I thought Beyonce was supposed to be a feminist.
The trailer alone is objectionable on 100 different levels.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Hello there
My art herstory professor mentioned to a friend and I (we are both feminists, Hello Kitty enthusiasts, and devoted students of this professor) that Hello Kitty doesn't have a mouth. "Think about that," she said, "it's very interesting."
Because really, what's cuter than feminism?
She was suggesting, I suppose, that Hello Kitty (as a very aggressively girly character) embodies the whole silenced, "be seen and not heard" aspect of traditional femininity.
Rather than choosing between her love of Hello Kitty and her hatred of oppressive patriarchal stereotypes, this friend "fixed" Hello Kitty.
Rather than choosing between her love of Hello Kitty and her hatred of oppressive patriarchal stereotypes, this friend "fixed" Hello Kitty.
Because really, what's cuter than feminism?
I said, THOUGHTS?????
Because now I am actually writing this thing. And failing at writing this thing. And spending repeated amounts of time wearing false glasses and listening to "pump up" music in an attempt to distract myself from writing this thing.
Me main thesis so fair is: "EDUCATION, YOU RUBES!!!!!" Thoughts on that?
Twenty-five of you wrote papers on question #1 concerning the effect of women’s invisibility on world affairs. Each of you had sentences that were like these: “The only way to institute change on a cultural level is to ensure that women are represented in the power structures of the countries where they are marginalized in society. The invisibility of women is ensured because of their lack of political influence.” Here’s another: “Women must become more capable of participating in all world affairs.” Or, “With so few women in the field (of academia), these issues are not brought up and change is stunted.” Or, “Some form of economic independence must be available to women so that their children will flourish.” Or, “The equal dominion of Heaven must find a place in politics . . . women ought to interfere in political matters if only to keep themselves visible to their governments.” Or, “We need to address women’s invisibility in world affairs by increasing the number of women in leadership positions in order to give equal weight to the uniquely feminine viewpoint that women bring to the world. . . . the inclusion of women in governmental and other problem-solving organizations would allow those organizations to use the full potential of both sexes . . . Men and women need each other in order to balance each other’s strengths and weaknesses.” I could go on and on. Every last paper insisted women must come out of the shadows in order to heal families, communities, and nations, and take their place alongside men in the decision-making councils at all these levels. And some of you felt strongly that LDS women especially needed to heard in these councils.
Here is the question‹it is not meant to be subversive, it is meant to get you to use your very best thinking and creativity: given that LDS culture rightly stresses mother-child togetherness, how exactly are women to do what you have urged? The boards of directors of large corporations are not in the habit of adding members who have “nothing” on their resumes; voters are not in the habit of voting for politicians who have “nothing” on their resumes; universities are not in the habit of hiring professors or researchers who have “nothing” on their resumes. And by the time one’s children leave the home, a mother is hopelessly behind all others in qualifying herself for such positions. And, let’s face it, being active in the blogosphere isn’t all it’s cracked up to be in terms of real influence on the major institutions of society. Women, how are you going to make the contribution of your talents and gifts to this troubled world if you become a mother? (And no, you cannot say "through my children," for your sons, being men, cannot give the gifts a woman could give, and your daughters will face the same issue of voicelessness as you.) Men, how are you going to facilitate your wife’s contribution to the world of her talents and gifts if she becomes a mother? Similarly, women and men, how will you be able to stand as real equals with real voice in your marriage and in society if the wife is completely economically dependent upon the husband, and if we say the wife is “not working,” but the husband “is working”‹if he operates in the public sphere, but she does not? This question asks you to interrogate the cultural assumptions of the world in which you have been socialized--how far are you willing to acquiesce to those, and how willing are you to forge a new path, perhaps heretofore never attempted, that allows you to be both true to your religious beliefs and true to the values you espoused in your papers?
Me main thesis so fair is: "EDUCATION, YOU RUBES!!!!!" Thoughts on that?
Twenty-five of you wrote papers on question #1 concerning the effect of women’s invisibility on world affairs. Each of you had sentences that were like these: “The only way to institute change on a cultural level is to ensure that women are represented in the power structures of the countries where they are marginalized in society. The invisibility of women is ensured because of their lack of political influence.” Here’s another: “Women must become more capable of participating in all world affairs.” Or, “With so few women in the field (of academia), these issues are not brought up and change is stunted.” Or, “Some form of economic independence must be available to women so that their children will flourish.” Or, “The equal dominion of Heaven must find a place in politics . . . women ought to interfere in political matters if only to keep themselves visible to their governments.” Or, “We need to address women’s invisibility in world affairs by increasing the number of women in leadership positions in order to give equal weight to the uniquely feminine viewpoint that women bring to the world. . . . the inclusion of women in governmental and other problem-solving organizations would allow those organizations to use the full potential of both sexes . . . Men and women need each other in order to balance each other’s strengths and weaknesses.” I could go on and on. Every last paper insisted women must come out of the shadows in order to heal families, communities, and nations, and take their place alongside men in the decision-making councils at all these levels. And some of you felt strongly that LDS women especially needed to heard in these councils.
Here is the question‹it is not meant to be subversive, it is meant to get you to use your very best thinking and creativity: given that LDS culture rightly stresses mother-child togetherness, how exactly are women to do what you have urged? The boards of directors of large corporations are not in the habit of adding members who have “nothing” on their resumes; voters are not in the habit of voting for politicians who have “nothing” on their resumes; universities are not in the habit of hiring professors or researchers who have “nothing” on their resumes. And by the time one’s children leave the home, a mother is hopelessly behind all others in qualifying herself for such positions. And, let’s face it, being active in the blogosphere isn’t all it’s cracked up to be in terms of real influence on the major institutions of society. Women, how are you going to make the contribution of your talents and gifts to this troubled world if you become a mother? (And no, you cannot say "through my children," for your sons, being men, cannot give the gifts a woman could give, and your daughters will face the same issue of voicelessness as you.) Men, how are you going to facilitate your wife’s contribution to the world of her talents and gifts if she becomes a mother? Similarly, women and men, how will you be able to stand as real equals with real voice in your marriage and in society if the wife is completely economically dependent upon the husband, and if we say the wife is “not working,” but the husband “is working”‹if he operates in the public sphere, but she does not? This question asks you to interrogate the cultural assumptions of the world in which you have been socialized--how far are you willing to acquiesce to those, and how willing are you to forge a new path, perhaps heretofore never attempted, that allows you to be both true to your religious beliefs and true to the values you espoused in your papers?
Saturday, December 4, 2010
My final paper prompt for ValHud's Ladytimes class. Thoughts?
Twenty-five of you wrote papers on question #1 concerning the effect of women’s invisibility on world affairs. Each of you had sentences that were like these: “The only way to institute change on a cultural level is to ensure that women are represented in the power structures of the countries where they are marginalized in society. The invisibility of women is ensured because of their lack of political influence.” Here’s another: “Women must become more capable of participating in all world affairs.” Or, “With so few women in the field (of academia), these issues are not brought up and change is stunted.” Or, “Some form of economic independence must be available to women so that their children will flourish.” Or, “The equal dominion of Heaven must find a place in politics . . . women ought to interfere in political matters if only to keep themselves visible to their governments.” Or, “We need to address women’s invisibility in world affairs by increasing the number of women in leadership positions in order to give equal weight to the uniquely feminine viewpoint that women bring to the world. . . . the inclusion of women in governmental and other problem-solving organizations would allow those organizations to use the full potential of both sexes . . . Men and women need each other in order to balance each other’s strengths and weaknesses.” I could go on and on. Every last paper insisted women must come out of the shadows in order to heal families, communities, and nations, and take their place alongside men in the decision-making councils at all these levels. And some of you felt strongly that LDS women especially needed to heard in these councils.
Here is the question‹it is not meant to be subversive, it is meant to get you to use your very best thinking and creativity: given that LDS culture rightly stresses mother-child togetherness, how exactly are women to do what you have urged? The boards of directors of large corporations are not in the habit of adding members who have “nothing” on their resumes; voters are not in the habit of voting for politicians who have “nothing” on their resumes; universities are not in the habit of hiring professors or researchers who have “nothing” on their resumes. And by the time one’s children leave the home, a mother is hopelessly behind all others in qualifying herself for such positions. And, let’s face it, being active in the blogosphere isn’t all it’s cracked up to be in terms of real influence on the major institutions of society. Women, how are you going to make the contribution of your talents and gifts to this troubled world if you become a mother? (And no, you cannot say "through my children," for your sons, being men, cannot give the gifts a woman could give, and your daughters will face the same issue of voicelessness as you.) Men, how are you going to facilitate your wife’s contribution to the world of her talents and gifts if she becomes a mother? Similarly, women and men, how will you be able to stand as real equals with real voice in your marriage and in society if the wife is completely economically dependent upon the husband, and if we say the wife is “not working,” but the husband “is working”‹if he operates in the public sphere, but she does not? This question asks you to interrogate the cultural assumptions of the world in which you have been socialized--how far are you willing to acquiesce to those, and how willing are you to forge a new path, perhaps heretofore never attempted, that allows you to be both true to your religious beliefs and true to the values you espoused in your papers?
Here is the question‹it is not meant to be subversive, it is meant to get you to use your very best thinking and creativity: given that LDS culture rightly stresses mother-child togetherness, how exactly are women to do what you have urged? The boards of directors of large corporations are not in the habit of adding members who have “nothing” on their resumes; voters are not in the habit of voting for politicians who have “nothing” on their resumes; universities are not in the habit of hiring professors or researchers who have “nothing” on their resumes. And by the time one’s children leave the home, a mother is hopelessly behind all others in qualifying herself for such positions. And, let’s face it, being active in the blogosphere isn’t all it’s cracked up to be in terms of real influence on the major institutions of society. Women, how are you going to make the contribution of your talents and gifts to this troubled world if you become a mother? (And no, you cannot say "through my children," for your sons, being men, cannot give the gifts a woman could give, and your daughters will face the same issue of voicelessness as you.) Men, how are you going to facilitate your wife’s contribution to the world of her talents and gifts if she becomes a mother? Similarly, women and men, how will you be able to stand as real equals with real voice in your marriage and in society if the wife is completely economically dependent upon the husband, and if we say the wife is “not working,” but the husband “is working”‹if he operates in the public sphere, but she does not? This question asks you to interrogate the cultural assumptions of the world in which you have been socialized--how far are you willing to acquiesce to those, and how willing are you to forge a new path, perhaps heretofore never attempted, that allows you to be both true to your religious beliefs and true to the values you espoused in your papers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)