I have never read a more disturbing and upsetting article then Thomson’s “Theorizing Disability.” Period. End of story. For one thing, she herself is a woman, so why would someone want to bash themselves let alone their entire gender who has been striving for equality for years?
She starts off her insulting article with Aristotle, who has been admired by me until this point in time. “[A]nyone who does not take after his parents is really in a way a monstrosity, since in these cases Nature has in a way strayed form the generic type. The first beginning of this deviation is when a female is formed instead of a male” (19). Now, I might be reading into this a little more than I should be, but I’m getting the impression that women are a “monstrosity” or a “mutilated male.” Well, if that is certain, then Sojourner Truth, Alice Paul and women alike, are turning over in their graves. For decades, women have been saying that we need to join together as one gender and fight towards a common goal of equality, but it seems to me that we have a traitor on our hands, for lack of a better term.
Oh, but wait, it gets better…
By using the example of a women who is wheelchair bound, she [Thomson] goes on to say that “disabled women often encounter what Harlan Hahn as called ‘asexual objectification,’ the assumption that sexuality is inappropriate in disabled people.” Meaning that this woman shouldn’t really be considered a woman, because she is disabled. Is Thomson nuts? Not only is this discriminatory towards women, but all disabled individuals: men, women, white, African American, wealthy, homeless. It’s absurd! To say that one person shouldn’t be identified as a certain sex just because they are disabled, in my eyes, shows the ignorance of the author. She wouldn’t be purposing these theories if she were in the shoes of someone less fortunate.
This goes beyond the fight for women’s equality. This is for the fight for everybody’s equality. Why should certain people have privileges that others don’t receive? Why should Christmas candy be out in stores months before the actual holiday when Hanukkah candy or Eid candy isn’t put on the shelves… ever? Why can’t mentally disabled children sit in the same classroom as other students? Why can't low class families receive adequate health care? Why is it that it’s natural for humans to put themselves above others, when in reality, we’re all the same? It doesn’t make sense.
And it’s people like Thomson that make this fight for equality so damn hard.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Longest Blog Post Ever. Sorry! :)
When the idea of “graphic memoir as a form of autobiography” was mentioned in class, I didn’t pay much mind to it. “Graphic memoir” didn’t even hit me. But as soon as I pulled Persepolis off of the shelf and cracked it open, I realized that the book was literally a comic. (I know, a little delayed on the reaction). And my mind was racing because I had never read a comic until that point. Prior to reading the novel, however, we were assigned to read an excerpt from Scott McCloud’s reading called Understanding Comics. I was going to read Persepolis first but ya know… I didn’t want to be in the dark. One of the opening frames displayed a statement that has stuck with me ever since; “The idea that a picture can evoke an emotional or sensual response in the viewer is vital to the art of comics” (121). How? How can a comic create an emotional response, first off? But I decided to start my homework a little late on this evening, like a typical college student, so I dove right into Persepolis without much thought to that idea.
I definitely came to terms with the fact that a comic is not as easy as it looks. Sure there’s less words and more pictures, which is what all students want but it’s not that simple. Having never read a graphic novel before, I first had to get used to the new style. And I noticed that sometimes I wasn’t able to take it seriously, just because it was a comic and they have the reputation for being humorous. I even found myself “reading between the lines” to find humor. I felt bad about it but it happens, I guess. Graphic novels also don’t provide readers the ability to use their imagination as much as they would with a textual work because the pictures are there for you. And because those pictures are there, sometimes, especially with Persepolis, it was hard to distinguish which characters were which. But those we’re only minor bumps in the road for me, nothing that rereading a couple of sections couldn’t fix. On the other hand, there are many advantages to reading a graphic memoir.
First off, it’s new to most readers. The style of narrative allows readers to hold interest in the story. The pictures allow the story to flow more easily instead of reading two dry pages of text that is only describing the setting. Comics also have the ability to attract a large variety of ages and are more accessible to large audiences. And naturally, most comics are interesting, which is what any reader wants when they crack open a new book. But sure, there are advantages and disadvantages to every style of writing, including comics but sometimes one certain style is better to use, depending on the author and the context of the story line.
I believe that certain people use comics for a specific reason. Marji Satrapi might have used it to completely express her story; to show her audience what really happened. Women in general could use autobiography to literally show others what oppression looks like and how is really makes us, as women, feel. Marji, specifically showed the effects of oppression when her mother was approached at the grocery store. “They insulted me. They say that women like me should be pushed up against the wall and thrown into the garbage… And if I didn’t want that to happen then I should wear the veil” (74). The emotion on her mother’s face is filled with grief, but without that image… that message couldn’t have been received the way Marji had intended. Alison Bechdel does the same thing, multiple times in her graphic novel Fun Home, especially when she describes her reaction to her father’s death. She’s indifferent about the situation but if that scene was purely text, I’m not too sure that the message would have been received that way.
But this use of graphic details could be used to tell anybody’s story. A little Iranian girl managed to enlighten the world. So could an African American man. So could a homeless woman. People from all over the world, with different races, ethnicities, and cultures from different class ranks and genders, can bring their story to the surface. Maybe all autobiographers should consider using graphics. They can force people to see the world through their eyes. They force their audience into their own personal experience. And now that I have been exposed to the genre, I will read many more, no questions asked. Because everyone wants their story heard. Everyone wants to put the raw details of their life on display. Isn’t that the point of autobiography, anyways?
;)
I definitely came to terms with the fact that a comic is not as easy as it looks. Sure there’s less words and more pictures, which is what all students want but it’s not that simple. Having never read a graphic novel before, I first had to get used to the new style. And I noticed that sometimes I wasn’t able to take it seriously, just because it was a comic and they have the reputation for being humorous. I even found myself “reading between the lines” to find humor. I felt bad about it but it happens, I guess. Graphic novels also don’t provide readers the ability to use their imagination as much as they would with a textual work because the pictures are there for you. And because those pictures are there, sometimes, especially with Persepolis, it was hard to distinguish which characters were which. But those we’re only minor bumps in the road for me, nothing that rereading a couple of sections couldn’t fix. On the other hand, there are many advantages to reading a graphic memoir.
First off, it’s new to most readers. The style of narrative allows readers to hold interest in the story. The pictures allow the story to flow more easily instead of reading two dry pages of text that is only describing the setting. Comics also have the ability to attract a large variety of ages and are more accessible to large audiences. And naturally, most comics are interesting, which is what any reader wants when they crack open a new book. But sure, there are advantages and disadvantages to every style of writing, including comics but sometimes one certain style is better to use, depending on the author and the context of the story line.
I believe that certain people use comics for a specific reason. Marji Satrapi might have used it to completely express her story; to show her audience what really happened. Women in general could use autobiography to literally show others what oppression looks like and how is really makes us, as women, feel. Marji, specifically showed the effects of oppression when her mother was approached at the grocery store. “They insulted me. They say that women like me should be pushed up against the wall and thrown into the garbage… And if I didn’t want that to happen then I should wear the veil” (74). The emotion on her mother’s face is filled with grief, but without that image… that message couldn’t have been received the way Marji had intended. Alison Bechdel does the same thing, multiple times in her graphic novel Fun Home, especially when she describes her reaction to her father’s death. She’s indifferent about the situation but if that scene was purely text, I’m not too sure that the message would have been received that way.
But this use of graphic details could be used to tell anybody’s story. A little Iranian girl managed to enlighten the world. So could an African American man. So could a homeless woman. People from all over the world, with different races, ethnicities, and cultures from different class ranks and genders, can bring their story to the surface. Maybe all autobiographers should consider using graphics. They can force people to see the world through their eyes. They force their audience into their own personal experience. And now that I have been exposed to the genre, I will read many more, no questions asked. Because everyone wants their story heard. Everyone wants to put the raw details of their life on display. Isn’t that the point of autobiography, anyways?
;)
Monday, October 25, 2010
Simply Complex
When an idea enters my mind, it sometimes (well, more times then not) stays there. It sends my mind ablaze and it drives me crazy. The topic of space. How far out does it really go? Is there another Earth? If there is, are there humans? And don’t even get me started on the history of language. How did it start? Why are there so many variations? Who came up with an idea of a system of symbols, now known as the alphabet? But the topic that has recently got to my mind is the idea of “strong objectivity.”
I have never heard that term before, let alone gave it much thought. In his article, “’Telling The Story Her Own Way’: The Role of Feminist Standpoint Theory In Rhetorical Studies”, Glen McClish says “an oppressed group such as women is more valid than the knowledge of those in dominant positions” (28) and “standpoints are not absolute but constituted by social positions, they also propose that the knowledge of those who are marginalized is less partial than that of those who hold societal power” (30). Is it necessarily true that dominant groups are oblivious to marginalized groups? I would have to say that’s true in any situation. In the work force the “cubical workers” know who the CFOs or the CEOs are but it’s not the case when the situation is flipped. It has me questioning the structural patterns of several different places I go. In class, for instance, I know who my teacher is. But in my large lectures… does the professor know each and every student (the marginalized groups)? Not necessarily. So when it comes to different standpoints… do these marginalized groups have a more “educated” theory? You betcha. They have their own theories regarding their own group and have background of the dominant groups. Those said “dominant groups” think they know all about the smaller groups but they are actually blind to the (sometimes harsh) reality of the marginalized group's world.
McClish also mentioned that “’social phenomena’ such as race, class, and gender mutually construct one another… binary paradigms based on ‘race-only or gender-only conceptual frameworks’ are incomplete” (29).And before this class, I haven’t given much thought to the idea that I am made up of several different “pieces” and that if I don’t acknowledge each piece then I’m not “complete.” Before this course, I didn’t give much thought to the idea that I was complex. I thought I was simply… a Caucasian woman. But then I got myself to extend that idea. Now I believe myself to be a daughter and a ‘sister’. I am a friend and a godmother. I am an athlete and a coach. But since I am young, I am still trying to grow and learn more about myself each and everyday. And sometimes I can’t help wondering how different I would be if I was an African American or Asian woman. Or if I was a homosexual. Or if I was homeless. Everything would be different. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that I can’t truly understand the lives of other people/women, such as Harriet Jacobs and Marjane Satrapi, until I, as cliché as it sounds, put myself in their shoes. Or maybe I won’t understand them until I fully understand myself? I still don’t know.
I'm walking in circles again.
Joy :)
I have never heard that term before, let alone gave it much thought. In his article, “’Telling The Story Her Own Way’: The Role of Feminist Standpoint Theory In Rhetorical Studies”, Glen McClish says “an oppressed group such as women is more valid than the knowledge of those in dominant positions” (28) and “standpoints are not absolute but constituted by social positions, they also propose that the knowledge of those who are marginalized is less partial than that of those who hold societal power” (30). Is it necessarily true that dominant groups are oblivious to marginalized groups? I would have to say that’s true in any situation. In the work force the “cubical workers” know who the CFOs or the CEOs are but it’s not the case when the situation is flipped. It has me questioning the structural patterns of several different places I go. In class, for instance, I know who my teacher is. But in my large lectures… does the professor know each and every student (the marginalized groups)? Not necessarily. So when it comes to different standpoints… do these marginalized groups have a more “educated” theory? You betcha. They have their own theories regarding their own group and have background of the dominant groups. Those said “dominant groups” think they know all about the smaller groups but they are actually blind to the (sometimes harsh) reality of the marginalized group's world.
McClish also mentioned that “’social phenomena’ such as race, class, and gender mutually construct one another… binary paradigms based on ‘race-only or gender-only conceptual frameworks’ are incomplete” (29).And before this class, I haven’t given much thought to the idea that I am made up of several different “pieces” and that if I don’t acknowledge each piece then I’m not “complete.” Before this course, I didn’t give much thought to the idea that I was complex. I thought I was simply… a Caucasian woman. But then I got myself to extend that idea. Now I believe myself to be a daughter and a ‘sister’. I am a friend and a godmother. I am an athlete and a coach. But since I am young, I am still trying to grow and learn more about myself each and everyday. And sometimes I can’t help wondering how different I would be if I was an African American or Asian woman. Or if I was a homosexual. Or if I was homeless. Everything would be different. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that I can’t truly understand the lives of other people/women, such as Harriet Jacobs and Marjane Satrapi, until I, as cliché as it sounds, put myself in their shoes. Or maybe I won’t understand them until I fully understand myself? I still don’t know.
I'm walking in circles again.
Joy :)
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Thanks, Grade School Teachers, For Teaching Me The Absolute Basics. Yet Again.
The many theorists who we have read this week have all taken this idea of autobiography and tore it to shreds. All of their attention on cracks and contradictions on autobiography have completely changed my notion of what I thought to be, just an “individual writing a story about his or her life.” I thought it was simple. No loop-holes. No contradictions. No gaps. Simple. But thanks to many of the academes writers of the Smith & Watson edition of Women, Autobiography, Theory, I now have to struggle through an explication a fifth-grade term.
I have now taken the term to mean “an individual writing a story which focuses on his or her life, not necessarily meaning the story is strictly only about that person.” Susan Stanford Friedman’s article entitled “Women’s Autobiographical Selves: Theory and Practice” has made a hefty impact on my definition. In her article she says “Isolated individualism is an illusion…” (Smith, Watson) and we discussed in class, that that means that we always tell the story of someone else even if we don’t intend to. Our reasons for reading autobiographies, therefore, change as well.
Before this week of class, I was taught that people read autobiographies for numerous reasons which include getting to see the raw detail of a first-hand experience, seeing a perspective different from your own or making sense of your own experience. The theorists we have read, Friedman included, take this basic idea of “why” and alter it. Sure we read autobiographies for the previously stated reasons but we’re also reading for more than just the author’s story. We’re reading for the story of their children, of their family, and of their friends. We’re reading about their community and how they reacted to the situation in play. Feminist theorists take these concepts for why we read autobiographies and draw attention to the specific autobiographics or “cracks” that lie within the works.
Feminist theorists might find promise in the missing pieces of the autobiographical works because it shows that parts of the story can change over a course of time. Betty Tells Her Story is a perfect example of how the story’s tone and details can change only within a matter of hours. This showcases how credibility plays a factor when reading autobiographies. If their small details of their stories can change, what goes to say that the big details won’t be distorted?
After discussing the concept of autobiographies in depth this past week, I’m not too sure it if will make reading these narratives more or less difficult. I shall see.
I have now taken the term to mean “an individual writing a story which focuses on his or her life, not necessarily meaning the story is strictly only about that person.” Susan Stanford Friedman’s article entitled “Women’s Autobiographical Selves: Theory and Practice” has made a hefty impact on my definition. In her article she says “Isolated individualism is an illusion…” (Smith, Watson) and we discussed in class, that that means that we always tell the story of someone else even if we don’t intend to. Our reasons for reading autobiographies, therefore, change as well.
Before this week of class, I was taught that people read autobiographies for numerous reasons which include getting to see the raw detail of a first-hand experience, seeing a perspective different from your own or making sense of your own experience. The theorists we have read, Friedman included, take this basic idea of “why” and alter it. Sure we read autobiographies for the previously stated reasons but we’re also reading for more than just the author’s story. We’re reading for the story of their children, of their family, and of their friends. We’re reading about their community and how they reacted to the situation in play. Feminist theorists take these concepts for why we read autobiographies and draw attention to the specific autobiographics or “cracks” that lie within the works.
Feminist theorists might find promise in the missing pieces of the autobiographical works because it shows that parts of the story can change over a course of time. Betty Tells Her Story is a perfect example of how the story’s tone and details can change only within a matter of hours. This showcases how credibility plays a factor when reading autobiographies. If their small details of their stories can change, what goes to say that the big details won’t be distorted?
After discussing the concept of autobiographies in depth this past week, I’m not too sure it if will make reading these narratives more or less difficult. I shall see.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Feminism Definition, Anyone?
On the first day of class we defined feminist as “a person (actively) pursuing equality between the sexes.” And now that we have been through a week of class, I still can’t quite pin point my personal definition. I like the idea that we decided to use the term “person” over strictly choosing “woman” because I do believe that men have that the ability to be feminists. I’m a little sketchy on the using of the term “actively.” I’m hesitant because I would like to call myself a feminist but I have never walked up and down the street with a picket sign. I would, however, stand up for my gender if they were to be downgraded in some way. My personal definition might go something like “a person, be it man or woman, who is consistently striving for ‘sameness’ between the sexes, either passively or actively.”
Bernice Johnson Reagon was influential when she brought up her “barred cell” approach. I like her thought process that you can’t keep people out of the “feminist movement” if they truly want to be included (ie: men and transgenders). I also took Marilyn Frye into consideration when she talked about the “opening doors” situation. She showed me that there still things going on in our society today that show the oppression that occurred many years ago. That doesn’t necessarily mean that when a guy opens the door for you he is thinking “this woman is weak and needs my help!” It just goes to show that there are bigger things out there that showcase the oppression that women are under. Therefore, it’s a constant fight. Lastly, I would have to say that the class discussion about the difference between “equality” and “sameness” made a large impact on my definition. While we were talking in class, my mind was racing back and forth between the two. I eventually came to my own personal conclusion that “equality” is focusing on the sexes having the same rights (which I agree with) but “sameness” adds the idea that both sexes are treated the same way. I’m still a little “wishy-washy” on my personal definition but I think I’m getting a little closer to what feminism means to me each and every day.
Bernice Johnson Reagon was influential when she brought up her “barred cell” approach. I like her thought process that you can’t keep people out of the “feminist movement” if they truly want to be included (ie: men and transgenders). I also took Marilyn Frye into consideration when she talked about the “opening doors” situation. She showed me that there still things going on in our society today that show the oppression that occurred many years ago. That doesn’t necessarily mean that when a guy opens the door for you he is thinking “this woman is weak and needs my help!” It just goes to show that there are bigger things out there that showcase the oppression that women are under. Therefore, it’s a constant fight. Lastly, I would have to say that the class discussion about the difference between “equality” and “sameness” made a large impact on my definition. While we were talking in class, my mind was racing back and forth between the two. I eventually came to my own personal conclusion that “equality” is focusing on the sexes having the same rights (which I agree with) but “sameness” adds the idea that both sexes are treated the same way. I’m still a little “wishy-washy” on my personal definition but I think I’m getting a little closer to what feminism means to me each and every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)