UofM Feminist

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!!

Check out the scratching and biting scene at 'Kinky U'
You might think there's already something for everyone at our flagship institution of higher learning.
By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune

There's some serious scratching and biting going on at the University of Minnesota.
An intramural rugby match? Or time to call campus security?
Nope. It's just another field of inquiry for the dedicated scholars at "Kinky U," a student fee-supported offshoot of the U of M's Queer Student Cultural Center (QSCC).
QSCC already sponsors groups that journey down every sexual side-road and identity bi-way imaginable. Its 14 member groups range from "Biversity" (for "bisexuals, pansexuals, omnnisexuals, and those who prefer no labels") to "Tranarchy" (for "those who identify as transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, intersex, or gender diverse.")
Yes, you might think there's already something for everyone at our flagship institution of higher learning.
But Kinky U aims to reach out to groups still not fully embraced (so to speak) by the university community. It's "a social and discussion group" for those interested in "all forms of kink, including roleplaying, leather, BDSM [bondage, discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism], and much more," according to QSCC's website.
"The term 'kinky' can include anything from biting and scratching, 'which is pretty common,' to power exchanges and bondage," said the Minnesota Daily, quoting Michael Lent, the group's facilitator.
Lent declined to be interviewed for this column. But the handcuffs pictured on Kinky U's Web page are worth a thousand words.
Kinky U is now seeking to make kink mainstream by becoming an official student club in its own right. "We've definitely had a lot of interest," said Justin Jagoe of the QSCC. He added that he expects the process to be complete within a few weeks, though a student-led board must still give its approval.
"This is a big step for sexual freedom," Lent told the Daily. "It's a milestone for the U and even for the metro area."
"The purpose of groups funded by student fees, which are decided on by students themselves, is to help encourage a diverse array of ideas and perspectives," said Jerry Rinehart, the U's vice provost for student affairs. "As long as the decision process is viewpoint neutral, the U cannot attempt to censor."
"Kinky U is basically saying, 'We're there if you ever decide to have this type of sexual relationship, because it can be a part of your life in a safe way,' " said Genevieve Clute, co-chairwoman of the U's student-led Sexual Health Awareness and Disease Education organization in a Daily interview. "Even in a casual sexual life, it's important to set limits and feel safe and comfortable, so it's fantastic [they're promoting that]."
Clute could not be reached for further comment.
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.)
Kinky U also will sponsor field research. During the next semester, Lent plans "tours of sex-oriented stores in the Twin Cities area," according to the Daily.
And like many educational organizations, Kinky U sponsors workshops. Last fall, for example, participants learned "to dye and treat leather so that it can be made into something like a collar, which can otherwise be expensive to buy," according to the Daily.
Stephan Robberts, 28, who led that workshop, said he feels like a mentor to younger participants. "I've done a lot of stupid things when I was younger and being there to caution or help others is extremely important," he told the Daily. "I wish I had a group like Kinky U when I was younger, just to have that knowledge base."
Some may be surprised to learn that this is the sort of knowledge the university is helping to disseminate, especially because it is apparently always short of resources. But they shouldn't be surprised.

At the U, as in much of academe, the language of "health and safety" has hijacked our old vocabulary of right and wrong.
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?

Posted by Jessica Englund at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

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?

*This is a copy of the blog that I cross-posted on my Queering Theory website with some more questions that were raised by the author.

As I was reading through Queer Theory, Gender Theory, a few of the questions that Wilchins poses stuck with me. I think a few would benefit discussion.

I appreciate Derrida's definition of gender as, "a language, a system of meanings and symbols along with the rules, privileges, and punishments pertaining to their use - for power and sexuality (masculinity and femininity, strength and vulnerability, action and passivity, dominance and weakness)" (pg 35). I wonder what anyone else thinks about this definition. Is it beneficial to think of gender as a language and a system rather than 'being'?

In chapter five, Wilchins discusses Foucault's 'politics of self.' I had some difficulty understanding precisely what Foucault is suggesting through the deconstruction of the Self. It seems as if he advocates the questioning of one's own identities, but I'm confused as to what else *precisely* he is suggesting.

Is there "real sex"? If so, what is that exactly? What is the relation of "real sex" to gender? (ch 7)

In the beginning of chapter 9, Wilchins states that, "It may be that binary gender is so fundamental to social reality that it may be impossible to evolve the discourse." Is this statement valid? Could discourse be impossible? Or, if it is possible, is it harmful to feminist movement?

"Is race essentialized in a way that even sex is not?" (pg 109).

In chapter 11, Wilchins makes two interesting comments. "The price of a less coercive feminism may be resigning ourselves to conflict and fragmentation and then agreeing to move forward with all our contradictions intact." & "Maybe, in addition to representing women, part of a feminist agenda should be questioning, even deconstructing that category itself, so that - paradoxically - feminism actually precludes a complete and final definition of Woman" (pg 129). I wonder if these views on feminist movement are helpful or harmful. Is the deconstruction of "woman" a good idea, or will it merely make feminisms more complicated than they already are? Is it possible to have a final definition of Woman that is inclusive?

Posted by Jessica Englund at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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.

Posted by Jessica Englund at 03:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)