The follies and follicles of Vee Levene

What this LJ will be from now on...

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:19:03 GMT

...is a place for me to post more personal entries than those on the public blog or to test out things I'd like to eventually post on the public blog.

The public blog: http://veethemonsoon.wordpress.com

You can syndicate the blog on LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/friends/add.bml?user=vee_wordpress

Feminist Theories Response: The futility of language

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:14:58 GMT

The futility of language is a concept which came up a number of times in the readings for this weekend, both through the abstractness/inaccessibility of the writings themselves and in the discussion of language directly. Specifically, Luce Irigaray opens “When Our Lips Speak Together” by saying that “if we keep on speaking the same language together, we’re going to reproduce the same history.... If we keep on speaking sameness, if we speak to each other as men have been doing for centuries, as we have been taught to speak, we’ll miss each other, fail ourselves. Again” (205). She proceeds to construct a text that I could understand only on some oddly confused “poetic” level.

I admire the desire and the practice of creating a new language. According to linguistics, a language fits the needs of its community. According to muted group theory, language is the product of the dominant/dominating group, a tool to perpetuate its domination by not allowing for expression the specific experiences of marginalized people. I do not see how these ideas have to be mutually exclusive. Local dialects can prove both, and perhaps offer an alternative, however paltry, to muted group theory, as do the attempts by these French feminists to recreate language, which are clearly much more elaborate and, therefore, revolutionary.

Ever since I heard about muted group theory years ago and got interested in linguistics a bit more recently than that, new words and reconfigurations of words are always on my mind. My favorite words are those that are combinations of words (e.g., “contradefinition,” “metasophical”) and I particularly love to reclaim big words, often traditionally used only in the academy or the avant-garde, and injecting them into every-day speech (e.g., “contradistinction,” “caveat,” “obviate”). This is usually for comedic purposes but also serves a political function (through its function as a parody): It brings to attention the absurdity of much of our language, the absurdity that much of it is reserved only for those with the education for it, and it therefore gives people a chance to gain a new positive association with this type of language—i.e., through laughter—instead of just feeling lost, defensive, uneducated, alienated.

But then, I want to reach the masses. That’s my goal, specifically in my political theatre, and more specifically in the play I’ve written and am directing for my senior project. I have attempted, mainly through dialogue (as it’s a very dialogue- and ideas-based play), to create an accessible and unalienating play about marginalization (that also happens to be very funny and entertaining) that can appeal to all types of people, not just those with similar education levels and political beliefs as myself. This serves as a way to open up people, gradually, to new ideas and new ways of thinking about the world.

I have struggled, though, especially in the writing process, to convey my ideas properly. I can trace this to the fact that, in wanting to use accessible, conversational language, I am often at a loss. In a way, this process has increased my understanding of and appreciation for attempts to (re)create language (I have, traditionally, just felt bitter—lost, defensive, uneducated, alienated). Now, having a grasp on it better, as well as understanding personally its dangers, I can now attempt, in my own work, to find a nice balance.

Feminist Theories Response: Judith Butler

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:13:42 GMT

In “Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of ‘Postmodernism,’” Judith Butler claims that power is a never-ending, always-changing structure: “If the subject is constituted by power, that power does not cease at the moment the subject is constituted, for that subject is never fully constituted, but is subjected and produced time and again” (13).

This reminds me of Lacan’s rereading of Freud and, in particular, de Saussure’s Borromean knot used to explain a subject’s progression to and relationship with language. The claim there was that people are never complete, never stable, because they are always trying to get to a place (back to the “real,” the “baby blob”) that they could never possibly do. So, therefore, taking into account both claims, both inside and outside forces will always keep us as struggling, striving, incomplete, people.

This is an idea that needs to hit the masses, and quickly. After all, who doesn’t think we’re supposed to grow and mature until we are complete? How much existential turmoil is spent in this unending and futile process? (Although, I suppose, it keeps therapists in business.) As a twentysomething there has not been a moment when I have not struggled with this. For some years now, I have chalked it up to the fact that, because I am in between generations (I was born in 1981, right on the border between Generation X and the Millenial generation—the cusp, or fence, if you will), there are very few media outlets targeting my age group directly (I have a whole theory on this that I won’t go into now). As a result, there is little outside guidance as to what people my age are supposed to be like and do, except, of course, for having long since graduated college, but that’s a whole other theory, of the social clock...

Anyway. Never a good idea to get me started on generational theory. Where I’m going with this is: we’re led to think that we’ll eventually get out of the rut where we’re confused about our identity and what we’re supposed to be doing with life and stop lamenting the fact that there’s always this weird empty spot in us, but Butler and Lacan/de Saussure assure us that this is all bogus.

I would now like to quote myself, the play I wrote and am directing for my senior project, that deals with some of these issues, and bringing in the myth that it gets better as you get older. One character says: “I was so damn idealistic when I was younger. I mean, I was pretty miserable then, too, but I thought it would get better. I thought it was temporary—everything was temporary. It didn’t matter how much I hated my life, because—I was still young. I still had time. I was taught to believe it would get better. We all were.” Another character says: “I always find myself jealous of people who have their shit together more than I do.[...] I always assumed everyone else had it all figured out. But now I’ve realized that no matter how people present themselves, no one’s ever really... settled.” These characters don’t get any real answers on this, which is an intentional choice. (Most of the characters don’t get any real answers on anything—it’s “slice of life.”) They realize that they can only take solace in the moment, and in each other (awwww...).

*

Butler critiques identity politics as too limiting; she says that “‘identity’ as a point of departure can never hold as the solidifying ground of a feminist political movement. Identity categories are never merely descriptive, but always normative, and as such, exclusionary” (15-16).

I’m going to quote and discuss my play again, because there is little else I get to think about this week. One character (Olivia) says: “I think I’m going to be a lonely spinster my whole life.[...] Most of the time I think it’s ok.” Another character (Marie) says: “To be lonely?” Olivia: “The spinster part.[...] I want to go all postmodern and identity politics and reclaim that word.” Marie: “Even though it hasn’t really been offensive for like fifty years?”

This comment(ary) is two-fold (actually, it’s kind of exciting, because I just realized it’s two-fold; before I thought I was doing only one thing with it): Clearly, Olivia is creating a paradox by using “postmodern” and “identity politics” in the same sentence, as compatible beings. She is expressing the absurdity of identity politics, and more specifically, how arbitrary it is. This could feed into Butler’s idea of the subject always changing because it is constructed. The second thing, the one I just realized, is that she’s using this random political ideal to attempt to reconcile a part of her life that she’s frustrated with—how many of us do this? And how often does it work? Rarely, I think, if we’re doing it more for personal reasons than political ones. It kind of goes back to how we’re never complete, and that putting faith in anything outside of ourselves as marks of growth and completeness—particularly random political ideals—is kind of silly.

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:38:22 GMT

I do this thing in the bath, I plug my nose and curl up under water, on my back and my knees to my chest, so I don't float to the top. I recently discovered I can cover my eyes so light doesn't shine through my lids. It's like sensory deprivation. I don't strain too much--well, sometimes I do, but not these days--and sometimes I curl into the fetal position. I don't ever feel any kind of spiritual womb rebirthing thing, but for a few moments after I resurface, my mind is clear as my senses adjust once again to the stimulation they so love/hate/never don't have. And as my mind is never clear, that's pretty nice.

"I woke in bits, like all children, piecemeal over the years. I discovered myself and the world, and forgot them, and discovered them again. I woke at intervals until... the intervals of waking tipped the scales, and I was more often awake than not. I noticed this process of waking, and predicted with terrifying logic that one of these years not far away I would be awake continuously and never slip back, and never be free of myself again." (Annie Dillard, An American Childhood)

Cross-posts from my other, which is becoming my primary, blog

Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:44:53 GMT

The latest (highlights) from VEE@wordpress:

Jen / Squirrel Nut Zippers
28th March 2006

Jennifer Saunders is the best organism to ever have existed.

Me: If she has to be married to someone who's not me, I guess it should be Ade.
Amber: You approve.
Me: I do.
Amber: But she'll leave him for you.
Me: Oh, no, I wouldn't want that. I'll just be her mistress.
Amber: We'll see her once in a while walking down the streets of Yellow Springs…
Me: Her hideaway vacation spot. My house. Well, my bedroom.

*

I've recently rediscovered the Squirrel Nut Zippers. The fusion of the old with the new is a wonderfully obscure art form that allows a reverence for the past without a nostalgia for something we can never have.

*

Comedy as salvation
28th March 2006

Last night, after French & Saunders' 2002 Christmas Special blew me away (literally–I was in pieces on the other side of the room), I took a shower and laughed at the memory of what I'd just experienced while the hot water assaulted my skin. I'd been really tired and stressed out, but now I laughed in the shower and was suddenly elevated.

Comedy is my salvation and has been since I discovered it as something I love and need and care for above all else when I was 17. It gives me hope, because no matter how bad things get, no matter how stressed out I get, no matter how I feel, no matter anything, life will always be beautiful because there will always be comedy, I will always be blown away, there will always be something to love.

*

PS. Does anyone with a paid account want to make an LJ syndicated feed for me? :)

WordPress.com

Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:57:49 GMT

I hadn't realized WordPress.org hosts blogs on its site--WordPress.com. How novel. I've been wanting to use it for a while now, but never had the proper host or programming abilities.

So, I'm trying it out. Bear with me. I'm trying to find a new home, to incorporate both my blog and my main site. Something that's not a pain in the ass to update if I don't have internet access with my computer, which happens pretty regularly. Something pretty.

VEE@wordpress

"Irish" pubs

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:25:12 GMT

Ireland's "Crack" Habit - Explaining the faux Irish pub revolution.

Of particular interest to me (especially the readers' comments), as both an appreciator of "authentic" Irish-American pubs and a former American "barmaid" in the UK.

I just spoiled myself

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:26:41 GMT

Delivery estimate: March 24, 2006

"Female Chauvinist Pigs : Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture"
Ariel Levy; Hardcover; $15.75

"French & Saunders - On the Rocks"
Dawn French; DVD; $12.99

I can't recall the last time I looked forward to a package quite this much.
(The last French & Saunders DVD I don't have.)

- -Amazon.com addict and proud of it, though I usually use the Marketplace, I didn't this time because they gave me free shipping with a free 3-month trial of a "prime" account, probably because I'm such an addict

From an interview with damali ayo

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:34:06 GMT

damali ayo (creator of rent-a-negro.com) was interviewed in Bitch magazine's Fall 2005 issue.

I found a lot of it inspiring and/or paralleling to my own aspirations and/or practices in political art.

(I don't really agree with the very first sentence--on all art being activism [though that might depend on how you define activism]--but the rest is just beautiful.)

"'I believe that all art is a radical form of social activism. In the art world and in our society, we've made the grave mistake of separating the two--sometimes, when we look at socially minded art, we think it's less artistic, when it's actually the height of art.'"

"'Satire cannot exist without reality,' she insists, 'and only reality can be absurd enough to build solid satire. I find reality to be far more provocative than anything I could ever make up...'"

"'Intellectualizing and comedy both create an atmosphere where action becomes an option. This [book, How to Rent a Negro] is in between those two extremes--it is at once really funny and really not funny.' Following the modest proposal once made by Jonathan Swift, Ayo [sic] believes in the need for startling provocation in order to instigate meaningful change. 'We need to throw the pepper in the sauce [in order] for people to start tasting things. When you intersect the radical with the mundane, the socially weighted with the everyday occurrences, that's when things get really fascinating."

Milosevic's death

Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:57:27 GMT

from BBC News- Slobodan Milosevic: Your comments

What is your reaction to the death of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic?

"I think it is appalling that he didn't recieve the healthcare he required. He should of been kept in best health so he would survive the trial, then we could put him to death. That's just good, sensible justice, after all."

On the (mis)attribution of idiosyncracies

Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:44:28 GMT

People seem really eager to dismiss my idiosyncratic behaviors- specifically, those that differ drastically from their own behaviors- as merely symptoms or "excuses" for underlying neuroses and character defects.

Many of these encounters are disguised as general concern and a desire to understand, so they are difficult to point out on a one-on-one basis. The ones that are brazenly obvious, the not-so-disguised, cause me to look back and see the parallels to other, more insidious (and often not conscious) misguided misattributions.

It might come from a need to categorize (well, dichotomize) behaviors as either good or bad, normal or abnormal, active or reactive. It might come from the inability to see any hint of an existence outside the norm (their own) as anything other than wrong in some way- even if the behavior itself isn't "wrong", it's the deviation from socialization that's seen as "wrong", and so the underlying cause must be "wrong". It might be the inability to understand complexities within people other than oneself, particularly if those complexities challenge one's idea of the finiteness of complexity.

It might actually come from the desire to understand, and when faced with not being able to understand, one negates as a way to maintain sanity and self-concept. (My personal favorite: "Everyone else I know who does this..." as though similar[ly-appearing] behaviors necessarily stem from similar sources.)

Whatever the reason, it's really fucking getting on my nerves. Just stop it, all right? It's perfectly natural to have such thoughts, but if you're willing to validate them to yourself when forming your concept of me, at least have the decency to express humility and encourage dialogue by using "I" statements, rather than just telling me about myself as though you had some sort of authority. I'll try to watch myself, too. Social psychology-for-laypeople is all well and good, but if you don't have any concept of the fundamental attribution error, then it might behoove you to acknowledge and embrace your ignorance.

International Women's Day

Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:16:44 GMT

A post on Antioch's intranet by Judith Kintner, who runs the gym:

Yep, it's today. Check out some web sites (World Vision is good).
Call your Mom if you have a mom, or your Grandma, or your fifth grade teacher.
It's a good day to remember that worldwide, women are still oppressed, discriminated against, and disproportionately economically disadvantaged.

It would be really cool if all of us women people today took a minute to acknowledge what we have, or plan to, overcome--for ourselves or for others-- to acknowledge what it's taken for older women to be where they are, doing what they're doing.

Remember: women are dying in disproportionately high numbers due to smoking related ilnesses--maybe skip a few cigarettes today.

Remember: 30 years ago we weren't allowed to play lots of sports, we weren't allowed to play with the boys, and a lot of now-grey-haired women made sure that changed. Maybe come over to the gym and work out, or play basketball or volleyball at noon. Come play or watch rugby this afternoon.

Happy International Women's Day, Antioch Women!

Feminist Theories: Community

Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:00:22 GMT

A number of years ago I attended a presentation by a women who worked in inner-city elementary schools. This presentation was of a project she ran with the kids. She’d asked them to draw themselves as they would look if they were a member of a different race. One black student drew a homeless person. When asked why, he explained that he saw white people as having no home, no community, no support network like he did with his family and neighborhood.

In Black Feminist Thought, Patricia Hill Collins, when paralleling white and black feminist epistemologies, brings up the idea of a supportive community: “While white women may value the concrete, it is questionable whether white families—particularly middle-class nuclear ones—and white community institutions provide comparable types of support” (212). Later, she says that “white women may have access to a women’s tradition valuing emotion and expressiveness, but few Eurocentric institutions except the family validate this way of knowing” (217). In contrast, “Black families and churches... encourage the expression of Black female power” (217).

This is an idea that white feminism has not, to my knowledge, ever considered. Is this because the privileged, that cannot see the ways in which the oppressed lives’ are more difficult, also cannot see the positive qualities of marginalized communities? Will white women always assume that we will never have the support of our men, or else get frustrated when we don’t, because we do not understand why?

A similar idea Collins brings ups is that “gender oppression seems better able to... intrude in personal relationships via family dynamics and within individual consciousness. This may be because racial oppression has fostered historically concrete communities among African-Americans and other racial/ethnic groups” (226). Going back to Wollstonecraft, women are in one marginalized group that is personally dependent on its oppressor: We need men to have babies (for the moment; I may become a geneticist and speed along the technology for ovo-ovo reproduction) and, historically, to support us financially. Other marginalized groups—e.g., people of color, people of a lower social class status, and queer people—while clearly dependent on their oppressor in many ways, are not as personally and individually dependent; therefore, perhaps, support for rebellion and ways of thinking and living that go against the oppressor can more easily flourish.

Love Your Body Conference, Knox College, February 24-26, 2006

Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:53:49 GMT

On the way there

We're in traffic right now so watching the scenery pass to The Decemberists is not a very inspirational prospect. We're driving to Knox College in Illinois for the Love Your Body Conference (hosted by SASS- Students Against Sexism in Society). We = me, Anat, Rachel, and Julie.

I keep thinking about "Four Men In A Car", not surprisingly. From "The Comic Strip Presents..." Ade, Rik, Nigel, and Peter on the road to see which of them got the job. Salesmen. Lots of rivalry and general bitterness amongst them.

At a rest stop Rik buys a compilation CD of 80s music (this is in 1998). Suddenly, on the road again, a lot of bad things happen at once. Some prick in an SUV is riding their ass, then they get into a flipping-each-other-off battle. Also happening is Rik's 80s CD getting stuck on a really obnoxious half-lyric loop and Rik can't turn it off. Additionally, Peter's getting more carsick because of Nigel's nasty gas station Indian take-away, and throws up all over him. Chaos with Nigel yelling to Ade to pull over (now), Rik violently kicking the CD deck, Peter getting sick again, and Ade trying to focus on the insanity within and without the car (the SVU battle continues).

Finally he is able to pull over. Peter falls out of the car, vomiting, and Rik and Nigel throw him in the trunk- not before accidentally bringing down the trunk door onto his legs. The SUV has pulled over and the driver beats the shit out of Ade.

The CD is still stuck on the loop. Rik rips apart the CD player; no luck. He opens up the hood and yanks on a few wires until the music dies. Thank god.

Ade, blurry and back from his beatdown, goes to start the car. It doesn't start.

In attempting to get the car to start from the hood again, Rik shocks himself and flails into the road, and a truck comes by at that precise moment, crushing his arm.

No one can get a signal on their cell phone so Ade goes for help and they climb the edge of the highway. The tow truck comes along and totals their car.

End of part one. It's comedy!

Friday evening

In campus housing- as in, a real house, not dorms- at Knox College. Too tired and weird to hang out late, so I'm by myself, god willing, for the longest stretch of time all day, and probably until Sunday evening.*

I realized this is all about my introversion, this thing I had previously dubbed a phobia of crowds (must look at phobiaslist.com**). There is fear, but I now see much of that as just overstimulation. I learned in Social Psychology that introverts are highly sensitive, hence the tendency to shy away from social settings and to prefer more alone, controlled environments.

The noise of a crowd disrupts me- it kind of hurts. I look down because there's too much to look at above floor level. My brain will freeze up, as though in a panic, hence the misattribution, but really because I'm taking in entirely too much to be able to process or output. I can't think and I am quiet and awkward when I do talk. They think I'm shy but I'm just in shock. And then I get tired. And I must leave.

So I left, which was unfortunate because I was having fun. A great group of people, both alien and familiar, kicking off the Love Your Body Conference (hosted by SASS- Students Against Sexism in Society).

Everyone's excited about us, the out-of-towners, the Antioch students. It began with a photography exhibit, an amazing display of something like 60 female Knox students who chose which parts of their bodies they wanted to show for the camera.

Then we settled a bit into our housing- i.e., couches- then headed to another house, where the open mic/party was held. The dress code- "wear what makes you feel good." Done. If they'd wanted "feel hot" well that would have been another story and entirely improbable with what I've brought. But it wasn't, it was "feel good", so I was golden.

(Oh but not before a trip to their amazing library. I want fireplaces and rooms like that in my college library. What the fuck.)

Some amazing poetry read- Audre Lorde, Alix Olson (impressive-as-fuck off-book performance), etc., and some live music- a duo of folkie hippie guitar boys (in a good way), and The Pirates- sea shanty version of Row Row Row Your Boat? I was in carnivalesque-performance-nerd heaven.

Shortly after that was when I left. Just too much. I was beginning to fog over. Now I'm a little more alert, but not enough to read for class on Monday, sadly. I've been up since 7, give me a break, which is 6 this time.

We're very close to active train tracks. I kind of prefer them more in the distance, like they were in Lincoln, a far-off, castaway sound. I don't know what that means. Maybe it means I don't want to jump on one, after all.

The question is- this weekend anyway- the question is, Do I love my body? The look of it, the function of it, what? I certainly don't hate it. I might need some more specific questions. The outside, the inside? Would it be bad if I concluded that I can't love it because it treats me so poorly sometimes? Can I pity it? For being in pain, in such bad shape? Can I love it at the same time, for those times it comes through for me and I feel, for brief moments, what people without chronic pain and fatigue must feel? Can I love it for different reasons, for the way it makes me feel so nice sometimes, my nerve endings sending wonderful messages to my sensitive, sensate-driven brain? Am I allowed to have a more complex relationship with my body, or do my feelings toward it need to be absolute, unequivocal?

I think I should view this weekend through this lens in particular, the "state" lens. Shake things up a bit.

*I was right.
**Demophobia or ochlophobia.

Saturday

Movement workshop

Saturday began with the option of a voice or movement workshop. I took movement, because I've done a lot of voice stuff at Antioch but not too much movement. It was a basic workshop, because it was open to all, and it ended up being a lot of stuff I've done in theatre classes or workshops: name movements and passing the movement and impulse change. The theme of the workshop was body awareness, taking the time to listen to our bodies and give them what they need, particularly during times when we normally don't, head-ridden end-of-the-term type times.

The last two exercises, however, were new to me. We worked with a partner- mine was Megan, who lives with Mercedes, the girl hosting us that the other three know from the Comparative Women's Studies In Europe Program. I had walked over with her- the others were doing the voice workshop.

The first was an impulse, stretch-based, eyes-closed rolling around on the floor thing. First on our own, then with our partner, who was to observe us and make sure we didn't bump into anyone else or get led astray: our guardian angel. Then the observer shared what they saw: I curl up a lot (yay fetal position), don't wander too much (too paranoid, guardian angel or not), and my hot pink nails catch attention.

The last was a massage exercise, a "rolling the dough with oven mitts" thing. Amazing. Indescribable. That's coming back with me.

The woman who ran it was Jennifer. I thanked her afterward, telling her I was a visitor from another school and that I'd be taking back the massage thing. She said she'd enjoyed watching me move, and that she'd been hoping to convince me to take a class with her (I believe she used the term "rope in")- thinking I was a Knox student she just didn't know. It was really nice to hear that. Made me wish I'd taken more movement classes at Antioch, but alas. Definitely something to look into post-graduation, wherever I am.

Lunch

Then we all met back up again- not before getting the Old-Main Lincoln-and-Douglas-debate history lesson from Megan and a peek inside the locked building- and had lunch at their caf. You know, no other college has ever made me wish I'd gone somewhere else, probably because I could never see myself going to a place like Wright State or OSU, but I kind of got that here. Because it feels a lot like Antioch, only bigger (1200ish students) and more diverse. Small is great, but more resources are, too.

Self-defense workshop

Then to the self-defense workshop, run by Erin Weed of Girls Fight Back. Her story of her friend's murder and her subsequent change of a life's mission brought together all the events and revisited psychological trauma from the last few weeks of my own life. So I was all about it. Plus Erin was engaging as hell- funny, personable, accessible, and connectable.

We learned a lot of basic moves, plus some tips on "casing our own joint" and "being a bad victim". She made The Book Of Cool a few times:
- She thought to herself after her first self-defense workshop: "I am so dangerous!"
- On approaching dangerous situations somewhat normally: "I try to work with social norms."
- Teaching us to "aim for disability" but to know when to stop: "That gets illegal after a while."

Gaylesburg, Ill.

We had two hours before the next event so we walked to town. How exciting! It was, actually. I'm all about new places, new towns, different marks of civilizations, ways of life, contrasting and comparing, all that. It was cold (windy) as fuck, so we stopped at the first coffeeshop we saw for a hot drink and some warm indoor time, then to Cornucopia, the local natural-foods market, then Dollar General. Headed back to campus where we laughed and pondered about what the reaction would be to my turban plus Dollar General bag of maxi-pads and Alka-seltzer. (Hey, gotta stock up for being stuck in Yellow Springs again!)

Larry Kirkwood

The next event was a lecture by Larry Kirkwood, a sculpture artist whose primary medium is body casting. He spoke about his mission, which is to attempt to break down society's "genderization" and obsession with "beauty". He branched out into other societal power structures, hitting upon sexism as well as racism, ageism, ableism, weightism, and heightism. One critique I had was his total lack of acknowledgment of queer or class oppression. While I understand his focus on oppressive systems that were often carried out through bodily appearances, his branching out into areas related but more pervasive demanded at least mention of other forms of discrimination, I thought.

I also, at first, found his talk to be really simplistic, but then I stepped back from my privileged position of awareness. Though basic, most of his observations were spot-on. He was accessible and would be to an extremely wide range of people and backgrounds, and would probably not alienate many who aren't as "aware" or "progressive". I thought about how many schools he traveled to, and how much he might have to tone down his lecture even more for them.

I also appreciated his locating himself several times, particularly with the clause that he wished he could be up there talking to us solely because of his talent and skill, not because he was a white guy, how that's insulting to him and unfair to us.

Queen Sheba and Georgia Me

Food again and then the slam poets: Queen Sheba and Georgia Me. Phenomenal, both of them. Highly politically-charged, personal and personable, inclusive, funny and engaging. I really liked how I both was given insight into their experiences as black women, different from my own as a white woman, but also connecting with them on states like poverty (i.e., Queen Sheba's "Roaches"). I bought both their CDs. It really made me want to do spoken word again, but I don't think I'm built for it.

Conclusion

Our collective exhaustion forced us to miss the final events, folk music by Kristin Lems on Saturday evening and Yoga on Sunday morning. We did, however, go to the brunch, of course, on Sunday morning, where we all went around and stated our names and our favorite body part (mine's my belly). But we had to get back to Antioch as quickly as possible, so we said our goodbyes and drove off into the afternoon.

Resources

Knox College

Love Your Body Conference

SASS- Students Against Sexism in Society)

Comparative Women's Studies In Europe Program

Erin Weed of Girls Fight Back

Feminist Theories: Devaluing The Devalued (Class Struggles)

Wed, 01 Mar 2006 13:57:54 GMT

In “Choosing the Margin” from Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics, bell hooks says that “Our survival depends on an ongoing public awareness of the separation between margin and center and an ongoing private acknowledgement that we were a necessary, vital part of that whole” (149). Often I see the undervalued qualities of oppressed groups remain undervalued in struggles against dominance. This was an issue with second-wave feminism: By making the solution to the housewife’s oppression letting her work for wages outside the home, domestic work—a “necessary, vital part of the whole”—remained undervalued. This led to either women working two jobs—one inside the home and one out—or the more economically privileged hiring people (usually women of lower class statuses) to take care of their house and raise their kids.

This has also been an issue within more contemporary class struggles. It has been established among these struggles that capitalism needs an underclass in order to function; it often has not, however, recognized that society needs a working class in order to function. There are a ton of jobs that are currently considered “low-“ or “un-skilled” that need to happen—domestic work being one, as well as service work, manual labor, etc. These jobs are mostly body-oriented, hence the tendency to see them as unskilled—everyone can use their body, right? It’s those that can use their minds that get the big bucks.

One class struggle is to increase the availability of education—i.e., brainy, intellectual, college-type education—to the masses. While this is a great idea, it carries the threat of devaluing the types of employment I just mentioned by deeming them “unworthy” for those of “education.” (I myself, for the years before I entered Antioch, held many of these jobs, mostly in the service industry. Now that I have a college education, I cannot see myself returning to this type of employment. Why? Because they’re boring, demeaning, and don’t pay well. The “boring” is a result of my education, although I always thought they were kind of boring; I did them because I had to. They were demeaning mostly because of how I was often treated by my employers, but also how others viewed them.) By giving people an opportunity for higher education without rethinking the necessity of working-class jobs, we are setting ourselves up for disaster: Who will do these jobs?

Another class struggle is to increase the minimum wage—the “living wage” struggle. This is a preferred route, in my opinion. By increasing wages, we are simultaneously valuing previously undervalued labor as well as directly bettering the lives of those who do the work, making it a viable employment option. I do not wish to devalue education; I think we can value both, and should.

Feminist Theories: Hegemony As "Consensual"

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:20:19 GMT

In Gyn/Ecology, Mary Daly speaks to the idea of women being coerced into their own oppressive demise. She quotes Simone de Beauvior’s The Ethics of Ambiguity: “One of the ruses of oppression is to camouflage itself behind a natural situation since, after all, one cannot revolt against nature.” (56)

This brings to mind the idea of hegemony as “consensual” oppression. I swear I learned that as one definition, though Dictionary.com does not say that. Though it wouldn’t now, would it? It does, however, give the definition as a “predominant influence” of one group over another (whereas the Oxford University Press dictionary says only “dominance”). The idea of “influence” versus “dominance” indicates a slightly better definition, closer to the idea of “consensual” that I learned in Intro to Women’s Studies all those years ago, and so therefore I give props to Dictionary.com (well, the American Heritage Dictionary) over Oxford University Press (bloody Brits, who needs ‘em anyway).

This all reminds me of a time when, even more years ago, I attempted to gather together a group of my women friends to discuss and find ways to conquer one particular pet peeve of mine: objectification. (That’s an overly-broad term—I know now that I meant sexualized objectification [and/or perhaps object-ed sexualization] of women by the media, particularly the so-called “cookie cutter” “Hollywood whore.”) I was pretty uneducated about all of this—I knew I didn’t like it, but I didn’t have the language, this being long before my illustrious educational career at Antioch.

Many of the responses to my rallying were positive, agreeing with me that this indeed was an issue we needed to tackle. Many others, however, were not as supportive. Their main critique of my complaint was that women “do it to themselves”—the make-up, the hair, the clothes, the warped beauty standards. The women who said this were, I’d thought, relatively progressive (to my 19-year-old high-school drop-out awareness). They were older and I’d admired them, and now I was speechless. I once again didn’t have the language to retort: I knew there was something not quite right with their flippancy but I couldn’t quite get an English-language grasp on it. I gave up the project, regardless of the many positive responses, because my lack of education became salient.

Now, I do have the education and language (at least, more than I had before). I’ve got it enough, I know, to help others understand, others who normally wouldn’t. I keep thinking I should go back to these women, over 5 years later, and re-start the dialogue.

Lately, though, I have sort of given up the practice of attempting to “teach.” It got frustrating and when I get frustrated I lose the ability to communicate, and when I lose the ability to communicate I get frustrated. It’s a bad cycle. It is clearly an important pursuit; I have just left it up to others. This was both a conscious and unconscious decision, one I would like to work to change. Being at Antioch, it’s pretty easy to avoid these things—either they’re on the same page as you (more or less), or they’re already too sick of “Antioch” “politics” to want to hear anything else. But I’ll graduate in April, and head back out into the “real” world, where perhaps my muscle for attempting dialogue can be stretched and flexed.

Bald Vee

Sun, 19 Feb 2006 04:54:53 GMT

I have a round head. I have a pretty decent scar.

Explanation of the scar (pending confirmation from Mom): I was 3, and fell off a bed, onto a radiator. 2 big holes. Really nasty. Doctor found one, stitched it up, somehow managed to miss the second. This second one thus had to heal on its own, bloody and scabby for months.

I've felt the dent on my head my whole life, thought it was just a dent in my head.

Explanation of the cut: I'm graduating college in April; this may very well be the last time I'm able to do something like this; I just wanted to have done it. You know?

in search of a font

Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:16:34 GMT

I emailed Princeton University Press with this question:

This is a bit of a random question, but I was wondering about a font used on a Princeton Paperback book. The book title is "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?" by Susan Okin; I'm curious as to what the font on the back cover is. Let me know if you can help me in this quest! :)

I found the response kind of amazing:

I was hoping to be able to answer your question about the font on the back cover of the Okin book, but I'm afraid I haven't succeeded. I have the book on my shelf, and I took it to one of our senior deisgners to see whether she could identify the font. She could not, and she said it wouldn't be possible to do so with certainty without having the original cover files. To complicte matters, the cover was designed by a freelance designer who is, I believe, no longer living.

PBwiki

Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:14:24 GMT

Come on, join the wiki trend with me: PBwiki!
Find me there: VEE@pbwiki
First introduced to me by claireh, or rather, cehawley.pbwiki.com.

script excerpts for your approval

Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:35:10 GMT

I just noticed I haven't been posting much lately (save for the Feminist Theories responses, which are, as you guessed, coursework). That's because any writing time I've had, I've been working on my script.

It's called "It Adds Up" and it's my senior project. Well, part of it. The other part is to direct it. It's a 10-minute play I wrote almost a year ago that I'm developing into a one-act (30-50 minutes). You can read a little bit more about it in the senior profile I posted earlier this week and in the blog I'm keeping as the reflection part of the project.

Here are some parts of the script. Some I think of as done, others as draft. Let me know what you think!

OLIVIA. I think I’m going to be a lonely spinster my whole life.
MARIE. Oh. What makes you say that?... Wait never mind. Stupid question.
OLIVIA. You know though, most of the time I think it’s ok.
MARIE. To be lonely?
OLIVIA. The spinster part. Like Vanessa Redgrave in that movie, Deja Vu, you remember that one? The vagabond spinster.
MARIE. (Dreamily.) The gadabout.
OLIVIA. Mmm... “gadabout”!? What the hell does that mean.
MARIE. Like a traveling hedonist, a pleasure-seeking vagabond.
OLIVIA. Wow. Good one. Did you learn that at college?
MARIE. She was hot in that, ole Vanessa.
OLIVIA. She sure was. (Pause.) Spinster.
MARIE. (Pause.) “Spinster”. That is pretty cool.
OLIVIA. It’s very cool. I want to go all postmodern and identity politics and reclaim that word.
MARIE. (Laughs.) Even though it hasn’t really been offensive for like fifty years?
OLIVIA. Yes.

[...]
OLIVIA. Dad. I really hate my job.
JIMMY. Why?
OLIVIA. It’s just so... tedious. And pointless. And exhausting.
JIMMY. So why don’t you try and find something else?
OLIVIA. We’ve been over this. I try to. I’m always looking in the papers. But it’s either the same kind of crappy work or else—
JIMMY. —Do you want a beer?
OLIVIA. No thanks. Or else—
JIMMY. —Mind if I get one?
OLIVIA. No.
JIMMY. (Gets up and goes to get beer.) Keep talking, I’m listening.
OLIVIA. Or else I need a college degree. Once in a while I do find something but I can’t find time to get an interview, everything like that always happens when I’m at work.
JIMMY. (Returns and sits.) Won’t work give you time off?
OLIVIA. Oh God no. They depend on me too much. It’d have to be an emergency and they’d have to have proof.
JIMMY. Bunch of fascist pigs.
OLIVIA. Well yea. I mean I did have an interview the other day but I don’t think it went well at all. You need better jobs to move up but you need to move up to get better jobs. And these people... How do you deal with your employers and stuff?
JIMMY. You know I get a lot of leeway, union stuff and all. But I just do it because I have to. I have no choice. I never did, especially after you were born. And you get used to it after a while. You’re just spoiled—all you kids. Everyone your age, they’re just so... unhappy. You all want a good job and a good education and a good lot in life but it just doesn’t happen that way. Not for working people like us.
OLIVIA. Come on Dad, give me a break. It’s not that I want a huge house or a maid or anything. Yea I want to be happy. Why is that too much to ask? Why am I spoiled because I don’t have a family or a huge amount of debt to worry about? I feel like I’m lucky that I have some opportunity, and that I should be taking advantage of it while I can.

[...]
JIMMY. (Pause. Looks at blank TV then at OLIVIA.) I think about bowling sometimes.
OLIVIA. You wanna go bowling?
JIMMY. Remember that time we went bowling, the three of us, and your mom broke a nail picking up a ball, you remember the fuss she made? (Laughs.) You remember? And the next day, the next day, she left us.
OLIVIA. (Pause.) So no bowling then.
JIMMY. No.

[...]
OLIVIA. Well, I’m sobering up, and that’s bad. Where to next, Little Miss Marie? How about Ri Ra, the one I was telling you about, near Waterplace Park?
MARIE. You and your frickin Irish bars. Isn’t one enough?
OLIVIA. Are you serious? Finnegan’s is so not a real Irish pub. They don’t even have Guinness on tap.
MARIE. Is that the mark of a “real” Irish pub?
OLIVIA. Yes.
MARIE. You don’t even drink Guinness.
OLIVIA. That’s not the point.
MARIE. So why do you want to go to Ri Ra then?
OLIVIA. There’s more to an Irish pub than Guinness!
MARIE. You just said that was the most important thing!
OLIVIA. I did not. I said it was the mark of an Irish pub.
MARIE. So what are these other things, then, that make an Irish pub?
OLIVIA. Oh you know. The bartenders, how they treat the customers, whether or not they have tables, the lighting, uh...
MARIE. You’re talking out of your ass, aren’t you?
OLIVIA. I am not! It’s also the whiskey.
MARIE. Fuck Irish bars. Let’s go to Bobo’s, that’s where it’s at.
OLIVIA. You talk about me and my Irish pubs, what about you and your Italian Mafia “social clubs”? They’re so sketchy. I prefer that my drinking establishments have signs outside saying that they exist.
MARIE. Bobo’s isn’t a Mafia bar anymore.
OLIVIA. That’s only because Bobo is in jail.
MARIE. They’re all in jail.
OLIVIA. Even the major. Are any of your family with them?
MARIE. Fuck you. Not all Italians are in the Mafia.

Feminist Theories: Multiculturalism & Feminism (2)

Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:41:56 GMT

Continuing the responses in Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, Yael Tamir agrees with Okin’s original essay, and elaborates upon her thesis by asking us to look within the ethnocultural groups that would benefit from the group rights multiculturalism promises. Tamir suggests that these groups are divided amongst themselves regarding the issue of reform, and that multiculturalism can be used to favor the traditionalists while disregarding reformists within the groups as assimilationists.

Sander L. Gilman doesn’t offer suggestions so much as just universally slams Okin. His essay is not only patronizing and angry, littered with entirely too many exclamation points, but rather pointless, as he is merely reactionary and does not offer any suggestion of moving forward. The closest he gets is suggesting that a problem with Okin is that “she fails to see ceremonial acts in her own culture as limiting and abhorrent” (57-8). This reminds me of the theory of diatopical hermeneutics, which I will discuss after these summaries.

Adbullahi An-Na‘im brings up the issue of what constitutes the human rights that Okin claims (with a focus on women’s rights). He suggests that while women’s rights are seen as human rights in Western liberal societies, economic and social rights are not, and that this should be examined. (Clearly, that’s exacerbated by evil capitalism.) An-Na‘im also says something that reminds me of diatopical hermeneutics: “Only by engaging in such an ‘internal discourse’ can American human rights advocates gain the moral credibility required to encourage such discourse elsewhere” (61-2).

Robert Post challenges Okin’s “evaluative ethical conceptions like ‘dignity’ and ‘freedom’” (66) by asking us to look at them not as universal, but as cultural. Perhaps women in other cultures that are seen as barbarically patriarchal view things differently, as having “equal ‘dignity’ with men, although that dignity was expressed through distinct social roles” (66).

Bhikhu Parekh also asks us to examine liberal concepts as cultural instead of universal, and indeed whether Okin should be arguing in the name of liberalism, as multiculturalism is actually a critique of liberalism. Parekh also says a few things which make me think of diatopical hermeneutics, suggesting that “truly universal values can be arrived at only by means of an uncoerced and equal intercultural dialogue” (74).

In a class I took a few years ago, centered around international politics, we read a number of essays out of a book called Moral Imperialism, which dealt with a lot of these same issues, i.e., how to deal with human rights cross-culturally sensitively. One essay’s solution was the concept of diatopical hermeneutics, which I came to understand as similar to Parekh’s “uncoerced and equal intercultural dialogue.” Essentially, this theory states that we should look at our culture with as critical an eye as others, recognizing that each culture equally has its merits and shortcomings. By acknowledging our own culture not as superior, but with things to contribute as well as to learn, an effective cross-cultural dialogue can commence.

This theory really struck a chord with me as a potential for change, giving up an imperialist, “White Man’s Burden” mentality in favor of humility and openness.

Antioch Record Senior Profile on Yours Truly

Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:17:51 GMT

Senior Profile
interview by Viktor Maco
The Antioch Record, February 9, 2006

The Record: When was your first term at Antioch?

Vee: Fall '02.

The Record: Where did you live?

Vee: I lived in Bell 7 up on the right across from George and Kyle.

The Record: I'm sorry. What were you into that term?

Vee: I entered not intending to be even remotely social. Being social distracts me from other things. I came here four years out of [high] school so I had to get into work mode again.

The Record: Who forced you to come out of your little cocoon?

Vee: Carl [Reeverts] forced me to be social and so I was more consistently social than I have ever been.

The Record: Yay. What'd you think when Presidents died?

Vee: I am a child of Presidents. I grew up in Presidents, I lived there the whole time and grew fond of it. Plus I could live there ok as far as health issues.

The Record: You mean like mold?

Vee: Yeah.

The Record: What about the toxic poo fiasco in Black and Fess.

Vee: I missed the toxic poo. It happened before I got here. Wait, that should be the tagline to this interview.

The Record: Ah... sure. Do you wanna talk about your Senior Project?

Vee: Sure, I am a theatre major so I am doing a production-based SP. It is a ten-minute play that I wrote almost a year ago. I am developing it into a one-act and then directing it.

The Record: Could you paraphase it?

Vee: Of course, it's a slice-of-life story with socio-political commentary done in Brechtian/Meisneresque realism.

The Record: Oooooooooh...

Vee: Yes, that is tongue-in-cheek pompousness but it is true. It's about a girl who works in a coffee shop and she hates her job and lot in life. She complains about it and tries to get out of it equally. I have seven wonderful actors. It's gonna be great.

The Record: Like Frosted Flakes(TM). OK, rapping up, what's the worst thing about Antioch.

Vee: I'd say the lack of support for my health problems. I've already had to move off campus and not eat at the caf because it makes me sick. The thing is, I can't do these things financially.

The Record: Drag. What's the best thing?

Vee: The connections I've made with faculty and staff particularly. That's a big part of what's kept me coming back.

The Record: 'Choo said it man. Anything else?

Vee: I would like to say that I am not a bitter fourth year and therefore people should feel free to talk about Antioch with me. I won't be bitter and I'll tell the truth. It hasn't been perfect but Antioch's been good to me and I've been good to it.

*

The other photos they took and didn't use:

Feminist Theories: Multiculturalism & Feminism

Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:04:09 GMT

In “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?,” Susan Okin’s argument is that minority ethnocultural groups that are more patriarchal than the Western societies to which they have emigrated should not be given the special groups rights that multiculturalism offers, if these group rights impede on the individual rights of group members, particularly those of women. She continues her argument by stressing that we need to look beyond the legal matters and into the domestic lives of these groups, because traditional private practices can oppress women, even if, legally, they are liberated.

In response, Katha Pollitt suggests that multiculturalism and feminism are inherently incompatible, because “multiculturalism demands respect for all cultural traditions, while feminism interrogates and challenges [them]” (27). She suggests that the West’s willingness to legally accommodate practices oppressive to women and children through the multiculturalism defense stems from women and the family being inferior within the West as well.

Will Kymlicka’s response is that feminism and multiculturalism are compatible; at least, they can be, as they are “allies engaged in related struggles for a more inclusive conception of justice” (34) by challenging liberalism’s historical practice of oppression.

Bonnie Honig disagrees with Okin almost entirely, accusing her of seeing the issue too narrowly and from too biased a perspective. She suggests looking within the ethnocultural groups as well as giving our own culture as critical an eye.

Azizah Y. Al-Hibri also disagrees with Okin, accusing her of not separating cultural from religious practices. She suggests that cultural practices are more open to change than religious ones, and therein lies the need to distinguish the two. As a Muslim, she admits her own struggles with issues like the head scarf, but gives examples of Muslim feminists reclaiming this practice. In addition, she criticizes practices the West considers “liberating,” reiterating Honig’s point of looking at our own culture as one in as much of need of reform as others.

Much of the debate—and in particular, Okin’s original essay—centers around the difference between the public and private spheres. This approach, however, seems inadequate, because it brings up the issue of individual freedom. Should we restrict people’s personal lives? Therefore, I propose we create a three-sphere system: the public, the social, and the personal. What is now considered the private, I break into the social and the personal. The social indicates interpersonal relations, and the personal indicates the individual. I believe that making this distinction will allow a more nuanced argument. For example, domestic violence would fall under the social sphere, which could be protected by the law as interpersonal relations that conflict with personal freedom. However, social relations that do not conflict with personal freedoms—e.g., same-sex partnerships—would not be impeded upon by the state.

I’m not sure if this approach will offer any more insight into the issues of multiculturalism, but it might offer another way of viewing the debate, which is never a bad thing. I like it because it challenges the dualism of the current public-private sphere system. Though it could be viewed at a “trioism,” which might not be any better, I think of it as offering a way to view our lives as interconnected between these states, overlapping, and blurring boundaries.

assignment for Social Psychology

Thu, 09 Feb 2006 05:07:23 GMT

Who Am I? Write 20 different statements in response to the question "Who Am I?" "I am..."

1. a feminist comedian- and no, that's not a contradiction in terms.
2. madly in love with Jennifer Saunders.
3. in support of a united Ireland.
4. from the beautiful city of Providence, Rhode Island.
5. a big fan of The Clash, and an even bigger fan of The Decemberists.
6. a blogger, blog-reader, voyeur, introvert, and verbal exhibitionist.
7. an Internet nerd (since 1995).
8. cynical- as in "cynic" meaning a pessimistic idealist.
9. a communist at heart.
10. obsessed with photos of myself.
11. a Taurus, though I'm not entirely sure what that means.
12. fascinated with carnivals, by which I mean the hey-day of the American traveling carnival.
13. a three-time survivor of sexual assault.
14. a three-time survivor of internships.
15. a two-year Americorps alum.
16. usually called "creative" on recommendations/references.
17. a high-school drop-out.
18. a former pot-head, by which I mean high all day, every day, before bed, etc.
19. perpetually struggling with mental and physical illness.
20. a descendant of Benedict Arnold.

Feminist Theories: Liberalism & Capitalism

Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:45:14 GMT

Though I had some problems with Nancy J. Hirschmann’s “Difference as an Occasion for Rights: A Feminist Rethinking of Rights, Liberalism, and Difference” (most notably, its being unnecessarily repetitive and convoluted), I appreciated one of its critique of liberalism as it is similar to (one of) my own critique(s) of capitalism.

Hirschmann suggests that liberalism’s “individualism and rights were constructed specifically for propertied white men and are sustainable only through the subservience of white women, landless workers, and people of color” (28). She reiterates this later, and adds that liberalism’s “key concepts such as property and equality... depended upon [white women’s and people of colour’s] subservience and classified them as forms of property” (31).

The question is not only can these liberal ideals exist for everyone (which I will ponder in a minute), but were they meant to? Hirschmann speaks of the “propertied white men” that reap the benefits of liberalism and have since its inception, but she is less harsh than I would be in suggesting that said inception deliberately and insidiously favored said propertied white men, seeing as it was said propertied white men who did the incepting.

Instead, she takes a route that offers that liberalism itself is at fault: the “exclusion [of women, landless workers, and slaves under liberalism] should be seen as not just historically contingent, but necessary to the conceptual structure of liberalism” (33). I agree with this, but I agree with this because liberalism was created by propertied white men. So instead of taking the blame off of flawed/evil people and putting it onto a flawed/evil theory, I’d like to put the blame back onto the flawed/evil people for creating such a flawed/evil theory.

I once read (somewhere) that, if everyone lived at the same economic level, the earth and its resources could not sustain us at more than a (US-standard) lower-middle-class level. Therefore, it could be said that, economically, anyone who lives above this level is directly taking away from those who don’t, and that, no matter what they tell us that everyone can get ahead and make it rich, this will not change. I would extend this to liberalism as well: the system of rights we have inherently favors some over others; those “some” being those with power (i.e. “rights”) already, and the cycle just continues. It is impossible to say whether in a perfect world everyone could flourish equally under liberalism—the fact is, liberalism has never existed without oppression (33).

Whether liberalism’s inherent flaws are an accidental symptom of “propertied white men” not understanding how society functions (because they don’t have to) or if it was a deliberate attempt at hegemony and oppression, I cannot ultimately say. (Indeed, can any of us?) I’d like to believe the former, that people are ignorant instead of evil, but my more cynical parts tend to lean toward the latter.