Why I am Mildly Pissed (angry, not drunk)

Since our class discussions have (happily) veered into the land of applicability, and actual relevance to my everyday life, I've been taking some steps to change my lifestyle habits in order to live a more ethical and less privileged life.

Surprisingly, some of these changes have been almost subconscious. Perhaps it's because I'm doing a lot of chilling with disability studies for my project, but I'm slowly getting past labels of any type. For instance, I was talking with a friend, who is a public school choir teacher, about racism in the Huntington area. Her was pity, feel sorry for children who are the subjects of racism among her peers. First, it's disturbing that people who work with children are racist. Second, pity, to me, feels extremely demeaning. Almost as if feeling pity is another way of stripping someone of their potential power. While my friend is very compassionate and caring, I was really mad at her because of her first reaction, which wasn't really her fault, it's just how she's come to deal with marginalization in our society.

Contrastingly, my reaction is to examine the power forces in place and see how an individual has been de-privileged. More importantly, I don't seek pity, but correction, calling out the individual's racist attitude, becoming "that person." I mean, it's not my job to show pity or to be sympathetic; it's my job to make a change for the better.

In some ways, I think I'm ready to be "that person," in some ways I already am, especially when it comes to masculine/feminine stereotypes, I don't hesitate to mention disparities like that. But now, I'm in a new realm. Like with disability, I don't feel pity anymore, which I used to, instead, I take a more existential look at it, just letting people with disabilities (and everyone, for that matter), be. They don't need correction or sympathy (although empathy is nice), they need to be understood as people, as individuals.

This is where Rosemarie Garland Thomson comes in, you really look at it, everyone is disabled in some way, everyone is different from the norm (where does the norm come from anyway?).

This outlook is mirrored by experiences I've had on Social Anxiety Disorder websites (ha, social anxiety "disorder"). Many of those with SAD are adamant on correcting or deleting SAD from their lives. However, a few (including myself) acknowledge they have SAD and that it is part of how we function. I was diagnosed relatively recently as having SAD, and until then I didn't know there was something "wrong" with me, I just figured I was really shy. I'm more than shy, and sometimes, I am crippled with anxiety. But still, it's part of who I am. Anxiety has made me analytical. Not fitting in society has made me question it. I seriously do not think I could be the scholar I am if it weren't for SAD. So in a way, I'm thankful for it. And I am really glad that I have other women articulating these feelings. Before they found the language to do so, I didn't really think that my experience was all that relevant or all that real. Like Nancy Mairs sees her identity and her disability intertwined, I see SAD as intertwined with my identity and my schoolwork.

It's really important though, that I don't speak for anyone else, I can only speak for me. And when I see something wrong happening, I call it out, I talk about it, I bring these issues to the surface so that we can move on.

I'm sure it's going to get tough, but I want to stick to it.

Nancy Mairs makes a jail break

I'm Free!

"...we treat our bodies as subordinates, inferior in moral status. Open association with them shames us. In fact, we treat our bodies with very much the same distances and ambivalence women have traditionally received from men in our culture" (Nancy Mairs, "Carnal Acts," 393)

Until reading this piece, I never realized how disconnected my mind is from my body, nor had I realized that this separation was purposefully constructed by myself. I don't know if it was because I am a woman with superfluous weight and have disregarded my body because of its inadequacies and embraced my mind because of its adaptive faculties, but this division exists. Because Mairs is coming from the perspective of a person with a disability, writing my own case off as circumstantial doesn't seem to make the cut.

Mairs identifies as a person with disability, and in other writings, embraces "cripple" as an apt description for her body. She works out the dissonances between mind and body within her essay, so that her process of rediscovering and embracing her mind/body connection is evidence against the folly of mind/body separatism.

Surprisingly, I find Miars's conclusion liberating because connecting her mind and body does not hinder Mairs, but empowers her. While I'm guessing Mairs would make no claim about being a motivator, so to speak, that she embraces (rather than "overcomes") her disability demonstrates that physical diffrences are not hindrances, but differences, they just are. It's like an existential leg limp, or existential cellulite.

So...it's pretty awesome.

on "Killing Us Softly 3"

I usually disregard sexism in ads as old news. I've been deconstructing that stuff since middle school, so instead of getting angry with ads, I just ignore them. This presentation, however, showed me some new things. Watch for yourself:

killing us softly 3


Particularly disturbing are the children in the ads. Reminds me of being a girl, and never being allowed to play GI Joes. Instead of being an awesomely heroic soldier, I got to style Barbie's hair.

I should be thankful though. Since I didn't fit the social norm for girl-hood, I stepped out of society and learned to read. Now, literacy and education enable me, as an adult, to fight back. I should want to dip into some invitational rhetoric about now, but I don't want to. I want to go all conversion rhetoric with advertisers and mass media. Anybody else?

Read Along

Two weeks ago, we watched the documentary Paris is Burning (from here on known as PIB) and read some commentary related to the film. You can watch the film on youtube in 11 parts. The accompanying materials are bell hooks's "Is Paris Burning" and Judith Butler's "Gender is Burning: Questions of appropriation and Subversion." I'm going to run this entry a bit differntly, and have you read along with me as I try to decipher Butler's essay. I read the article for class, but I don't understand it, so here is my semi-annotated commentary.

She opens with two epigraphs, one from Louis Althusser, and one from Nietzsche. Niet is the existential atheist, right? Let's do some research. From wikipedia on Althusser:

Althusser's theory of ideology, as well as Marx, draws on Freud's and Lacan's concepts of the unconscious and mirror-phase respectively, and describes the structures and systems that enable the concept of the self. These structures, for Althusser, are both agents of repression and inevitable - it is impossible to escape ideology; to not be subjected to it.

That makes sense in the scope of PIB because the categories the balls use correspond to conventional walks/characters in societies. The contestants in a particular category are rated on their "realness," so they are rated on how well they embrace or reflect that category's ideology. Very often the categories can be a culmination of what ball participants are NOT (straight, white, middle, upper middle, upper class), yet they are influenced by those ideals and completely aware of how the outside world views them as gay minorities.

For Althusser, theoretical practice takes place entirely within the realm of thought, working upon theoretical objects and never coming into direct contact with the real object that it aims to know. On this view, the validity of knowledge is not guaranteed by its correspondence to something external to itself; because Marx's historical materialism is a science, it contains its own internal methods of proof. It is therefore not governed by interests of society, class, ideology or politics, and is distinct from the economic superstructure.

I'm not sure how yet, but this sounds important. Moving on, wikipedia on Nietzsche has way too much to consume at this time. My basic impression is that he doesn't like religion and values the individual, but acknowledges that an individual does not exist in a vacuum. Yay, that's like Lacan, and I understand him.

First vocab word: interpellation,

• "the process by which ideology addresses the (abstract) pre-ideological individual thus effectively producing him or her as subject proper."
• "specifically involves the moment and process of recognition of interaction with the ideology at hand"
• to identify or be identified with the particular ideology

That's what happens in PIB! The contestants take on the persona of the category! Interpellation!

Butler quote: "The force of repetition in language may be the paradoxical condition by which a certain agency--not linked to a fiction of the ego as a master of circumstance--is derived from the impossibility of choice." This reminds me of Kramerae and the failure of language to represent women. It also applies to PIB in that ball participants do not have a niche in society so they interpellate the ideology that surrounds them (and that interpellation becomes ball ideology later in the film).

Vocab word: chiasmic, or chiasmus, "two or more clauses are related to each other through a reversal of structures in order to make a larger point; that is, the clauses display inverted parallelism"

Butler says that the gab between identity and ideology is a place for renegotiating that relationship. She also echoes Lacan in that the self is constructed by ideology and the self. At this "nexus" negotiation can occur. She claims that drag may not be a subversion but another way of aggravating the social gender norms already in place, but there is some ambivalence because the structures aren't natural (perhaps?).

Butler argues against hooks, claiming that defining gender requires the use of a set of norms, and one cannot absorb a new set of norms without losing something in the process. Basically, Butler states that equating cross dressing with misogyny misrepresents cross dressers and is a sort of colonialism in reverse--that male homosexuality is the result of a man having a bad experience with women, which isn't what PIB is about. For Butler PIB is a demonstration of negotiating between the established gender roles that do not work for ball participants. Drag questions "normativity." The ball "exposes the norms that regulate realness as themselves." They are positing that gender/sex is a construction!

Also, Livingston herself, as the filmmaker is constructing a reality for her audience, and that reality for us is different from the reality the contestants experience. Butler closes with some commentary on language and semiotics, stuff that still confuses me. But the point here is to connect her chosen epigraphs with her commentary on PIB. Basically, Butler says that all these labels the ball contestants play with are socialized norms, and the toying around happens with categories other than race. So, the contestants in PIB negotiate on the continuum to demonstrate the ambivalence gender, race, class, occupation, etc. carry

Mo' Foss: Invitational Rhetoric

I really enjoy Foss's straightforward style, but this time her idea is a little more extreme (but logical). She claims that we should all practice Invitational Rhetoric, where you engage in conversation seeking a greater understanding. Unlike some other rhetoric, IR does not aim to change your mind or convert you to a cause, but simply to explore and expand your knowledge.

Because we've already discussed this piece in class, I thought it would be good to start with some of the discussion points we hit on that day. Most notably, is the community vs. self issue. Conquest rhetoric usually works for the good of the community, while invitational rhetoric looks at the self for change. I can see how this idea plays out in "real life" in that togetherness and cohesion are often beneficial frameworks to work for community improvement.

Personally, I really enjoy invitational rhetoric, and for the most part see it as a large part of class discussions I have in most of my courses. Sometimes, though I see a need for advisory rhetoric, when I just want to listen and consider an "expert's" opinion. Perhaps the large reason I find this beneficial is my introversion, but on a more practical level, advisory rhetoric has its education benefits as well. Sometimes, I want to hear a PhD holding professor's opinion without the conversation being clouded by my classmates' points of view. Sometimes, I find that total inclusion of all voices can cause the discussion to get stuck. For instance, in some 400/500 classes at Marshall, I'm in an English class with non-majors who have little previous knowledge for literature. While these individuals have every right to learn, their input (sometimes) hinders me from learning or exploring. To be honest that really gets on my nerves. But, to be a bit more academic about things, I think that invitational rhetoric is a great way to conduct conversations, but sometimes advisory rhetoric can be just as beneficial.

On a few readings by Cheris Kramarae

So my usual scholarly tactic is reject everything until I'm converted. That way, in order to be genuinely persuasive, an argument has to be very strong to win me over. I have to say that Kramarae has answered a lot of my lingering questions about feminist rhetoric, and I'm looking forward to reading more of her stuff.

Kramarae's focus is language and how patriarchy in particular controls language, effectively subordinating or silencing people (including women, blacks, etc.). I have to admit that I've never been able to fully understand the feminist fight with language. I've always found that there's a way to express myself in English. But as Kramarae explores the history of women's opression, namely her analysis of "the problem with no name" and "Women's liberation," I'm coming around.

Obviously, gender roles are largely a construction of opposites. What is a woman? A woman is the opposite of man. So, being a woman, can be summed up as being "not a man"? So, the very definition of our sex is based on masculinity. (And this is detrimental to men as well, who now have the converse of being "not a woman" to deal with).

One of the things Kramarae touches on repeatedly, though rather passingly is that patriarchy dictates that women can't have a sense of humor. I suppose, it would be rather indelicate if Jane Cleaver started making raunchy jokes at a cocktail party, but this notion is more significant. Since we're studying pop culture this semester, I find that exploring women's humor is important.

My Dad's family are notorious jokers. He grew up with lots of cousins (most of them male) and two brothers, all of whom are riots at family reunions. I remember being a kid, around 7 or so, myself with two younger brothers, and that my older cousins (Dad's childhood friends), favored joking with my brothers more than me. I don't remember how, but in some way I inserted myself into these funny situations and was eventually accepted as a jokester, and this still applies today. Now, I don't think that my cousins were particularly sexist, but I do think that they had expectations of me simply because I was a girl. It's something that subtle, so that even as a child I've questioned and explored why I was treated differently. It's no wonder that I became a sort of a tomboy through most of my childhood.

I still think humor is important, though. Humor, as far as pop culture and entertain is concerned is widely used for pure hilarity as well as social change. From John Stewart's broad strokes of semi-sophisticated satire, to MadTV's slapstick-driven parodies. Despite women and minorites' incorporation beyond tired stereotypes, there are still expectations on how women and men should be funny.

So, as luck would have it I was musing on most of these things today, when I found this post by Linda Holmes over at NPR. Holmes usually uses her blog space to subtly comment and chide silly occurrences in pop culture, namely TV, but occasionally, she has a killer post that goes beyond the entertainment realm and examines our culture. In this particular post, she questions the coverage of Saturday Night Live's decision to fire Michaela Watkins and Casey Wilson. Holmes refers to this piece by Tom Shales:

Two new women who will have the status of featured players -- Jenny Slate and Iranian-born Nasim Pedrad -- will join the cast, not as replacements for anybody, Michaels says, although cute Casey Wilson and glamorous Michaela Watkins have concurrently left. Watkins may have been just too classically pretty to be hilarious. Anyway, the absences of Fey and Poehler will be felt.

If you ever wonder why it's particularly difficult for women to succeed on SNL, consider just the assumptions found in this one paragraph. The explanation from Lorne Michaels that there is no connection between losing two women and gaining two women (which contributes to the vague sense that there are only a couple of places for them in the cast) is accepted apparently without question, while the two women leaving are referred to as "cute," "glamorous," and "classically pretty." In fact, Watkins learns from Shales that she may have been "too classically pretty" to be funny.

Holmes goes further in her post, but I'll let you look at that yourself without ruining the punchline for you. I don't know, maybe examining some aspect of humor will be a great project. I'm reminded particularly of Step Brothers. I'm a sucker for horrible gross slapstick, I'll admit. Will Ferrell usually manages such a feat under the guise of a child-like man idiot. In this film, however, there is a nearly equally raunchy part played by Kathryn Hahn, who jumps John C. Reilly's character, Dale, at every meeting. She is foul-mouthed and dirty, going so far as to tell Dale, "I want to take your curly head and stick it up my vagina." I absolutely love that Hahn's character is so gut-wrenchingly graphic, but in a unique way. Her performance and character fit in so well with that of Ferrell and Reilly that I forget to decide whether or not she's pretty enough to be in a movie ;).

Reading selections from Sonja Foss's Rhetorical Criticism Exploration & Practice

I like the way Foss lays out her first chapter. It is easy to understand and follow, explaining a specific method while still leaving room for creativity on the part of the analyst. Because I am new to rhetoric this introduction is beneficial to me because it gives me a sound structure to start from. I usually find it advantageous to work from the ground up, using established methods to begin an endeavor, then moving on to my own methods.

I also understand why feminist rhetoric is important and looks at artifacts in entirely new ways. I am thrilled to finally have a method for deconstructing those ridiculously sexists ads I see everywhere. I also think that Foss's method begins with a concrete strategy that can enable us to explore the more abstract issues of gender, class, sexuality, religion, etc. I can finally tell my family that I'm not the only person who deconstructs Swiffer ads and toy commercials.

The close examination of feminist rhetoric in pop culture has also shown me what kind of expectations are placed on men. I think that studying both feminism and masculinism in texts simultaneously would be greatly beneficial. Like we were discussing in class Tuesday, very few people fit into the "Norm," and everyone must feel slighted, rejected, or ostracized in comparison with the way we are "supposed" to perform our respective genders, classes, races, etc.

In fact, every concept in this class reminds me of the show Mad Men, which is probably the most though-provoking and explorative show regarding sex and gender that I've ever seen. For every blatant sexist remark towards women, there is a slightly more hidden slight against men. While nearly every regular character in the series performs male, nearly none of them portray their true personalities.

So, I see feminist rhetoric as a way of charting a path for exploration into gender studies for all variations of chromosomes. Not only looking at the dichotomy of man/woman but at the continuum of sex and gender. I'm excited, but at this point still feel ill-equipped to put these newfound rhetorical tools to use.