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 :)

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. 

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.

hi :)