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.