Regardless of my radical feminist politics, I sometimes still get caught hoping people will still accept me once they understand all aspects of my being and identity. Rather than pouring my heart out, something I'm not very good at, here is some music I feel is telling.
Relationships: What about the guys? StarTribune.com article on STD and sexual awareness in young men.
Sex for less than 3 minutes is 'too short' StarTribune.com
Transgender persons left out of a ban on job bias and job discrimination bill. StarTribune.com
Octupuses are kinky apparently. StarTribune.com
8th grader murdered because he was gay StarTribune.com
In a recent article on StarTribune.com, Obama has stated that he favors repealing the "don't ask don't tell" policy, which was put in place during the Clinton administration. He will not, however, require that his Joint Chiefs of Staff agree with him on this point. He states, "I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff." One can only hope that he avoids litmus tests in other appointed officials like Supreme Court justices. Although I would love to see some more pro-choice justices on the bench, I hate it when the litmus test is anti-choice. I love that Obama also seems to be in touch with reality in the sense that the GLBT GL community isn't quite as dangerous or scary as most right-wing conservatives seem to think:
"But I think there's increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy," he said. "We're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn't make us more safe."Although I'm still rather split about Obama versus Hillary, I'm just waiting for the nomination to come out so that I can support the Democratic Party! I must admit, however, that I adore Obama's seemingly anti-homophobic speech. Closing happy quotes:
Asked what he could reasonably accomplish for the gay community as president, Obama said he can "reasonably see" repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as well as signing legislation to ban workplace discrimination against gays. He said he'd like transgendered people to be covered by the law, but thinks it would be tough to get such legislation through Congress.Obama also said he's interested in ensuring that same-sex couples in civil unions get federal benefits.
Hi everyone. The Pre-Law Society (of which I am a member) is putting on a fashion show on Friday 4/4 (yea, thats this friday) at 8:30pm. I will actually be in the show and its free, so you should all come! Laughing at me is quite welcome and I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't. The show will be at the McNamara Alumni Center. Please come and support all of us geeks and feel free to stick around after to say hello!
Hope to see some of you all there!!
Today was the march in protest of the war in Iraq on campus being that its the five-year anniversary of the occupation. It was such a cool day! There were awesome speakers and the people were so energetic and passionate. I absoultely loved being there. We started off at Coffman with speakers and chants, then marched from coffman to Pleasant Street to University Avenue to Church Street and ended up at the McNamara Alumni Center. After that we walked over to a military recruiting center and protested there. I was really close to being late to work, but the entire experience was enlightening and so much fun! There were tons of people and it all reminded me how much we need to get out of Iraq and how much passion and anger matters. I always try to be diplomatic or attempt to negotiate with people, but today it was all about being as loud as you can be and grabbing people off the street to come join. Pro-War folks didn't even say anything - they just stared.
All in all, an amazing day! The protest is going to be on the Channel 4, 5, and 11 news. Check it out!!
Today, the Minnesota Daily featured the article, "Group files suit over right to protest at RNC in September." The Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War groups filed suit against St. Paul city officials arguing that they were denied their First Amendment rights. "The coalition requested permits to march from the Capitol, around Xcel Energy Center and back," and were denied. After being denied permits, the coalition filed suit and were eventually given a permit to protest at the Capitol. The coalition has not received permits for the rest of their march, which must be approved by the city. "The city has afforded the coalition a conditional permit to protest Sept. 1, the first day of the convention, but provides no march route." This 'maybe' permit doesn't allow the coalition to protest at all. The Capitol is not adequate for protest - the RNC is not even close to there. Tom Walsh, the St. Paul Police Department spokesperson said, "We've done more to protect free speech than any other convention city before us...We're proud of that." Congratulations, St. Paul, you are both hindering First Amendment rights (you know, those really important ones) and disillusioning the public and yourselves about how useless you are being. "Under law, the city has the right to subject protest plans to any 'reasonable security measures' but the protesters have a right to protest 'close to, or near' the convention." What I find incredible here is how the Republicans appear to have full run of the city while protesters are being shooed away to areas where their protest becomes barely visible.
Why are people so homophobic? In an interview with Judith Butler, she mentions those congress members who say that they don't think about homosexuals or have anything to say about them. Yet, when it comes to legislation protecting the GLBT community from discrimination, these people are the first to speak up against the passing of these laws. The truth seems to come through that not only are these members completely preoccupied with homosexuality, but they are absolutely petrified of it. And because they are so scared, they become homophobic.
Does this line of reasoning make sense?
A few days ago, I had one of those interesting experiences that shocked me sincerely. As I was leaving the Law building on campus, there was a man who was opening a door to enter, so I (obviously) opened another door for myself. Man scoffed in a snorty sort of way while entering the building as if he couldn't believe I didn't recognize and accept his attempted chivalry. I couldn't believe that he would react in this way since any reasonable person would have acted in the same way as I did (by opening another door). What I realized as I was walking away, was that there was no reason for him to react the way he did unless he felt that because I was a woman, he needed to open the door for me and put his coat over puddles.
During my freshman year of college, I took a literature course and the only thing I remember about that class was the discussion we had about chivalry. While reading a *forgotten* book, the man who was chivalrous was unlucky whereas the aggressive man who took things he wanted was lucky. My TA seemed to believe that this book was all about the competing aspects of masculinity. I, on the other hand, asked why chivalry was an 'aspect' of masculinity. As a budding feminist, this made sense to me, but I merely got blank stares wondering why I was questioning this normative behavior.
I guess my question to the cosmos is: Why is it still necessary or acceptable to get angry when a person does not accept chivalry either knowingly or unknowingly? Why was his reaction automatically to be angry with me?
In response to the question, 'Is difficult reading a luxury that only those with time (and money) can afford?' I would agree that difficult reading is a luxury allowing for only persons with free time and the money to afford the texts to 'enjoy.' As a college student, I don't have much disposable income and almost all of the books I buy are for classes. During summer and winter break are the only extended periods of time that I have to afford reading Judith Butler or Adorno for 'fun.' I don't believe that those who have not learned to read closely are harmed much if at all. Because we take the time and the money to be able to read difficult texts, we have that ability. What about people who work three jobs and have children? Their survival does not depend on reading closely. One could argue, I suppose, that by reading closely, a population could create the foundation necessary for revolutionary thought and action. I would counter that, as discussed above, this luxury of difficult reading is not affordable for a large portion of the population. For those who can afford to read difficult texts, is it necessary for those people to engage in such reading? If what Judith Butler says in A Bad Writer Bites Back is true, difficult reading, for those who can afford it, is necessary to "help point the way to a more socially just world." This quote, however, makes me question how exactly Butler assumes difficult reading will bring about a more 'socially just world.' I'm sure that there are some people who, even if they did manage to read Butler's texts, would disagree with her ideas. Those persons who disagree may or may not help the world become more socially just. Butler suggests in the article as well that "common sense sometimes preserves the social status quo" and that difficult reading (and writing) can challenge that common sense and, in essence, challenge the status quo. To use hooks, what about those straight white male capitalist patriarchs? Or would their reading of difficult texts not challenge but not alter their common sense? I'm not sure.
How is difficult reading (and writing) supposed to challenge the status quo? Especially those who may not agree with queer theory?
Is it better to think of 'queer' as an act of doing or as being? There are valid arguments for both sides and I would argue that there is merit on either side. Queer as an act of doing is the easiest to understand or see. As an act of doing, queering behavior could be anything that is different from the norm. Queer as being is more difficult, because it may perpetuate the essentialist discussion. Imposing the term queer onto someone is inappropriate. Someone may be engaging in queering behavior, but they may not want to identify in that way. Perhaps the identity begins to take over their entire identity. For instance, there are some who identify as gay and utilize that in every aspect of their lives: a gay journalist, a gay writer, a gay activist, a gay teacher, etc. Does taking queer that far into an identity take away from the term? If everyone is queer, no one is queer.
Mind boggler: at what point does queer behavior become normative and what, then, becomes 'queer'? Is it possible that so many people will queer their behavior that it will become the norm and not the other? Is it still defined 'queer'?
Is there a need to define 'queer'? According to some, when one defines anything (feminism, queer, etc) the term automatically becomes exclusionary. That is not queer. You are not queer. It may also become overly inclusionary. You are queer. A person or act may be defined as queer without the intention of the doer or person. Does the defining of queer un-queer? I move to suggest that every person has an idea or perception of what queer is or does. This internal decision or understanding is how people interpret queer doing or being. I have my own understanding of what queer is and whether or not I identify with that idea or not is irrelevant. In the act of defining queer, persons are excluded and the term itself has less power. Being or doing queer allows that person to interpret how they will what they are or do rather than having a group of people impose the term onto them. With a definition, we would be essentially placing people into the box labeled queer. When we are trying desperately to change or overthrow the current oppressive system, why are we utilizing their own tools? Why place persons in boxes when that is just what the system does in order to 'other' and discriminate against us?
Thinking about my previous position on defining feminism, I believe that the discourse on queer and queer theory aids my own ideas on the subject. Someone from my queer theory course suggested today that when defining queer or feminism, why not utilize a framework rather than a black and white definition? Utilize ideas and theory rather than imposing a concrete definition onto people. Although I support this proposal, I am unsure as to how to go about it.
Question for the cosmos - How does one go about getting feminist (or queer) discourse into the legal field? I will be graduating with a Gender, Women, & Sexuality Studies and a Political Science degree and heading off to the oh-so-fun law school. While I recognize that there are feminist law professors at universities around the country (and the world), I am curious as to how to bring this perspective into that arena. I am well familiar with my feminist lens in undergrad, but very hesitant to see how this will function within law school. In reality, I'm slightly afraid that I will be laughed at. I think I'm all together too radical for law school...
I'm feeling slightly misplaced lately. It seems as if I am so far in over my head that I can't seem to get above water. I seem to be on time, for the most part, regarding school and classes. But I feel as if I have dug myself a hole so deep in theoretical bullshit that I can't quite seem to get myself out or see reality clearly. I am referring to my own views on feminism and its radical implications. Apparently, I am more radical than even I would have guessed.
When it comes to defining and discussing the idea that is feminist movement, I think that one set definition is both impossible and impractical. Although it would appear at first glance to unify feminists and push us all towards a common (and written) goal, but I would argue that not only is such a unification impossible but detrimental to feminism. Universal 'sisterhood' isn't possible and would alienate many feminists across the globe. Rather than advocating for a universal definition, why not use the resources one has and one's personal manifesto/a, or 'feminism', to create the change? For myself, I favor a certain definition because it fits within my personal and academic views on feminism. For example, I don't like to use the terms 'woman' or 'man' in any definition of feminism because I feel it merely supports the gender binary that many feminists are trying to deconstruct.
What then do we have left? Am I to impose my own definition onto others? Would it not be better for everyone to have their own personal views and act accordingly?
I must admit, however, that I do utilize my definition of feminism when writing papers because it explains the basis from which I write and the reasons behind my arguments. If I did not offer a definition, my papers and theses would be lost in a labyrinth of confusion or misinterpretation. For coalition work, a definition, or rather a manifesto/a, is almost necessary. Not because one cannot have a coalition or create change without one, but that it guides the group towards a goal and offers a vision. Does feminism as a movement constitute a coalition or is it past that point?
The question that continues to infiltrate and jumble my thoughts is: Does the problematizing of the many aspects of feminism (like the terms 'woman' and 'man') negatively affect the movement and if so, how does one reconcile this dilemma?
*My ambitions lie in radical feminist theory that challenges social constructions and hierarchies that are firmly embedded in everyday life. I firmly believe that radical theory is essential to feminist movement to continue to propel it towards a more favorable version of society, culture, institutions, and life.*
It is Saturday the 2nd at around 2pm. I have just completed the LSAT. I never ever want to take that exam again. Ever.
Scores up in 3 weeks. We'll see...
An article in the Star Tribune about the new Kinky U group formed on campus is incredibly disgusting. I don't think you can get access to the article anymore, so I have it pasted into the "continue reading" section.
I am absolutely appalled by this article. In an attempt to be neutral in the article, the columnist appears to be holding back what she really thinks, but it still bleeds through:
Lent declined to be interviewed for this column. But the handcuffs pictured on Kinky U's Web page are worth a thousand words.Which words exactly? I'm sure they aren't accepting or understanding. Again:
What goes on at Kinky U's Thursday night meetings at the QSCC's "Safe Space" in Coffman Union? Well, students "explore sexual endeavors through discussion and demonstration," according to the Daily. (Note to parents: If your daughter at the U tells you she's working on a demonstration project at school, you may want to ask additional questions.)Why, if I may ask, is it necessary for parents to now inquire as to the details of a discussion and demonstration? Be careful parents! Your daughter (not son) might become sexually deviant!
Kinky U's meetings focus "on keeping all parties comfortable and safe in their endeavors," according to the Daily. "Some extreme practices can be potentially dangerous, so the group aims to educate those interested about the risks involved." Why not just discourage extreme practices? We wouldn't want to be judgmental, would we?What is most infuriating about this passage of the article is the condescension of the last question. Please, folks, don't engage in pleasurable practices that may be dangerous or extreme! You could get hurt! Don't snowboard or skydive! Why not learn appropriate and safe means to skydive safely? The same applies to other forms of pleasure, if I may be so bold. Any person has the right to do what they want safely. Why not teach means of safety? Regardless of whether or not you agree with the practices or would engage in them yourself, that doesn't mean that you may criticize others for making those choices. I would never go skydiving, but I'm not going to stop anyone who tries to do so, and PLEASE learn how to do it safely!!
I recently completed the book Queer Theory, Gender Theory by Riki Wilchins. Not only is this book excellent as an introduction to Queer Theory, but its an easy read. I really enjoyed reading it! She explains the origins of queer and gender theory through the women's movement, the gay movement, and the transgender movement. She discusses the theorists who began to write queer and gender theory as well as contemplate the usefulness of these theories. The most important part of the book is her application of these theories into action and vision. Most theory one reads these days seems to be loaded with big words and abstract theory, but no direction or vision. QTGT does the opposite. Wilchins explains the theories and their importance to today's society as well as offering a means for action; she even offers examples. I would strongly advocate reading this book even if its just to add to a knowledge base. It is both entertaining and highly informative.
I'm curious as to some of the issues Wilchins raises as well. What exactly are the benefits to deconstructing identities and ideas of 'being' like race, gender, and sex? If these ideas were deconstructed, would it help or hinder feminist movement? Would the theory behind feminisms become so convoluted that the only persons who could understand it are feminist theorists like Judith Butler? What do you think?
I must apologize for not posting much so far this break. However, rather than doing the research that interests me so much, I've been attempting to study for a hideous exam on February 2nd. I am working really hard to master the LSAT and so far I've been doing alright, but to be honest, I am absolutely petrified. If anyone can offer some advice on this three and a half hour hell, I would be very grateful!
Moving on to more interesting and perhaps more infuriating topics. I must share with you the experience I had on New Year's Eve. I know that I'm not perfect when it comes to responding to Extreme Christian Conservatives who use personal attacks. There are some people that are uncomfortable with conflict, and unfortunately, I am one of them. To be clear: I rise to the occasion of debating politics, issues, policies, etc. I shrink from conflict in which I am personally attacked. I offer the example of my horrendous New Year's Eve event.
I went to the house of my parents' friends for some cards and some dinner. When I arrived, the talk around the table immediately changed to politics. There was my parents, my sister, my parents' married friends and their two sons there.
My father decided to take the opportunity to state, "don't get her started on Mike Huckabee."
Its true that I think that man is a poor excuse for a human being. I respond: "Yea, I'm moving to Canada if Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney are elected," forgetting of course that I was in the company of Christian Conservatives and that they may support these lunatics.
Husband looks at me and asks, "Why don't you like Romney?"
Response: "I didn't appreciate his speech on Religion among other things."
"What didn't you like about the speech?"
"I didn't like that, although he seemed to support the statements of the first amendment, he contradicted them with the remainder of his speech. He suggested that the President of the United States should run the country under one God and that, in effect saying, that even though the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and establishment, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are free from my/our religion. He excludes many valued and merited religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, Goddess Worshipers. Many followers of whom are my friends. The fact that the country should be run under one God simply because historic documents mention "creator" does not give him the right to force all Americans to follow his favored monotheistic views." [I paraphrase of course, but this is the general idea.]
Wife, who sits on the other side of me, maliciously (yes, I use that adjective deliberately) that, "God is mentioned in more places in the constitution and was the basis of the founding of the country."
I have never been able to come back effectively when someone speaks so hatefully towards me. I merely responded that I did not wish to argue with her on that point.
Husband, on my other side, wonders aloud as to what exactly Wicca is. Many attempts to explain it around the table are wrong, but in have the essential ideas of the 'religion.' I attempt to explain more fully and as carefully as I can what Wicca is. Husband, goes on, "Parents, you don't need to listen to this, you can close your ears," turns to me and asks seriously, "Can you do magic?"
At this point, I'm stunned for a couple seconds. Not really wanting to answer fully, which would take some time to explain that his views on magic and Wicca were still skewed, I replied to him, "No." I offered the look of shock in response.
I take the hateful tones and probing, unnecessary, attacking questions as...personal attacks. When we all stand up to go and play some cards, Husband tries to reassure me that they like to debate and that he wasn't trying to put me on the spot. I respond, "One of my majors requires of me to think of the 'other' and of marginalized groups that may not receive the attention that normative groups or persons do."
"Oh, what major is that?"
"Women's Studies"
My father: "Yea, we're hoping its just a phase." Followed by sincere laughter from both Husband and my father.
As if I wasn't already feeling hurt and humiliated, I responded privately that it is unacceptable to undermine what I do daily in front of people who already disregard me because they think that I'm subversive. Do not ever disregard me or what I do again.
With barely an apology, I go to the other room to play cards and attempt to forget everything. Throughout the card game, I am repeatedly called a witch because it is now assumed that I am also Wiccan and "don't piss her off, she'll curse you." Getting up and going to the kitchen to get some tea and/or stopping myself from throwing things, Wife follows me.
She asks, "why don't you like to discuss politics?"
"I have no problem discussing politics. In fact, I love debating politics. I do not, however, like to discuss religion."
"Why not?"
"I'm not sure where I stand when it comes to religion and I wouldn't be able to make fair and well-based arguments for one way or another."
"Well, you had better get used to it. No one is going to stop talking about something just because you're uncomfortable." Malicious tone again.
The rest of the evening is not worth mentioning. I ask all of you out there in the blogosphere: what on earth should a person like me say when attacked in this way? I have already decided that I will never grace their presence again, but what concerns me most is what I should have said. I am furious at the way they handled my clarification of what Wicca really is. Just because I know something about a group of people does not make me a part of that group. I may know a lot about the civil rights movement from the '60's. That does not make me an African American. I may know a lot about Communism. That doesn't make me a Communist. Its absolutely infuriating how people can take an argument you make and completely disregard the main point and address only the "weird" thing you mentioned within it. Anyways, sorry for the rant.