help - printing

I am having a problem with printing my posts - does anyone know of a good way to do it?

Thanks,
-puddle jumper

i win!

This year one of the nobel winners was for microcredit, this individual talks about microcredit and women's empowerment. you can find it here

Also - another hilarious blog

interpellation was my childhood best friend

About once every week I go and visit a house full of boys that I lived with last year. They DO make fun of me for taking women studies, being a feminist and above all telling them what I learn in class. But in their defence they have all taken intervention and mediation training on sexual assault. The only channel that really exists at their house, sadly, is mtv canada, and to my HORROR there was the worst...'public service announcement' I have ever witnessed in my life. It was put on by equalityrules. What happens is a girl of visible minority walks into a 'unidentified fast food chain' to order a double cheeseburger, and the service personnel a pimply narly nasty boy sneers at her telling her that she can't and shouldn't eat such shit because she looks horrible anyways. The girl then walks over to the next service personnel and orders an even larger burger. Then two slides show "It's not okay here........not okay from your boyfriend". At first I was like WHAT?!!?!?!??! I hope to God this is NOT a public service announcement. Then one of my friends turned to me jokingly and said, "YAH [insert my name here]!" as in, you should take something away from this message!!!

This 'public service announcement' is ineffective two fold: 1. Baudrillard says that such created scnarios and images are useless/hyperreal unless significantly reflected upon and 2. This 'public service announcement' (PSA) was over-dramaticized that it makes you think only boys can verbally abuse girls, AND it has to be a boy who is hitting puberty and not easy on the eye at all. Also, the 'proper' response as dictated by the PSA is, not John's lovely outline of getting out of the box, but just ignoring verbal abuse and not teaching the abuser how to NOT verbally abuse. This 'public service announcement' IS hyper-real because it is completely unbelievable even if you reflect on it. Although maybe an attempt of the organization to make a provisional interruption this interruption distorts our views of verbal abuse as being only a male to female interaction. Whereas I am positive that verbal abuse between females is much more common and detrimental (ie) calling each other sluts, whores, cunts, bitches, fat etc; this was demonstrated in mass culture with Meangirls. These hyper-real PSAs are what distorts people's interpellation to assault 'culture' that creepy men in trenches jumping out of bushes, and gross pimply boys are the only ones who committ abuse or assault. What is up with that?

Kipnis, Baudrillard, Althusser

Where do I fit in??? - From Mulan to Sandra Oh

In my 201 class we concentrated on the downfalls & critiques of the political spectrum types of Feminism rather than theory. In this class we are to critically engage how pop culture can be a place of dissent for Feminism. I believe that because I am a first generation (immigrant born?) – I don’t know the proper term, but anyways, I am the first in my family tree, on both sides, to be born in Canada. Sadly, I think I am so far assimilated that I don’t question things nor did I realize that Canadian or second wave Feminism didn’t really ‘include’ my cultural/ethnic background until 201. So what are Asian (defined here as encompassing China, Japan, Korea etc.) Feminist doing in pop culture to create dissent? …..wait is there even a group of Asian feminist? Bell Hooks cites “the central problem within feminist discourse” as the, “inability to either arrive at a consensus of opinion about what feminism is or accept definitions that could serve as points of unification” (1). Furthermore, “many women are reluctant to advocate feminism because they are uncertain about the meaning of the term” (1). There is no black and white definition of what Feminism is – meaning this is what makes pop culture a very fluid vehicle great for our fluid definition of Feminism to create interruptions.

The “Exoticize This!” website is a fine display of empowering nihilism because Asian women have often been portrayed as excessively subservient prostitutes or geishas, however the webmistress takes those definitions, exaggerates it and throws it back(2). The first time I saw Sandra Oh (a visible Asian in television/sound film pop culture) she played a pregnant lesbian in Under The Tuscan Sun – way to push those boundaries! However now in Grey’s Anatomy, I think she’s been type-casted as the very smart, hard working Asian, fulfilling all Asian parents’ dreams for their children to be the occupations of all upper-middle class occupations; a super successful physician. Is Sandra Oh speaking up for any Asian Feminist or even creating questionable dissent in pop culture like Cagney & Lacy taking up space in generally male-dominated roles? I think what Sandra Oh is creating on Grey’s Anatomy is comparable to a repeat of Cagney & Lacey in that Sandra is taking up space in the generally male dominated roles in Medicine, however at the same time she is fostering racial stereotypes (4). Is there anyone making Asian Feminist interruptions on my behalf in pop culture or are we still left out? Black people have 50, Lesbians have the L-word…….where am I within this mass production? Otherwise I only have Lucy Liu, Michelle Yeoh, and that Hawaiian “exotic” looking lady in the Rock’s movies who are sex kittens that can perform Karate and have awesome tea pouring skills….Hey! as I tell my friends I tea with: anyone who can pour me tea will make a great Asian daughter one day!

1. Hooks “Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression” pp. 22-27 [Feminist Theory: From Margin to Centre (Boston: South End Press, 1984), 17-31]
2. Hooks “Postmodern Blackness”
3. Rhodes “‘Substantive and Feminist Girlie Action’: Women Online” p 132.
4. White “Ideological Analysis and Television” pp. 181 – 183.

It feels good to be on top: the orgasm of perfection

***warning: may spoil for movie shortbus

I saw the new movie shortbus with a few friends last night. One of the lines, so elegantly written I swear came out of Baudrillard's piece. I am just going to warn you there may be 'spoilers' because I'm going to set it in the 'scene'/context. It was like Freud was in there with Baudrillard.

The protagonist is 'pre-orgasmic', according to Freud neither experiencing a clitoral or vaginal orgasm. Accordingly if you did not experience the vaginal orgasm, "achieved through deep penile thrusting during coitus", was theorized to be a sign of immature sexuality (Rathus et al. 80). This measurement in maturity devalues women who have yet to experience an orgasm, ever despite participating in coitus. The protagonist claims that maybe the orgasm doesn't really exist because it is so elusive, and that it isn't reality because all women are obsessed with attempting to achieve it (the orgasm being a sign of the perfectness of the act of sex). That automatically made me think of Baudrillard, and made me the only one in the theatre laughing because maybe orgasms are hyperreal!

I think Baudrillard's theory is twistedly flawed in the sense that his argument makes 'perfect' sense. Maybe Baudrillard's argument isn't real, because it works out so perfectly. Why or what feeds our needs for this sense of perfection? A consequence of majority of things being socially constructed, the idea of an orgasm, then is not real defined by Baudrillard, because we are in search of the perfect sex --> with orgasm. Today we live in a very instantaneous society and expect things to happen for us right away like instant noodles or soup. However when such results are not reproducible we go crazy, out of our way to achieve the result; as shown by the protagonist visiting shortbus in attempts to achieve orgasm.


In relation to school.....I am not sure if its a false need that feeds my desire for an orgasmic A in grades. However, I do like to be on top of it in school, and I'm not going to lie, I do feel orgasmically amazing when I do get a 'perfect' grade and am on top of the class. There is a great song with the lyrics, "perfection is perfect hell"

Rathus et al. essentials of human sexuality. 2nd Ed. Pearson Education Canada Inc. Toronto, 2005.

Louise Althusser may have killed his wife, but I'm going crazy!

Well, the midterm is now done, but the thing is after studying it I am starting to relate EVERYTHING I see to all the content in class. Every word I use, or random things I see relate to class; people think I'm crazy when I am telling them about the feminist theories I've learnt in 320. It has been a long time since I have picked up some good quality mind garbage such as Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire and the likes. I usually ignore that kind of 'opressive' garbage, however yesterday while in cue, I can't handle being idle so I, as directed by Fiske in Popular Culture, picked up the mass cultural product and created my own pop culture.

I sat in an unexplainable dumb-founded awe and disgust trying to relate the theory we've learned in class to the magazine pop culture. Cosmopolitan messes with my mind in so many ways as a Feminist. Going along with "feminist" ideologies I shouldn't be picking up this mind garbage, but rather I should be reappropriating, refunctioning (Kipnis), disarticulating the Cosmopolitan and rearticulating to challenge that hegemony. What screws around with me the most is that Cosmopolitan is woman driven in its reading audience AND production. On that note, I think the big question is, WHO is screwing with us? Althusser says it is an interaction of the elite and the base, however in the last instance the base will have the last call. It's this weird cyclical .....'fuck': we, women, can't stop screwing ourselves!

How to rearticulate Cosmopolitan and make a radical interruption? I already talked to the service individual I was waiting in line for about this craziness!!! - interrupted his day, but I am sure he learned a great deal of what I have learned in this class. But to fully use what is avaialable to us to make an interruption (Rhodes & Kipnis) I should rearticulate Cosmopolitan in my zine. However is that radical enough?? A zine (like a magazine) will use the hegemonic structure to throw something back in its face but how.......to rearticulate the content? It is hard to rearticulate half naked freaks of nature (yes, freaks of nature because not everyone is 6 feet tall and 115lbs). It is hard to think of radical ways (or maybe I am not creative enough), but we aren't taught to think 'outside' of the box all the time. I cannot just put scantily clad women in my zine and wite about how horrible it is, that's not radical enough although I am rearticulating hegemony. I am in conflict with myself over this stuff and it's driving me crazy. I have to be doing a multitude of things as a feminist to challenge the hegemony:

1. Don't ignore Cosmopolitan
2. Rearticulate Cosmopolitan
3. Refunction Cosmopolitan
4. Reuse what is given to you
5. significantly reflect
6,7,8...................nth number

The list goes on, and each point I have to ask "how am I going to do this", and its crazy because each time I have an answer on how to rearticulate, refunction and make an interruption, it conflicts with something else and I don't think it is effective in use any more. AH!!!!!!!!!! - or is this just anotoher manifestation of my obsession with perfection as Baudrillard asserts?

Well, at least the individual who was providing the service at the end of the line knows about this now, and maybe he'll make an interruption somewhere else? Who knows any more.

Interruption

Post-Feministeppin' on Thursday night, Dr. Tapley noted that we should think about how interrupted/powerful our steppin' would be parallel to black fraternities if we just stopped right in the middle of the day and started steppin'. Our Feministeppin' is an interruption, as defined by Rhodes in "Substantive and Feminist Girlie Action", of how we intervene on an dominant hegemony. Feministeppin is not written text in class or online, however it gave each of us a temporary, 30seconds -1minute, sense of agency, "to resist, and act" (128).
I can't see us splaying around tampons, walking around in underwear, and throwing bananas between classes however I felt , surprisingly, really empowered and not embarassed Thursday night. When I first heard "cheerleading" escape the mouth of our professor I didn't know how I felt about this project. Cheerleading to me is a very unfeminist type of activity to me. When I think of cheerleading an image [pre determined as discussed by Baudrillard] of blond fit girls who wear short skirts, and could be snobby - like the trio in Meangirls, pops into my head.

My questions now are, were we effective, or would we be effective to act as the change that Kipnis demands? Did we, as the 'proletariat' find a way to express ourselves in an ISA to attempt to overturn the dominant ruling power as expressed by Althusser? Were we only effective because we adopted some hegemonic ideas into our Feministeppin' and combined a lot of fragments and ideas into less than a minute like a commercial. Alternatively were our cheers so of fragmented that it would be meaningless unless someone seriously took time to reflect on our cheers like the judges? Did we successfully utilize hook's empowering nihilism to reappropriate the 'unfeminist' act of cheerleading? - If we were to do this just down on Jasper ave, would people take us seriously? OR like us giggle when we listened to "Pussy Eating 101"?

I think we were an initial attempt at repappropriating meanings, and an initial realization of Kipinis's call for aciton. However because we have to use hegemonic ideals, such as making our cheers into somewhat fragmented commercials packed with ideas, that without significant reflection no one would really take anything away from it. Then again, if we repeatedly did this on a day-to-day basis at school maybe people would start getting the idea, or just become desensitized and start to ignore it. So, although Feministeppin' was a fun filled night, I think it only scratches the surface of strategic action, whatever it may be, towards popular culture.

Springtime For The Populists?

The readings for this class bombard you with ideas, hence a proper reflection is required for clear significance and understanding because meaning according to Baudrillard is self-referential. We need to understand ideas within our own contexts just as I will attempt to display relating Kipnis’ ‘Refunctioning’ reconsidered: towards a left popular culture and Hitler.

Major political changes in history haven’t really happened without a “crisis”. I really mean major ones such as Germany (the masses/people) feeling all self-defeated after WWI looked upon someone who would create a new ideal; Hitler. Hitler illustrates Kipnis’ assertion that hegemony is always a process, and a class (in this case an individual) becomes hegemonic not through sheer domination, “but through its ability to interpellate both the members of its own class and members of the classes it seeks to dominate” (32). Hitler rearticulated German nationalism (admittedly with the help of some force) by “provoking a crisis of the dominant ideological discourse and a crisis in the ability of the system to neutralize its dominated sectors” (33). Hitler recognized the German people needed to reunite and called upon them to become the ideology with German nationalism (something that related all of them) because the previous dominant ideology and the loss of WWI caused moments of antagonism (as Tapley says: moments of ‘pissed-off’-ness). According to Kipnis these people are considered 'unassimilatable", however Hitler just moved the people from being assimilated from one ideology to the next despite this 'unassimilability'. Hitler recognized the antagonisms and articulated them with popular interpellation in a rough sense, “Hey you à we the people of Germany, we are the #1”. Thereby winning the ideological class struggle because he reappropriated “the same interpellations in antagonistic discourses” (33). Hitler rearticulated values, however he reinstituted the same hierarchy the previous ideology had before him. It goes in a cycle because there will always be an antognistic discourse to rearticulate, and once rearticulation happens for the next group of opressed a new hegemony has taken over.

At the end, Kipnis poses the question of how we should go about challenging ‘the system’ versus, “fostering critical strategies” (34). However, I find that she is in conflict with her own discourse on populism by expressing the need for action in academia. The academic population is an elite and definitely not the masses, nor does her article reach the masses. Albiet Kipnis argues for action, I think hegemony and new ideals are so privisional we just keep reproducing hegemony which marginalizes a new and different group each time; othering.

I'll think about it tomorrow

I'm not sure if I have the concepts down from the latest class, however I will blog about what I've taken away in the context the topics were presented in.

I find that Benjamin builds a binary with 'old' art and 'new' art in the way they are digested, and then acted upon by the mass (audience). I think we are sick human beings who need hyperboles because we are born and raised in a society of excess. This excess creates both a distraction AND absorbtion, for example Person X enjoys the show Survivor which is very fragmented(distraction; new art) YET is absorbed by(what old art does to you) Survivor because Person X purchases all merchandise, books, etc. Together, distraction and absortion both dictate to the mass (ie) how it 'really' is out in the wild of Surviving, AND can be used for mass movement. (Help me out on that one, I'm not sure if I am okay about the concept or just very mixed up) As suggested in lecture popular culture then becomes a reflection of us. This was displayed in the 9/11 dvd we watched with the Rudy Giuliani making ironic, depressing, hilarious statements regarding freedom, race and free will. The reflection?? --> We are really all just a bunch of racist bigots!

I was in SHOCK after viewing the clip from the L-word. Afterwards when asked if we considered the scene to exemplify rape, the little voice inside my head answered: YES. While watching the clip I thought of Gone With The Wind, when Rhett just carries Scarlett off as a right of marriage, or his 'right' as husband and wife. I thought of a heterosexual relationship, this is maybe because I have some male friends who have had unwanted sexual experiences. However I think the scene we saw from L-word in a sense romanticized rape like every other show or movie we see. Person A forces themselve upon Person B, Person B then fights back and then starts to....enjoy the situation? Is it being somewhat dictated to us that it is fun to have someone take sexual control of us? This royally screws up everyone's paradigms and blurs the lines as to when an individual should speak up about sex and violence. Can a man rape his wife? Rather in the L-word this translated to, can a partner rape their partner? CAN someone you're living with in an intimate setting, implying they care for you, rape .....you? I think the clipping deomonstrated Benjamin's idea of art as a revolutionary mechanism, and political practice. The lesbian rape, which is a hyperbole in a heteronormativity in society, is a political tool making us question ourselves. Questions such as: can rape happen in a lesbian relationship when it is historically and statistically reported as happening to females. Maybe...just maybe the clip is a reflection upon us to politically make us more aware that it CAN really happen to anyone?

And, now because just thinking about those paradigm limit questions, I feel lost and confused because.....do I then have a certain way of thinking (paradigm) about something that's solid enough for me to answer a question as, "Yes. Yes, Dr. Tapely, that was rape."

and that's why we still don't know who killed JFK

Last semester I took a Science & Religion course, where we examined, critically of course, the spectrum of Ideologies you could choose to agree with on issues such as "Origin of the Universe and Life", "Did Adam and Eve really existed or is it a pedagogical tool", and "Did Noah and the great flood really exist/happen." The professor would hand out little cards where we anonymously fill out which Ideology or Ideologies we decided to practice & believe. I distinctly remember one class, where I'm sure he thought someone in his class was crazy, because I got frustrated with all these categories and subclasses we had to pigeon-hole ourselves in. Hence in the answer to "Did Adam and Eve really exist/Did Noah and the great flood really happen," I responded with "We still don't even know who killed JFK." [As in I don't think there's a definite yes/no answer for anyone]

Attempting to relate this to Althusser's Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, his idea is that an Ideology in a sense "trickles down" to our practiced materializations. In class we were discussing how you could go about breaking down or change an Ideology. Contrary to Althusser, I think that believing in Ideologies we are in a sense pigeon-holing ourselves. Pigeon-holing thus reinforcing Hook's, Post-Modern Blackness, idea that we are living in and with conflicting ideologies because we only allow ourselves in these limited holes. Why is it that we are set on choosing a set number of Ideologies on a spectrum to follow? - I think we have the power to stop and not buy into another Ideology. Existentialism as presented in I Heart Huckabees, brings a different perspective to the building and breaking of Ideologies. I think that you can change an Ideology from the bottom up and not 'buy into' another one because an individual can be in control of the end result. (ie) Person X loves stapling things (an Ideology) all the time (its practice), however Person X has the power to change that; stop pigeon-holing themselves in the Ideology of stapling all the time. There was passing mention of existentialism on Althusser, p91.

------
I also wanted to talk about reappropriation (when Dr. Tapley asked would some reappropriations be different if men did it: made me think of the book Cunt by Inga Musico, would it be different if a man attempted to reappropriate it?) - however there is just not enough room. So please check out the following links into what I think are artists who question what you think reappropriation is. (ie) 50 cent versus Kanye West or 50 cent versus The Raging Grannies
M.I.A
The Raging Grannies (Edmonton Chapter) - relates kind of to Femmisteppin'
Martha Wainwright (especially check out her lyrics for Bloody Mother Fucking Asshole)

Mr. F

Whilst sitting in Physics class on Friday at 9:00 in the morning having a french man speak to me about force, mass and acceleration. I turned to my friend Adrian and said, "Have you seen Arrested Development's Mr.F episode?" He in turn replied with, "No, I haven't. " I quickly stated with a sense of urgency, "Well, you HAVE TO watch it because it would just make this class all the more hilarious and enjoyable (by that I really meant less painful)."

In trying to understand the topics and articles from last lecture I will try and relate things, please correct me if I am wrong. . . forgive me if this paragraph is dense:
In that moment I created my own subjectivity as argued by MiMi White in Ideological Analysis and Television to be an entity that is always changing. I was affected by a television show in what I think is humorous because intertextual references (ie) critical reviews, season DVD covers tell me what is funny. Arrested Development, a white upper-middle class family is funny and as a docile body in false consciousness, referred to by Adorno and Horkheimer in, The Culture Industry, I don't question if this humor is aligned with my values or, if I've seen the exact same white upper-middle class family 500+ times before. I have become a vessel perpetuating hegemonic discourse presented on television (in attempts to have fun in physics - you cannot blame me). However as a result of constant change in discourse Arrested Development is sadly no longer aired on television because new discourses, with the same "stories" have taken its place in hegemony.

Rufus Miles states where you stand depends on where you sit, which I think directly correlates to White's idea of an evolutionary relationship between competing discourses. However I still do believe that Arrested Development is excessively humorous and maybe in my abyss of false consciousness Physics will become more enjoyable and hilarious.

Mon Manifesto

This blog will encourage dialogue between my WST320 peers and myself. I envision posts with personal responses to the readings and class lecture topics with critiques of the arguments. What I am most excited about is the further questioning that might not have been addressed in class or the literature at all.

(ie) Contrary to Rhodes advocation, "Substantive and Feminist Girlie Action": Women Online, of the WWW nurturing dialogue to the classroom. Why is it that I have more dialogue regarding women studies topics with my male friends versus my girlfriends?

My male friends and I surf the WWW and always send each other interesting articles, generative literature and websites regarding feminism & anti-feminism. - why is that?

The purpose of this course, Popular Culture/Feminist Culture, is to critically examine AND practice widely accepted (in North America anyways) cultural patterns. I think it is really exciting to read an academic piece of literature, implement the argument and analyze the development.

Rhodes argues that the WWW is a tool to develop agency and correspondence amongst women transcending borders. The WWW is an ambiguous and mutable media enfranchising individuals to express their self free of the usual social constructs. We will be practicing this argument and I am excited to see how dialogue evolves and develops to generate network(s) from the WWW to the classroom. It is also an interesting endeavor to create generative pieces of literature for the purpose of constructing sisterhood. However I predict the ever so inherent social constructs in which we hold discourse in the classroom will transfer over to the WWW.

In attempts to identify with Rhodes' argument the following is a spectrum of ladies' sites which I visit regularly . . . .

http://www.dooce.com
Slightly generative, however I do not considerate it a participatory piece because she does moderate the comments which I think could hinder network building and agency which Rhodes champions the WWW for.

http://feministtoronto.blogspot.com/
Very generative - I think this is what our blogs are trying to achieve in this class. Unlike passive students who are just deposits for information we are forming our own 'community'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_mallick/
Not a participatory piece of literature at all (although you CAN email CBC about how you feel it is not as direct or responsive as the link above), however it strongly follows along with Rhodes argument regarding agency.