successful. These teachers are often the least experienced (high school) or non-tenured, adjunct (college) faculty members and, as such, are often paid less (Because they are often women? I don’t know.) for doing more work. This sentiment is echoed in the first comment on the article by Mary Ann.
It was this last thought that really had me pondering for a while. In my grad class this semster, we have talked a lot about adjunct faculty being forced to teach first year composition classes in universities, mostly because those courses are serious money-makers. Every student has to pay to take the course in order to move on to upper division classes, and adjunct teachers are paid less to teach them. 25 students per section, $500 a credit hour (on average) for a 3-hour course, an infinite number of sections with adjunct teachers being paid around $12,000 a year (or TAs teaching it for FREE – OK, their education is paid for, but still, not a whole lot of money out of the proverbial pocket). You do the math. When we launched into these sorts of discussions, my general thought was: Well, first, TAs are getting a free education for a couple hours a week of work, so don’t complain. Also, as long as there are TAs and adjuncts to do the grunt work, universities will continue to have TA and adjunct positions. A paycheck is a paycheck in this economy, so either don’t complain that you have a job, or do what it takes to find a better one. That’s how capitalism works, right?
But looking at this article, I’m siding a bit more with the adjuncts on this one. They’re most often women! Why? Because women are expected to care for a family, and any money they bring in is often seen as “extra.” They have fewer hours to put in, so adjuncting is good for them, but they are PAID LESS FOR DOING THE SAME JOB since they are not seen as “professors,” but “adjuncts.” Granted, they may not have the same education as a tenure-track professor (although many do in this economy), but they do the same work. It is studies such as this that perpetuate these working conditions for introductory-level faculty and it isn’t fair.
On a side note: I do understand this isn’t the case for ALL women or ALL adjunct faculty or TAs, but it is the overwhelming majority.
The Girl Politics Series (click to read them all) is a series of posts that first appeared over at my personal blog, and it was actually the response I received over there that made me think that keeping a feminist-leaning blog might be my calling. It also partially inspired my tweeting and Good Wife paper. I thought these posts might be breathed to new life and new conversation over here, and so here they are.
Comments Off on Gendered Teaching (and Learning)
Girl Politics: Power relationships between girls and boys
August 10th, 2009I have said before that I try to write things on this blog that will make people proud of me, and the other day, I received one of the most amazing compliments I have ever received. One of my former students e-mailed me to let me know she’s been keeping up with this blog, and that she really likes what I’ve been writing. She also brought a situation to my attention that I think fits into the Girl Politics series. (This is not a cross-post, but something NEW that came out of them; I love the conversation!) Even though this situation is about the power relationships between girls and boys (not girls and other girls), it is imperative to look at these relationships as well.
Here is an excerpt from the e-mail I received:
I’ve noticed something though which, as a feminist, I thought you might be able to shed some light on: When it comes to humor, boys can dish it out, but they can’t take it. Maybe you already know what I’m talking about, but if not, I’ll try to explain. Throughout my high school career, I have constantly watched boys tease girls. Usually, it’s pretty good-natured humor which everyone can laugh at; however, when a girl teases a boy in the same manner, they treat her like she is rude or stupid. Why is it that boys can go so far as being rude in the name of humor while girls are not allowed to be genuinely funny? Or why is a girl a witch when she can’t take a joke but she’s also a witch when she joins in the joking? And obviously, I’m doing a lot of generalizing here, but in a high school classroom, though I never felt victimized, I observe such cocky teenage boy behavior daily. I avoided personal persecution by laughing at myself and not attempting to be humorous with certain males. BUT I FIND IT FRUSTRATING THAT GIRL’S ARE EXPECTED TO LAUGH WITH MEN AT THEMSELVES, BUT NEVER AT MEN. Have you noticed this too as a teacher, and is it a teenage boy thing that gets better with maturity or is this a dynamic which I will find in the college classroom and beyond in the workplace? (Yea, my former students are amazingly articulate and smart.)
Here are my thoughts on the matter:
I don’t think this young woman is alone in feeling this way. Of course, this situation is very wrapped-up societal constructs of men and women. In my experience (both as a teacher and as a woman), I’ve found that boys/men do not like feeling threatened and if a girl/woman pokes fun at him, she is, in essence, threatening him. From my understanding, this is the premise behind The Rules – girls must act a certain way to pique a boy’s interest without making him feel threatened in order to keep him around. As unfortunate as it is, a girl poking fun at a boy, no matter how mature or funny the comment may be, is seen by them as a threat. Girls, on the other hand, are expected to laugh along with boys in order to make them feel funny and empowered.
The advice I gave her: I wouldn’t stop calling guys out and poking fun at them, especially if it’s deserved. They’ll either get over it or they won’t, and the ones that do will be good friends to you and the ones that don’t… well, they will eventually.
Maybe this sounds spiteful, but I didn’t mean it that way. I meant it more in the sense that if we are ever going to rethink gender roles, it needs to start with one girl telling one boy that she isn’t trying to threaten him, she’s just trying to add to the conversation.
What do you think? Feel free to leave some advice for this young girl (and young girls everywhere) in the comments.
The Girl Politics Series (click to read them all) is a series of posts that first appeared over at my personal blog, and it was actually the response I received over there that made me think that keeping a feminist-leaning blog might be my calling. It also partially inspired my tweeting and Good Wife paper. I thought these posts might be breathed to new life and new conversation over here, and so here they are.
Woman Politics, An Addendum
August 8th, 2009Over at my personal blog, the last time the previous post was posted, I received this comment from a good friend, Chels:
“If a woman is married, she has obviously taken the necessary steps in order to be a suitable wife and, therefore, accepted into woman society. If she is “unmarried,” she will fall into one of three subcategories.”
I struggle with this sentence for a couple of reasons, but mainly because it assumes that the object of marriage was to become a wife…not to engage in a commitment to one’s partner, not to follow the progression of a relationship, not to make a family, but to be a wife. Personally, being a wife (and whatever that means) was the most terrifying part of getting married.
But to take the general topic up, I think the above quote is definitely not the case. While, yes…most women over 25 who are married (or have been married) can often find more generic conversation topics (husband/married life complaints)with a younger woman who is married, being married in itself does not grant one access into female society. Especially if you are one of those “crazies” who views marriage as a 50/50 partnership and who doesn’t change her name. Trust me. And, in fact, there’s also the possibility of reverse-discrimination: single women and friends projecting different expectations (and fewer invitations) to married women because now they have a husband. (Or assuming that they are a natural part of a society, when in fact, it is the individuals who make up a particular society who make that call.)
And as a married woman who surprises herself at sometimes seeking out the company of other married friends, I think there are some valid reasons for this sort of behavior. Marriage (or civil union, domestic partnership, common law marriage, etc.) is a straight up different relationship than anything else, no matter what. And what’s astounding is that a lot of the experiences are nearly universal. It sometimes pains me to say it, but a lot of the stereotypes are true…”Everybody Loves Raymond” just didn’t make sense to me until I got married. So, seeking out the company and conversation of fellow married women isn’t exclusionary (just as my single friends not inviting me out with them every weekend night isn’t), it’s just a way to socialize with those in similar situations.
I think the deeper issue here isn’t the blanket “female society” problem. I think it’s the natural inclination of people not to go outside their boxes in their social interactions. It can be uncomfortable and require change to invite an individual who is dissimilar to you into a friend circle. Is it worth it? Yes. Do most people get that far? No. It comes back to the value of our liberal education (or upbringing or habits or whatever) and our acknowledging that the vast majority people just aren’t very open-minded (whether consciously or not).
After thinking quite a bit about this, I decided that I really should have had two categories of married women, the married women who act like the woman in my anecdote, deciding who will and will not be good wives, and the married women who work to keep their happiness and try to make their partnership work to the best of their ability (key word there: partnership). I believe most of the married women reading my blog fall under the latter category, and I respect your marriages absolutely. However, there are quite a few women out there who fall into the former. I wouldn’t call them friends of mine, frankly because I feel outright judged by them most of the time. And the worst part about that is they judge my ability to have a relationship and be a good wife based on the way I act around them – in the workplace, out to dinner, etc. – not based on the way I act around my significant other. The two are very different, I assure you.
To be completely honest, I know nothing about marriage. I am not married; I don’t know how to be a “good wife.” I want to know, and I want to be married someday sooner rather than later, and I hope I’m at least half as successful as all of you out there who are making it work. I do believe, though, that if I refuse to give up what I feel makes me uniquely me, I will be happier, my husband will be happier, and our marriage will be happier. I do not think that being a “good wife” depends on how much I’m willing to give up and back down, as was suggested by the woman I referred to in my last post.
I truly hope I didn’t offend anyone!
The Girl Politics Series (click to read them all) is a series of posts that first appeared over at my personal blog, and it was actually the response I received over there that made me think that keeping a feminist-leaning blog might be my calling. It also partially inspired my tweeting and Good Wife paper. I thought these posts might be breathed to new life and new conversation over here, and so here they are.
Weekly Rundown: 8/1 – 8/7/2009
August 7th, 2009There is so much great stuff out there, I can’t possibly comment on all of it. I can, however, link it here for your enjoyment. Have you been reading or writing something interesting or important? Share a link in the comments!
Am I a Good Woman? – FMF Choices Campus Blog
Very interesting to me, especially considering my good wife paper.
50 Books for Problematic Times – The Curvature
We need to start thinking about the literature we are teaching students and reading ourselves and what messages we are sending by our choices of “good literature.” This list is a great step in that direction.
The Undomestic Goddess on HuffPo! – The Undomestic Goddess
Very exciting. 😀
All About the Anti-Feminists – Adventures of a Young Feminist
Especially interesting when you look at this side-by-side with my post and subsequent discussion thread on anti feminism.
On Hollyood’s Strong, Self-Hating Women – NPR (via illusionists)
“When Hollywood isn’t ignoring them altogether, it’s usually putting them down, even in romantic comedies supposedly aimed at the female audience.” All too true, and unfortunate.
Ten Tips for Twentysomething Transformation – Divine Caroline (via WomenCo)
As a twentysomething myself, I find these poignant and true, and great advice for any twentysomething out there.
Blogging Women – Blogging Women
Yet another great website for blogging women to network.
Are we role models even if we don’t wanna be? – We Are the Real Deal
What is our responsibility as bloggers? We might be influencing impressionable young people and not even knowing it. I struggle with this every day; what if one of my students found this and read it? This is why I try to write things they would point to and be proud to say: “This is my teacher!”
Going back to school – Double X
On soldiers going back to school as nontraditional students.
Once more with feeling: Media Must Report Gender Motivation for Mass Shootings (by @jennpozner) – WIMN’s Voices
A fantastic article on media coverage of hate crimes against women.
How men can be better feminists/allies/partners – Feministing
Great advice for men from a feminist man.
Stressed? Swamped? How to keep your relationships healthy – WomenCo
Excellent tips, and especially pertinent to us teachers getting ready for back-to-school stress!
Here’s what I think: on framing and language – Deeply Problematic
A great piece on saying what you think, without saying that you think it.
Sotomayor is Confirmed! – NPR
THIS, right here, is history.
Even MORE great Undomestic 10 interviews! The Undomestic Goddess is doing some great stuff collecting all these voices together. Check them out, here.
To read all the “Weekly Rundown” entries, click here.
Comments Off on Weekly Rundown: 8/1 – 8/7/2009
Girl Politics Part Deux: Woman Politics
August 7th, 2009In a previous post, I discussed girl politics as the relate to Coach Tim’s volleyball team. Today, I’d like to take that a little further and discuss woman politics. This sort of thing doesn’t always stop just because you grow up, although a few commenters expressed a relief that these girl politics were over for them. I would like to posit that woman politics are still very much at play.
Even though we’d like to believe it isn’t true, a woman after the age of 25, or a woman surrounding herself with women after the age of 25 within a career or some such setting, must fit into a certain role or be seen as Boo-ette Radley (a female version of the neighbor who is anti-social, alone, and scares small children; see To Kill a Mockingbird). Being only on the cusp of 25 myself, I can only share bits of anecdotal and philosophical evidence to back up this point, but I will share it, anyway. Take it for what it is.
It seems to me that, first and foremost, a post-25-woman (hereafter referenced as simply “woman”) must fall into either the “married” or “unmarried” category. If a woman is married, she has obviously taken the necessary steps in order to be a suitable wife and, therefore, accepted into woman society. If she is “unmarried,” she will fall into one of three subcategories.
Subcategory 1: “engaged.” If a woman at 25 is engaged or, at the very least, in a serious relationship that is moving towards engagement, she feels included in society for a few reasons, not least of which is the fact that she has answers to all of those questions about marriage posed to her from other married or soon-to-be-married people, as well as input into the thousands upon thousands of wedding conversations in which she will find herself included, whether she wants it or not.
Subcategory 2: “broken-hearted.” A broken-hearted woman is much better than a single woman because at least she has the capability of having a meaningful relationship, but has been dumped by that jerk who lead her to believe she was on her way to marriage and then changed his mind and left her high and dry. People – mostly other women – generally feel sorry for her and want to befriend her. They want to take her out, make her feel better, introduce her to their wonderful, single man friends. This happens especially if she is bubbly and friendly and generally optimistic. Women generally feel even sorrier for women in this category who are optimistic because “how could that jerk ever have left her?”
Subcategory 3: “single.” A single woman is either totally single, playing the field, or she dumped that jerk herself. Either way, she is seen as completely self-centered, only dealing with her own problems and not able to give up enough of herself in order to care for and love a man enough for him to want to marry her. She is self-sufficient, a career woman, a witch. I say that with love.
Oh yea, I almost forgot Subcategory 4: “lesbian.” That is another post for another time.
(See this post about unmarried women for another POV on the unmarried woman.)
Don’t get me wrong here. I do not see anything against marriage at all, if you’re ready for it. That is, if you know enough about yourself and what you want out of life that you won’t lose yourself completely in him and be totally miserable because you have no idea who you are any more. Most of my friends who are reading this are probably either married or ready for it, and I respect that immensely. I’m ready for it, totally. I’m in love, for crying out loud, and I’m ready for that next step in my life. I’m just saying this is how us unmarried women are seen.
On that note, I think it’s time for an anecdote: When I was about ready to graduate from college, I was faced with the situation of knowing what I wanted to do with my life at that point, which meant I needed to get a job. I also thought I would be with the guy I was dating at the time for the rest of my life, so I took a job close to him. Needless to say, he dumped me, and I spent some time in the “broken-hearted” category before moving on to the “single” category. My mentor and friend that first year of teaching was a married woman in her mid-30’s. She seemed relatively happy with her life, you know, aside from talking about how she wished everything was different. We were sitting around with another woman, her friend and another teacher, talking about men. They were talking about weddings and marriage and all that, and I said something to the extent of, “I’m not giving up my last name,” or something that equally asserted my independence, and my mentor said, “Yea, and that’s why you’re not married.” This totally implied that, unless I gave up my independence, I would never find marital bliss. Even her friend thought this was harsh, especially considering I was only 22 at the time, and in no place to be married or even in a serious relationship. Just an example of a “married” woman judging a “single” one.
It isn’t just married women that judge unmarried women, though. All women are competitive. Tim’s brother once tried to convince me that women don’t dress well for the men they’re with; they dress well because other women might dress well, and they wouldn’t want to be left out. I think this is partially true. Women dress for other women in that they don’t want to be the “ugly” ones, the ones who aren’t noticed by the men. If a woman does everything she can to be noticed and still is passed by for another woman, that other woman is automatically a witch. Even if she is the nicest person in the world, she is a witch because she is competition. I have an anecdote about this, as well, but if you went to college with me, you probably know it, and I think it’s in bad taste to share in a public forum.
Women are judged by other women because of the way they dress (if they dress better or are noticed more, they are witches), their work ethic (if they work harder or do a better job, they are witches), their relationship status (if they are single, they are witches); their intelligence (if they are smarter, they are witches); see a trend?
It seems that the only way women can be truly friends if they are on exactly the same level in every category. Even my class of 27 16-year-old boys the other day came to the consensus that, if women could give up their weird competitions and band together, they could rule the world.
So I’ll end this post with a question too: why don’t we? Why don’t we give up the weird competition and jealousy and labels and just meet each other where we are, accept each other for all of the faults and quirks that make us human? Why do we continue girl politics well into our womanhood? And can this be stopped?
The Girl Politics Series (click to read them all) is a series of posts that first appeared over at my personal blog, and it was actually the response I received over there that made me think that keeping a feminist-leaning blog might be my calling. It also partially inspired my tweeting and Good Wife paper. I thought these posts might be breathed to new life and new conversation over here, and so here they are.
The Feminist Lens: AVA by Carole Maso
August 6th, 2009
Learn to love the questions themselves.
The spaces between the thoughts. The interval (AVA 171)*
Every time I am asked who my female mentors are, (like the Twitterverse was yesterday by @ShelbyKnox) I always jump to women authors. Maybe this is because I hold a BA in English lit and am currently working toward my MA in English Studies. Maybe this is because I expect my mentors to influence me, change me, become a part of me, and these women and their writings have done just that. For whatever reason, the first role model I always think of is Carole Maso. Her book, AVA, changed my life when I read it. It engulfed me, heart and soul, and changed the way I thought about being a woman.
If you are a woman, feminist or not, or you want a window into the feminine mind, this book is a must-read. It is a true feminine text. Just as women try to wrestle with many things at one time, so does this novel. As soon as we open to the first page, we are completely taken into the mind of Ava Klein, a woman on her death bed. Maso leads the reader through the memories of Ava’s life, as well as the experience of her dying by presenting us with images (the written kind) that come up, add on each other, and become linked together as the book progresses.
These images are always followed by white space in the text, which gives the reader some room to put the pieces of the text together by figuring out which images are in reference to others. It also presents the reader with space to interact with the images themselves. It is imperative to interact with these images, but it is difficult to do so when the character is present in every image that emerges. Ava pervades the poem. When reading the words on the page, there is not a moment in which Ava is not present. In order to personalize and make this an interactive text, one must participate in the blank space – in between the lines – and participate in the reading by making connections within the poem as well as with personal experiences that may relate to or be triggered by the text.
This act of participatory reading gives readers the ability to delve deeper into the text as well as create a personal connection to the characters and images. In short, by the end of the text, if we have read it correctly, we are all intertwined with Ava Klein until we cannot tell which memories are hers and which are our own. In the final moments of the text – in the final moments of Ava’s life – if we have read with the correct strategy within the blank spaces, we are to be so wrapped up in her memories and our own memories that they begin to seep together, creating a sort of inseparable Avareader character. It is this interaction with the text that will give the poem power.
And it is a powerful text. If you begin reading, be warned: Ava (and AVA) will become a part of you, and you a part of her/it. And you will not be able to read it the same way twice. Ava is borderless and free to associate and mingle with other voices. The voices that Maso gives Ava include voices from other authors, philosophers, poets, and people in her life, but Maso also opens the forum to include the voice of the reader. She does not want Ava to be bounded and singular. If she wanted that for her character, she would have written a linear narrative with one clear story. Instead, Maso wants her character to live and breathe within the poem. She has given Ava, and the text, room to grow and change and combine with other things – internally and externally. In this way, Maso is asking us to read ourselves into Ava, to identify with her in ways that we did not think possible before encountering the text. In opening the book, we have accepted Maso’s invitation, and we must give ourselves over to the text and exist in the spaces between Ava’s memories.
*Full Citation: Maso, Carole. AVA. Normal, IL: Dalkey Archive Press, 1993.
Liked this feminist book review? Read more by clicking here. Hated it? Completely disagree with it? Have something to add to it? Have a book to recommend? Leave a comment or e-mail me at smallstroke (at) gmail (dot) com.
Girl Politics
August 5th, 2009This is a series of posts that first appeared over at my personal blog, and it was actually the response I received over there that made me think that keeping a feminist-leaning blog might be my calling. It also partially inspired my tweeting and Good Wife paper. I thought these posts might be breathed to new life and new conversation over here, so I present to you: Girl Politics – a series of posts about the hierarchies and cliques girls encounter throughout their lives.
A few months ago, Tim and I were eating a wonderful dinner of the BEST alfredo sauce ever and crab-stuffed whitefish from Trader Joe’s (my new favorite place to go), we discussed the volleyball games I watched the previous day and the girls on his team. Tim was absolutely amazed at how much I knew about the girl politics taking place within his team. Without even talking to any of the girls – seriously, he more or less hid me from them so they wouldn’t obsess over me being his girlfriend – I could tell him who was the leader of the group, who all of the girls were friends with, who tagged along, who had a dominant personality, and – especially – who all of the girls hated.
It was the latter that really got to Tim. He’s a great teacher and coach, and it clearly bothers him that all of his girls “hate” one of the girls on the team. I explained to him, very simply, that she was obviously the most mature-looking and, because of that, the “prettiest.” She was probably also the smartest and most confident because of her “superior” attributes. The girls most likely don’t like her out of jealousy more than anything else.
To reference my TV obsession, Bones, in one particular episode, Dr. Brennan talks to a group of nine-year-old beauty pageant entrants, discussing how the little girls exist in a “cultural structure predicated in the equation of beauty with power. You instinctively align yourselves with someone who holds the greatest potential for a societal supremacy. It’s a Darwinian pressure you’re too young to bear.” Sure, they align themselves with the girl with the “greatest potential for societal supremacy” when they’re nine years old, but when they turn thirteen, that all starts turing around. Girls start being hormonal and jealous, and instead of aligning themselves with someone who appears “superior,” it seems they, instead, align themselves more with girls that are like them and band against girls who are different.
My major question about all of this is why? Why do we allow this to happen in our schools, and in our lives? I was the victim (or a participant?) of girl politics. I still am. Why do we do it and, as teachers and parents, why are we content to just say, “That’s the way it is. They’ll grow out of it” and leave it at that?
To see all of my Girl Politics posts, click here.
Weekly Rundown: 7/26-7/31/2009
July 31st, 2009There is so much great feminist stuff out there, I can’t possibly comment on all of it. I can, however, link it here for your enjoyment. Have you been reading or writing something interesting or important? Share a link in the comments!
href=”http://distractible.org/2009/07/26/stone-throwing/”>Stone Throwing – Musings of a Distractible Mind (via Hilary)
Body image, flaws, and Dr. Benjamin’s qualifications to serve as Surgeon General
Should Everybody Revisit Their Opinions on Pronouns? – DoubleX
Gendered and gender-neutral pronouns
Dove Love – We Are the Real Deal
On Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty
What’s in a Name? – Young Feminist Adventures
Who gets to keep, and who gets to change, their names
The Undomestic 10 – The Undomestic Goddess
Even more fabulous interviews with fabulous people
Survey: Women Bloggers Wiling to Help; We’re Not All Mommies – PRNewser/Mediabistro.com (via Amanda)
Particularly pertinent to my feminist blogger project, but also important to remember that not all women bloggers are mommy bloggers!
Senate Panel Backs Sotomayor Nomination – NPR
13-6. Seems like 13 is the new lucky number. Can we get a big horray?! Now it’s on to the full Senate vote.
Girls Rock! – Feministing
Yea, girls can play guitar, too! 🙂
Can’t Win Wedding – A Little Help Please…
What to do when your relitaves have issues with your wedding.
Drowning in the Shallow End: Third Wave Feminism – Conducive
Is the new wave of feminism in trouble? Read and find out.
And a little humor from Toothpaste for Dinner: Just another example of male privilege: the cost of a salon vs. the cost of a barber shop.
To read all the “Weekly Rundown” entries, click here.
Comments Off on Weekly Rundown: 7/26-7/31/2009
Feminism and Relationships
July 30th, 2009In class the other night, I was talking to a few of my other women classmates and they were asking me a bit about my papers (good wife and literacy) for both classes, since both of them have to do with feminism. Somehow, probably since they know I am in a relationship, the question came up about whether or not feminism is either contrary to having a relationship or if it makes having a relationship more difficult.
In my case, currently, my feminist status is actually attractive to my boyfriend. Admittedly, he did have an issue with the fact that I will not change my name when I get married, but that was very early on in the relationship and we have since discussed the issue and came to a resolution (which is that I will not change my name. 🙂 This, in my opinion, is a sign in and of itself that we will have a successful relationship – not because he “lets” me do whatever I want, but because he respects the things that mean a lot to me.) Other than that, he likes my independence and he always participates actively in discussions I have with him about feminism, usually saying things like “Wow, I never knew it was so hard for women…” He respects me, and he respects all women. So, honestly, now my feminism does not interfere with my relationship. In fact, it makes the relationship better.
I cannot say that has been the case throughout my whole dating experience, however. There have been plenty of times that I’ve told a man that he needed to stop treating me like a little girl who needed his constant protection, that I wouldn’t change my name when I got married, or that I consider myself a feminist. My saying these things has caused many a man to flee. Even some that I thought I could marry couldn’t – or refused to – understand my feminism, and it was a surprise to find that out every time.
So, I wonder, does the way feminism works into a relationship depend on how the man understands or reacts to it? Does it depend on the way the woman presents it? Is it something else?
Has your status as a feminist ever gotten in the way of your relationships? If you are in a successful relationship after several failed ones, what changed?
I’m excited to hear your stories.
The Feminist Lens: Catcher in the Rye
July 28th, 2009
I love The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger*. LOVE it. I first read it when I was a sophomore in high school, and loved it then. I picked it up again when I was a junior in college in order to try to better understand one of my friends who was a Holden-esque character himself, and loved it even more. I taught it to my American Lit class during my first year teaching and my love continued to grow with all the new things I learned about the book in my research in order to teach it. I taught it again last year – equipped with cool tools like an interactive map of New York City that had pictures of all of the places Holden visited, as well as a “podcast” of me reading it aloud so my students could listen to it – and, well, I bet you can guess what happened from there. (I fell even deeper in love with the book. Obviously.)
I know it is totally en vogue to hate Catcher (as I have lovingly dubbed it), and I’m not quite sure why. Before I start teaching it to any group of students, I always tell them that they will end up either loving it or hating it, and either is fine, but they have to be able to tell me why. This always piques their interest. (I also tell them about all the censorship issues and other controversy surrounding the book, which doesn’t hurt my teacher-agenda, either.)
If you haven’t read Catcher and are planning on doing so, STOP. I wouldn’t want to spoil it for you. Likewise, if you are a student studying this book and have stumbled upon this review and are planning on copying it for your own use, DO NOT. Trust me: I’m a teacher, and your teacher will know. I can’t even tell you how many students I’ve caught plagiarizing just by entering a sentence or two of their papers into Google.
If you haven’t read the book and want to keep reading my review, pause and go get a quick plot rundown from SparkNotes.
As a feminist, I am always very interested in looking at the female characters, especially in books by male authors or with male main characters. Catcher is both, and has a plethora of female characters to look at – Phoebe, Sally Hayes, Jane Gallagher, Sunny, etc. All of that has been done before. I would like to look at Holden himself because, I think, with a little coaching, Holden Caulfield would have made a great feminist. My reasoning is as follows:
He is a caregiver.
This is (sort of) the main idea behind the book – or, at least, behind the title. Holden really has no direction in life as far as what he wants to do when he “grows up,” until the end of the book when he decides he wants to be the catcher in the rye. “Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all,” he tells his younger sister, Phoebe, “Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around – nobody big, I mean – except me. And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybod if they start to go over the cliff – I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That’s all I’d do all day. I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it’s crazy, but that’s the only thing I’d really like to be” (224-225). Aside from the obvious symbolism of the of the cliff being life and the children and Holden protecting their innocence, Holden really wants to care for these kids. Whenever I ask my students what a good job for Holden would be, they always answer: teacher, doctor, nurse, psychologist – typical caregiving jobs. He is definitely the first male character in a (canonized) book that I remember associating with one of these heavily-female fields. Besides, don’t we, as feminists, want equal representation of men in caregiving roles? (YES!)
He respects women’s rights.
OK, he sort of respects women’s rights. He objectifies the heck out of old Sally Hayes, enjoying the view of her in her ice skating skirt, and he does the same with a few other nameless women. However, he does not EVER take advantage of them, and the hates the thought that any man might. Throughout the whole book, he cannot get the image of his roommate, Stradlater (who has a reputation for being a little sleazy with the ladies), and his first love, Jane, out of his head. Even Sunny (the prostitute) comes to his room and Holden asks her to leave before anything happens. Sure, you could argue that he’s just nervous or something, but I think, given his history as a caregiver, he really does respect and want to protect women.
He is a radical.
He’s from the 1950’s, a time when going against the grain was frowned upon. Still, he’s kicked out of schools, swears up a storm, travels around New York City completely alone, smokes like a chimney, drinks like a fish, and even thinks about running away at one point. Yea, Holden definitely fights against the cookie-cutter norm of the 1950’s, and I think if someone had pointed out the terrible treatment of women after World War II, he probably would have jumped right on that cause.
He hates phony people.
And, let’s face it, so do feminists. If you don’t believe me, do a quick search on a few feminist blogs for cheating politicians, singers involved with domestic violence, or other staples of our culture and read the dripping sarcasm. We blog/report about it like crazy when someone lies or presents anything false. After all, this is our job, as feminists. We need to expose what is happening in the world in order to draw attention to it and, hopefully, make a change (or, at the very least, change people’s perceptions and attitudes). Holden, and Salinger by extension, do just that. They’ve downright defined the wayward, confused, teenage misanthrope, making it OK for people to follow their own drummer.
I know it is not new to define Holden Caulfied as a radical phony-hater who would fit well into a caregiving career. I just think that this description also makes him a good candidate to join the feminist cause. Personally, I’d have him on my side any day.
*Full citation: Salinger, J.D. The Catcher in the Rye. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1951.
Liked this feminist book review? Read more by clicking here. Hated it? Completely disagree with it? Have something to add to it? Have a book to recommend? Leave a comment or e-mail me at smallstroke (at) gmail (dot) com.
An Open Letter to Men at the Gym
July 27th, 2009Dear Men at the Gym,
I know how to work out. Yes, my appearance might belie this fact: I’m small, have a bit of a baby face, I only look about 18-years-old at most (which I am reminded of every time I walk the hallways unattended at the high school where I teach), and I wear pink almost every time I go to the gym (mostly because, when I buy new workout clothes, I’m usually buying them for the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer. I have completed 5 of them, one each summer, and I incorporate training for them into my workouts, too). But it is true, I do know how to work out. I have been working out at a gym since I was in high school, believe it or not, and I have been dancing since before I can remember. I follow fitness magazines and blogs, have worked with and taken classes from fitness instructors/trainers, and I have tried incorporating all sorts of new activities in my workout and I’ve only kept the ones that worked for me. So, yes, I know how to work out.
I also know how my body works. I have been alive for 25 years. This may not seem like a long time to some, but I do think it is long enough to gain a good understanding of my body, seeing as I haven’t been able to escape it even for a moment for the past 25 years, 50 days, and some odd hours/minutes/seconds. I know what will happen if I do certain exercises. In addition to living with my body, I made a commitment to myself when I graduated high school 8 years ago to eat healthier and, as part of that commitment, I became a vegetarian and started keeping track of my intake of key nutrients. Between the working out and the eating right, I am, actually, very healthy.
I’m not saying that I know everything there is to know about working out and being healthy – with so much contradictory information out there on the subject, who could? I’m also not saying that you don’t have any valuable advice to give to people regarding their workouts. I’m sure, like me, you are well informed, know what works best for your body, and care about your health.
I am saying, however, that what you see me doing at the gym is my workout for my body and my total health. I don’t work out solely to maintain a healthy body. Of course, that is a big part of it, but part of my workout is for my mental health as well. My workout is my “me time.” It is a time during which I can put on my headphones and tune out everything aside from my self and my body, and it is usually the only time during the day during which I can do that. It is for this reason, and for the way they make me feel, that I really enjoy my workouts.
So please, Men at the Gym, stop interrupting my workout. Please stop staring at me. Yes, I am wearing pink; yes, I am lifting weights; yes, I look good doing it. But your objectification is unwelcome. Just because I don’t stay in the girly-weight section does not mean that I have asked for your gaze in my direction. Also, please stop “correcting” my workout. I say “correcting” because very rarely do you actually give me advice that is pertinent either to me or to my body. Usually, you interrupt me, make me take my headphones out – most likely in the middle of a very good song – and look me up and down as you are laughing at something I am doing. (Most recently, this has been my choice in using a 25-pound weight for a particular exercise. I might be small, but I can, and will, lift it.) I need to be laughed at almost as much as I need your advice.
If I wanted advice about my workout, I would hire a personal trainer, and that personal trainer would not be you. That personal trainer would, in fact, be a woman. Why? Because women understand other women’s bodies beter than men do. Women understand the body image issues, struggles with weight and health, and drastic changes other women go through. A woman would also not laugh at my workout. A good personal trainer knows his or her client personally, hence the title “personal trainer.” He or she knows the client’s fitness goals, issues, accomplishments, etc. You do not know me personally, nor do you want to. In fact, from your flippant warning that I am “wasting my time” with my workout, it is safe to assume that you have no idea what, in fact, I am doing with my time during my workout. It is my time, my body, and my workout, and I would appreciate if you would leave all three alone.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ashley Lauren
Women and the Family Name
July 25th, 2009While writing my paper about Literacy in the Feminist Blogging Community, it occurred to me that I wasn’t sure what to do with the names of the wonderful women who provided answers to my interview questions. In most of the research I have read that includes interviews with people, the authors cite the first name and last initial of the interview participants, or change their names all together, to protect the anonymity of the participants. My situation, however, was a bit different. Because the interview was about literacy and technology, I decided to put the interviews on my blog with names and all. Since my participants agreed to that, I wasn’t sure if I could still use their full names in my paper. So I did what any good student would do, and asked my professor. This was her response:
You may want to email your “consultants” to ask them if they prefer to use their real names or pseudonyms. I assume you have permission to use their real names online, so I can’t imagine that they’d object to using them in the paper.
You could choose either last or first names for citing. First names might be more appropriate given the feminist agenda, but I guess the concern might be that such informal reference would somehow of reduce their status/authority relative to theorists cited by last name (e.g., Szwed). It’s your call.
With the decision left up to me, I thought it best to bring in a few backup opinions and opened the question up to my participants and Twitter. Here were some selected responses:
@writergal85 full name first time, then last name. what is context though?
@HappyFeminist It’s always been last name. Are we not worthy of being representative for family name?
@lizadonnelly I don’t agree with that. I think last names better. First names coherent with feminist agenda? Huh?
@mommommom Hey, the NY Times uses mr or ms with last names, I think. I think last names is better, but will go with whatever you choose!!
Rebecca responded: I think it’s [an] odd [idea] that … the “feminist” thing to do is use first names. At worst, it diminishes authority as you said (if, for example, last names were used for males and first names for females) and at best, it introduces ambiguity and confusion (if first names were used for both males and females, and the rate of duplicate names thus increased greatly)… I didnt even know it had anything to do with authority, I thought using last names was just the way to establish professional distance in your writing. I remember in 7th grade I wrote a paper about Jim Henson and was chided for calling him “Jim,” because I didn’t know him personally–that was the rule. Then again, of course, you do know us personally.
So, I believe the overwhelming verdict is that I should reference my participants by using their full name first, then last name for each reference thereafter, just like I would for any other cited reference. What do you think?
What Feminism Is and What It Should Be (with a little help from bell hooks)
July 18th, 2009This is a section from my Diversity paper (intro here) about what it means to be a “good woman” or a “good wife” and why a few women seemed to feel the need to coach me toward their idea of it. All comments/ideas/responses welcomed.
These contemporary myths surrounding feminism lead people to take on varying views of feminism, which can lead to confusion when two would-be feminists interact. The woman who told me that I was too bold and too independent to be a good wife did, in fact, consider herself a feminist. She had hyphenated her last name, keeping hers first in the order, and going by her maiden name within the professional sphere. It wasn’t until I was reading an official document of hers, a few months after I met her, that I realized she had hyphenated her name. However, she had completely situated herself within the traditional role of a good wife to her husband, and wasn’t afraid to tell me to do the same. I, however, thought that by keeping my maiden name, I would be symbolically asserting the fact that I am my own person, regardless of my marital status.
Why are there these different views of feminism? Why was mine so different than hers? In her article “Feminism: A Transformational Politic,” bell hooks writes that “[m]ultiple and contradictory definitions of feminism create confusion and undermine the effort to construct feminist movement so that it addresses everyone” (713)*. She suggests that the female experience of being dominated within a patriarchal society is not entirely universal, hence the creation of varying ways of seeing the feminist movement. Feminists, or at least white, middle-class feminists, tend to assume that the patriarchal society is the root of the feminist agenda, and “Such an assumption has fostered the notion that elimination of sexist oppression would necessarily lead to the eradication of all forms of domination” (710). Focusing solely on the sexism that exists in our society does not help the racism, classism, ageism, or any other form of discrimination that leads to domination. hooks suggests that feminists need to look at other forms of domination and how they play into those forms before anyone can truly be free of oppression, and we all need to recognize “…that we all have the capacity to act in ways that oppress, dominate, wound (whether or not that power is institutionalized)” (712). In other words, no matter how much we feel we agree with the equality of all humans, and no matter how much we fight institutional oppression, we can, and do, still oppress others on a smaller scale. We can identify with activists all we want, and share common political goals, but unless we take into account all forms of oppression and work against them in both large- and small-scale ways, we will never accomplish said common goal. In hooks’ view, my coworker could have called herself a feminist, and asserted certain legal positions a feminist might take on – like not taking her husband’s last name – but could still function as an oppressor to me and my independence on a smaller scale.
If this is the case, why don’t people who hold common political goals work together on a small scale? If this woman and I held similar large-scale political views, why couldn’t we coexist as feminists on a smaller scale? According to hooks, “[f]ear of painful confrontation often leads women and men active in feminist movement to avoid rigorous critical encounter, yet if we cannot engage dialectically in a committed, rigorous, humanizing manner, we cannot hope to change the world” (715). This is perhaps why our relationship simply deteriorated at the end of my tenure at the school. We were both afraid to sit down and talk critically about what had ensued between us – maybe because we were afraid of being hurt, or maybe because we were afraid of questioning our own belief system. Either way, the lack of critical communication between us regarding our feminist statuses most definitely lead to the collapse of our friendship. In order to prevent this from happening in the future if and when I find myself in this situation again, hooks recommends that we, as women, “want to begin … seriously addressing ourselves, not solely in relation to men, but in relation to an entire structure of domination of which patriarchy is one part” (716). Women can, and do, dominate other women for various reasons, even if they hold the same large-scale political beliefs. In order to avoid the dilemma that results from several different views of the feminist agenda, we must look at how domination and oppression plays out between everyone, not just between men and women. We must, also, “learn how to be in solidarity, how to struggle with one another” (716), not against.
*Full citation: hooks, bell. “Feminism: A Transformational Politic.” Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study. Ed. Paula S. Rothenberg. New Jersey: Worth Publishers, 2004. 710-717.
Identity and Difference
July 14th, 2009This is a section from my Diversity paper (intro here) about what it means to be a “good woman” or a “good wife” and why a few women seemed to feel the need to coach me toward their idea of it. All comments/ideas/responses welcomed.
On June 29, 2009, during a particularly stimulating class discussion about Stuart Hall’s essay “Ethnicity: Identity and Difference” in relation to the nature of community and how we decide who we let into our community and who we keep out, I had several different ideas about my community, the community into which I placed myself during that first job, and how I fit (or didn’t fit) in.
Community, as we most basically defined it, is a set of people with something in common. This could be place, mindset, skin color, ethnicity, or any other factor. A community, however, is also about having strength in numbers; this is why we want to be a part of a community. A community also helps us shape our identity. Because of this, when we are accepted into a community, we are unwittingly participating in the history under which that community was formed and continues to function. As Hall says,
…there are conditions to identity which the subject cannot construct. Men and women make history but not under conditions of their own making… We are always constructed in part by the practices and discourses that make us, such that we cannot find within ourselves as individual selves or subjects or identities the point of origin from which discourse or history or practice originates. (229)*
In other words, we may partly create our own identity, or our own history, but as a member of a community, we are subject to that community’s history. Being born a woman, I was born into the community of womanhood, and as such, I bear the weight of years and years of womanly tradition. I was taught by a strong woman to be strong and independent, but this is not how women have historically been portrayed. Women who were taught to take part in a more historical view of womanhood, my coworkers for example, were instructed to take part in a more traditional role. Almost immediately, I did not fit into their community, and I wasn’t ever sure why. I always knew I was independent, but I never really thought of myself as an independent woman until I arrived in the midst of these women, who had already formed their historical, collective identity for which there was no room for one such as me. As Hall writes, “As one knew one’s gender, one was able to locate oneself in the huge social division between men and women… These collective identities stabilized and staged our sense of ourselves… [which is] in part held in place by these great collective social identities” (231). That was the only role they knew to be in a woman’s repertoire, and if I wasn’t a part of that tradition, they must have worried, on some level, that I wasn’t really a woman. Or I definitely was not a “good” woman.
However, there is a problem with the word “good.” What does it mean, exactly? My simple computer dictionary has over 20 definitions of the word, and this is partly because of history. Over the course of time, the word “good” has come to be defined in many different ways, and has been used differently to describe different things. Just like Hall says we need to look at “Black” in a new way, maybe we need to look at “good” in a new way. Hall writes, “In order to say ‘Black’ in a new way, we have to fight off everything else that Black has always meant – all its connotations, all its negative and positive figurations, the entire metaphorical structure of Christian thought, for example” (230). Perhaps we need to do the same with “good” in terms of a “good wife.” Like a student in class said, “‘good’ only means what the language says it means.” Why can’t being a “good wife” mean simply loving your husband and working toward a happy marriage? Why does it have to mean domesticity and docility? Because being a good wife is not just a part of history, but a part of the history of language itself, and without a change in such language, without a change in everything else it has always meant, there will forever be conflict over what a “good wife” really is. This is especially important considering that identities are ever forming, and we are never truly complete. With every new experience, we take on a new piece of our identity – perhaps changing, rejecting, or adding something within ourselves. According to Hall, feminism has been showing us this for quite some time: “The notion that identity is complete at some point – the notion that masculinity and femininity can view each other as a perfectly replicating mirror image of each other – is untenable after the slightest reading of any feminist text” (235). As much as these women wanted to be part of my identity-forming process, they did not see their own identities as malleable, as is suggested by many stories they told about themselves and each other – most often, they began with some bit of foolishness, then ended with the idea that “this is just how we are.” They, however, saw my identity as still forming because I was significantly younger than they were. This could be the root of the problem in any situation involving a generation gap: Not only are the histories different, but the idea of identity is different, as well. As much as they wanted to be a part of my identity-forming process, I could not let them because my history and my understanding of the world were so much different than theirs.
*Full citation: Hall, Stuart. “Ethnicity: Identity and Difference.” Beyond Borders. Randall Bass and Joy Young, ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Comany,2002. 228-240.
Literacy Interview: Revised Proposal
July 7th, 2009What follows is the revised proposal for my interview about the literacy practices of the feminist blogging community. Comments are, as always, welcome.
Topic and Background
I am fascinated by technological literacy and how social media, blogging in particular, is becoming the new face of activism. People are using social media to write and distribute their ideas to a broad audience and, unlike pamphlets or other hard-copy documents, the information presented in these blogs is both easily shared – via e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, etc. – and is part of a conversation. Instead of Socrates’ concern with the written word “that it stabilizes ideas, so that writing falsely represents ideas as frozen in time, ripped from the living, human situations in which they naturally move” (Lindquist and Seitz 27), a blog is instead a living, breathing, changeable document to which an audience can respond, and an author can change as he/she sees fit. This kind of easily distributable dialogue is rapidly changing the way activists find and share their information.
In order to better find and share information, as well as cultivate a loyal audience, bloggers tend to form communities of people who have the same goals in mind. Each blogger has his/her own unique style (some might post cartoons, others might post academic responses, some might just muse on or share opinions about certain subjects, etc.), but bloggers with the same end goal are likely to combine efforts, collaborate, comment on each other’s stories, and share each other’s information. There is a whole set of rules and etiquette that goes along with participating in a community such as this, and literacy – reading, writing, and conversation – takes on a whole new meaning. Through Twitter and my own blog (http://smallstroke.wordpress.com), I have become involved in the feminist blogging community, and I am interested in exploring the definitions and uses of literacy within this community.
Method
The nature of the internet is such that there is no real “site” to observe, and because each blogger’s style can be so different and it takes a community of people to spread the word about blogs in order to get the kind of readership needed for real change, I will combine a participant-observation research of a field site and ethnographic interviews in order to complete a discourse centered online ethnography. According to Jannis Androutsopoulos in her article “Potentials and Limitations of Discourse-Centred Online Ethnography,” an online ethnography “combines the systematic observation of selected sites of online discourse with direct contact with its social actors” (2). I will be using several feminist blogs as sites and evidence of texts, and I will also conduct several interviews with the bloggers themselves to collect their ideas of literacy and how this burgeoning technology effects how they read, write, discuss, and share information.
Because the bloggers chosen for this project are all over the world, interviews must be conducted via e-mail. I will introduce myself and give pertinent background information (age, location, occupation, education) to the bloggers, and ask them to send me the same. I will then ask the first set of preliminary questions, which ask them to tell me stories about their blogging and internet community experiences and include guiding questions to help the interviewee think of specific literacy events in their experiences:
After receiving the first round of answers to these questions, I may follow up with other questions, depending on the responses I receive. The second round of questions will be particular to each interviewee, and will only be conducted if necessary.
Participants and Sites
Analysis
I am interested in “the cultural identities [the bloggers] claim for themselves” and how they “affect the kinds of literacy behaviors they practice in different parts of their lives” (Lindquist and Seitz 231). Through the interviews and the monitoring of the participants’ individual sites, I hope to gain a greater understanding of how feminism exists as an online culture and how participation in that culture affects the ways in which they read and write.
As I interview the participants and read their blogs, I will be looking for patterns or discrepancies in the way the participants think about their own literacy practices. Particularly, I will use Szwed’s five elements of literacy – text, context, function, participants, and motivation – to analyze the literacy events the participants share with me. I will then be using this information to discuss how literacy works and what types of literacy are employed within the culture of feminist bloggers, and hopefully I will come to a greater understanding of participation within this community.
Works Cited
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. “Potentials and Limitations of Discourse-Centred Online Ethnography.” Language@Internet, 5 (2008), article 9. 7 July 2009 <http://www.languageatinternet.de>.
Lindquist, Julie and David Seitz. The Elements of Literacy. New York: Longman, 2009.
Comments Off on Literacy Interview: Revised Proposal
Negotiating Borders
July 6th, 2009Borders are difficult things to manage; they are not real in the sense that this computer or this desk is real – they are not tangible. When two groups meet, however, an inevitable border is formed, and when cultures clash, this border, or contact zone as Pratt labels it, can feel more real than any tangible item. According to Pratt, contact zones are “social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in the contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power, such as colonialism, slavery, or their aftermaths as they are lived out in many parts of the world today” (251-252). It is in these contact zones, where language is highly charged and people are emotionally and culturally bound to discussions that syntax matters, and very often words take on many meanings depending on who is using them and to what end. Blauner describes this issue in regards to the word “racism”:
The question then becomes what to do about these multiple and confusing meanings of racism and their extraordinary personal and political charge. I would begin by honoring both the black and white readings of the term. Such an attitude might help facilitate the interracial dialogue so badly needed and yet so rare today. (309)
In Blauner’s example, the word “racism” becomes intensely confusing as well as a source of contention because of its many definitions. In a situation where words are so confusing and emotionally charged in so many different ways, discussion is impossible; arguments erupt because of misunderstandings.
I have been thinking about this quite a bit, and I cannot think of one “border situation” in which the definition of a word has not been in question. Debates between races, cultures, men and women, women and women (as is the case with my Installment Paper), gays and homophobics, and the list goes on. It seems, more often than not, that the “othered” group must take on the language of the dominant group in order to be heard at all. Such is the case in Rita Dove’s poem, “Arrow,” when she writes “When the moment came I raised my had,/phrased my question as I had to: sardonic,/eminently civil my condemnation/phrased in the language of fathers…” (lines 25-28). In order to question the man lecturing about poetry in which women are invisible, the speaker must adopt his language. Her question is “sardonic,” yes, but “civil” and phrased in the language of men, as it has to be. The lecturer’s answer comes as “it had to” (line 30), as well, and he speaks of celebrating differences and the “virility of ethnicity” (line 32). It’s almost as if this man took on language that was not his own, language he thought was hers, in order to appease her.
As we see with the women at the end of the poem – angry about the lecture and subsequent response – such discussion is rarely, if ever, helpful in negotiating borders and contact zones. Using the language of the other group is either an act of conceding or condescension. We in academia like to talk about language and syntax and borders and culture, but I think it will take a real-world discussion about the barriers that language creates – even (and especially) between people who speak the same language – to come to common definitions and then, finally, have productive conversations.
Comments Off on Negotiating Borders
Arrow by Rita Dove
July 6th, 2009The eminent scholar “took the bull by the horns,”
substituting urban black speech for the voice
of an illiterate cop in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae.
And we sat there.
Dana’s purple eyes deepened, Becky
twitched to her hairtips
and Janice in her red shoes
scribbled he’s an arschlock; do you want
to leave? He’s a model product of his
education, I scribbled back; we can learn from this.
So we sat through the applause
and my chest flashed hot, a void
sucking at m guts until I was all
flamed surface. I would have to speak up.
Then the scholar progressed
to his prize-winning translations of
the Italian Nobel Laureate. He explained the poet
to us: immense difficulty
with human relationships; sensitive;
women were a scrim through which he could see
heaven.
We sat through it. Quite lovely, these poems.
We could learn from them although they were saying
you women are nothing, nothing at all.
When the moment came I raised my hand,
phrased my question as I had to: sardonic,
eminently civil my condemnation
phrased in the language of fathers –
felt the room freeze behind me.
And the answer came as it had to:
humanity – celebrate our differences –
the virility of ethnicity. My students
sat there already devising
their different ways of coping:
Dana knowing it best to have
the migraine at once, get the poison out quickly
Becky holding it back for five hours and Janice
making it to the evening reading and party afterwards
her shoes pointed and studded, wicked witch shoes:
Janice who will wear red for three days or
yellow brighter
than her hair so she can’t be
seen at all