So, Republicans are testing out how they're going to deal with charges coming down later this week in the Plame affair.
Talking Point #1? Well, the prosecutor is going to try to come up with something so it won't look like he wasted two years. Anything. Even something stupid that doesn't matter. Sound familiar? My senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison: She hopes "that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars." (emphasis mine)
Um.
Let's recap: Kenneth Starr, special prosecutor for Whitewater "couldn't indict on a crime" and thus a president was impeached on "some perjury technicality."
Who's a flip flopper?
Monday, October 24, 2005
Saturday, October 22, 2005
I do it sometimes, too, but...
So, I'm taking a break from doing loads of reading and writing to be annoyed at something I've noticed recently, from both me, the news media, friends, and various pundits.
Why is it that when we're talking about Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, we feel sufficiently close to her to refer to her by her first name? Only her first name. CNN.com right now has a headline: "Condoleeza's Alabama Homecoming." Would we do that for anyone else in the administration? Donald to go to visit troops in Iraq. Dick to take lollipops from young children.
It's because she's a woman. I hear the objections already. 1) We don't call Margaret Spellings "Margaret" (or other women in the admin.) or 2) Condoleeza just has such a unique name, of course we use it.
1) Well, that's true. I think because Rice is the only woman in a major policy making, highly public role, her gender is particularly salient.
2) Well, what about other women to whom this happens?
I've even seen this about Harriet Miers: "Harriet blah blah" not "Miers etc etc." Now, did we see stuff like this about John Roberts? Or judges (umm... well, potential judges) anyway? I've, personally, never seen "Antonin to go to gay rights parade" or "Clarence seen at porn store."
This happens to Hillary Clinton, too, who we are free to call "Hillary."
Why, though, is this the case? Is it because we just feel less respect towards women in these high-power positions? Research would seem to indicate that when women are in more leaderly (is that a word?) roles, they are evaluated less favorably than men in similar roles (Eagly and Karau, too lazy to look up date). Do we feel more "familiarity" with them because they're women? This is interesting.
Anyway, I know this post contains no insightful analysis or interesting perspective. But, do think about it! And I'm going to get back to work--currently in the process of reading Battered Women and Feminist Lawmaking by Elizabeth Schneider. The part I'm reading now is fascinating: about the different legal strategies used by feminists to draw attention to and define battering/abuse/gender violence and the struggles over naming and the implications coming along with different names. She talks about the role of "rights talk" in shaping identity and public discourse and expectations. But, of course, talking in terms of legal reform and rights can't really get at fundamental issues of social structure and gender inequality. Asking for a right is asking to have access to the system as it is, not asking to fundamentally alter it. Legal activism isn't sufficient for those sorts of goals.
She talks about different conceptions of domestic abuse and about how recent/not so recent attempts to project a gender symmetry ("women do this just as much as men"), or to paint victims as somehow pathological, or to think of it as have solely to do with issues of power blinds us to the gendered dimensions of power.
Where I am right now, she's discussing tension within the battered women's movement and within feminism more general between victimization and agency, arguing that that's really a false dichotomy: focusing on victimization ignores agency, but we can't act as if women are free agents in a vacuum, outside of social constraints and power relations.
Wow, I've gone on far too long and probably not made a whole lot of sense. I tend to ramble when something is interesting. Maybe later I'll post a more logical and coherent summarization of Schneider's arguments.
Why is it that when we're talking about Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, we feel sufficiently close to her to refer to her by her first name? Only her first name. CNN.com right now has a headline: "Condoleeza's Alabama Homecoming." Would we do that for anyone else in the administration? Donald to go to visit troops in Iraq. Dick to take lollipops from young children.
It's because she's a woman. I hear the objections already. 1) We don't call Margaret Spellings "Margaret" (or other women in the admin.) or 2) Condoleeza just has such a unique name, of course we use it.
1) Well, that's true. I think because Rice is the only woman in a major policy making, highly public role, her gender is particularly salient.
2) Well, what about other women to whom this happens?
I've even seen this about Harriet Miers: "Harriet blah blah" not "Miers etc etc." Now, did we see stuff like this about John Roberts? Or judges (umm... well, potential judges) anyway? I've, personally, never seen "Antonin to go to gay rights parade" or "Clarence seen at porn store."
This happens to Hillary Clinton, too, who we are free to call "Hillary."
Why, though, is this the case? Is it because we just feel less respect towards women in these high-power positions? Research would seem to indicate that when women are in more leaderly (is that a word?) roles, they are evaluated less favorably than men in similar roles (Eagly and Karau, too lazy to look up date). Do we feel more "familiarity" with them because they're women? This is interesting.
Anyway, I know this post contains no insightful analysis or interesting perspective. But, do think about it! And I'm going to get back to work--currently in the process of reading Battered Women and Feminist Lawmaking by Elizabeth Schneider. The part I'm reading now is fascinating: about the different legal strategies used by feminists to draw attention to and define battering/abuse/gender violence and the struggles over naming and the implications coming along with different names. She talks about the role of "rights talk" in shaping identity and public discourse and expectations. But, of course, talking in terms of legal reform and rights can't really get at fundamental issues of social structure and gender inequality. Asking for a right is asking to have access to the system as it is, not asking to fundamentally alter it. Legal activism isn't sufficient for those sorts of goals.
She talks about different conceptions of domestic abuse and about how recent/not so recent attempts to project a gender symmetry ("women do this just as much as men"), or to paint victims as somehow pathological, or to think of it as have solely to do with issues of power blinds us to the gendered dimensions of power.
Where I am right now, she's discussing tension within the battered women's movement and within feminism more general between victimization and agency, arguing that that's really a false dichotomy: focusing on victimization ignores agency, but we can't act as if women are free agents in a vacuum, outside of social constraints and power relations.
Wow, I've gone on far too long and probably not made a whole lot of sense. I tend to ramble when something is interesting. Maybe later I'll post a more logical and coherent summarization of Schneider's arguments.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Get stuff done or die. Those are kind of my options this weekend. Wish me well.
Yeah, sorry I suck at updating.
I am so unbelievably busy. This weekend, not only am I determined to be productive, but I have absolutely no choice but to be productive.
First, before I can do anything, I have to clean. I can't work in the mess that is my room/desk at the moment. That's what I ought to be doing right now. But, it's amazing 1) how clean my room gets when I need to get homework done, and 2) how good a blogger I become when I need to be cleaning.
Tomorrow, I have an appointment at 12:30 and then I get to go see LaBoheme (go Lauren!) at 8pm. During the interim, I will concentrate on doing GRE math reviewing. On Saturday morning, bright and early at 8am, I have a practice GRE to take! Then, on Saturday, the rest of the whole honking lot of stuff to do begins:
--read book on Affirmative Action & begin to think about paper
--start reading loads of stuff for paper on fatherhood and welfare reform (may want to change topic?)
--start writing/write essay on a book I've already finished (thankfully!) that will probably be due in two or so weeks
--write short paper about advertising back in the day (which requires reading quite a lot of stuff that I didn't read when I was supposed to earlier in the semester for various reasons)
--decide definitively what graduate programs I am applying to
--write up Statements for each program (I already have statements for UT-Austin, Northwestern, and Wisconsin. They may suck, but they're done, and that works for me at the moment)
--decide who to ask for letters of recommendation and begin to gather needed materials to give to recommenders (resume, transcript, SoPs, etc)
--begin to fill out applications and gather supplemental materials--writing sample?! ahh!
--read for various classes next week
--read fascinating new book by political scientists about the Christian Right and American politics
--read exciting book Ema got from the library in which Jane Eyre is set in space. I'm totally not kidding.
--(but I may be kidding myself if I'm thinking that I'll actually get to those last two agenda items)
I am so unbelievably busy. This weekend, not only am I determined to be productive, but I have absolutely no choice but to be productive.
First, before I can do anything, I have to clean. I can't work in the mess that is my room/desk at the moment. That's what I ought to be doing right now. But, it's amazing 1) how clean my room gets when I need to get homework done, and 2) how good a blogger I become when I need to be cleaning.
Tomorrow, I have an appointment at 12:30 and then I get to go see LaBoheme (go Lauren!) at 8pm. During the interim, I will concentrate on doing GRE math reviewing. On Saturday morning, bright and early at 8am, I have a practice GRE to take! Then, on Saturday, the rest of the whole honking lot of stuff to do begins:
--read book on Affirmative Action & begin to think about paper
--start reading loads of stuff for paper on fatherhood and welfare reform (may want to change topic?)
--start writing/write essay on a book I've already finished (thankfully!) that will probably be due in two or so weeks
--write short paper about advertising back in the day (which requires reading quite a lot of stuff that I didn't read when I was supposed to earlier in the semester for various reasons)
--decide definitively what graduate programs I am applying to
--write up Statements for each program (I already have statements for UT-Austin, Northwestern, and Wisconsin. They may suck, but they're done, and that works for me at the moment)
--decide who to ask for letters of recommendation and begin to gather needed materials to give to recommenders (resume, transcript, SoPs, etc)
--begin to fill out applications and gather supplemental materials--writing sample?! ahh!
--read for various classes next week
--read fascinating new book by political scientists about the Christian Right and American politics
--read exciting book Ema got from the library in which Jane Eyre is set in space. I'm totally not kidding.
--(but I may be kidding myself if I'm thinking that I'll actually get to those last two agenda items)
Thursday, October 13, 2005
I am such a dork.
So--UTD decided that professors had to give all students midterm grades starting this semester (rather than just the freshmen). So, I decided that I'd check my midterm grades to see how I was doing. And, I see this B- in one of my classes. A class that I've been doing well in (or so I thought) and for which I had taken the midterm on Monday. Maybe, I thought, I really, truly screwed up on the test??
I was freaking out. I reasoned that it must be a mistake--there was no way I could have done that badly on the midterm. But it was still bothering me. In between classes all day, I have been ducking into computer labs to see if it had been changed because there was an error. In fact, I am sitting in a computer lab right now, having just finished my last class of the day.
I had seriously been thinking about what I was going to do had I actually bombed the midterm. This is a required class for my Gender Studies major. I contemplated dropping it. If it weren't offered next semester, I figured I could just do without the gender studies major and just stick to the sociology. Seriously, these contingency plans were going through my head. It would have ruined my GPA. If I stayed in the class, I was figuring out how to send out transcripts to prospective grad schools before grades were in at the end of this semester, so they would see my current GPA rather than my marred-by-midterm GPA.
So, I stop into the computer lab just now, check my email, and what do I find?
I feel so ridiculously relieved. I am such a dork.
I was freaking out. I reasoned that it must be a mistake--there was no way I could have done that badly on the midterm. But it was still bothering me. In between classes all day, I have been ducking into computer labs to see if it had been changed because there was an error. In fact, I am sitting in a computer lab right now, having just finished my last class of the day.
I had seriously been thinking about what I was going to do had I actually bombed the midterm. This is a required class for my Gender Studies major. I contemplated dropping it. If it weren't offered next semester, I figured I could just do without the gender studies major and just stick to the sociology. Seriously, these contingency plans were going through my head. It would have ruined my GPA. If I stayed in the class, I was figuring out how to send out transcripts to prospective grad schools before grades were in at the end of this semester, so they would see my current GPA rather than my marred-by-midterm GPA.
So, I stop into the computer lab just now, check my email, and what do I find?
Just a warning: I was misinformed about when midterm grades were due. Ithought I had until noon on Friday to enter them, but the actualdeadline was 10 a.m. on Thursday. I could not possibly get all yourexams graded by then, so I have entered a "dummy" grade of B- forEVERYONE enrolled in the class.When you get your examinations back, you will have a more accuratereflection of your grade so far.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Instead of writing a real post, or, you know, working on my paper that's due in the morning...
...I'll give you a quiz.
| You Are Likely a First Born |
 At your darkest moments, you feel guilty. At work and school, you do best when you're researching. When you love someone, you tend to agree with them often. In friendship, you are considerate and compromising. Your ideal careers are: business, research, counseling, promotion, and speaking. You will leave your mark on the world with discoveries, new information, and teaching people to dream. |
Pretty good predictor, I guess!
Anyway, I am now addicted to Rilo Kiley, just so you know. Back to work.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Midterm grades
So, I've gotten two of my midterm grades back so far and I'm happy with them.
I took my final midterm last night. I finished it, turned it in to the professor and walked out of the room. While waiting in the hall for a friend to finish, I happened to look over the test itself, noticing for the very first time that there were bonus questions on the back of the page. Bonus questions that I had not seen and thus had not answered. There were five points there, so I was darn well going to get them if I could. I sheepishly walked back into the room. I got a weird look from the professor and said, "I know I probably can't do it now, but I totally didn't see the back of the page." And--he let me go sit back down and do the bonus questions! I could have gone out in the hall, looked them up, and then gone back in and gotten them right (I was out there for a good five minutes). But, he (and he knew my name! and I never talk in that class! and it's kind of big!) let me do it again. Now I have this guilt that I should actually read for that class and start paying attention and participating. Just 'cause he was so nice.
In other midterm-related news, I got my grade back for one of my classes today. And, there was an error. The last page, where all of my partial credit, etc, was added up showed that I had missed a short answer question. I hadn't. I looked through the test like five times. Now, because of very generous bonus points, I still had over a 100 on the test (101, actually). But, darn it, I wanted those four points! So, I felt like a crappy person, standing in line to have a correction when I wanted to get a 105 instead of a 101, but, it IS four points, you know?
Anyway, I just was working out and am kind of gross, so I'm gonna go take a shower.
Edited to add: I know that last bit sounds a bit annoying... oh no! 101! how tragic! But, seriously... four points... may come in useful later if I don't do so hot on other assignments.
I took my final midterm last night. I finished it, turned it in to the professor and walked out of the room. While waiting in the hall for a friend to finish, I happened to look over the test itself, noticing for the very first time that there were bonus questions on the back of the page. Bonus questions that I had not seen and thus had not answered. There were five points there, so I was darn well going to get them if I could. I sheepishly walked back into the room. I got a weird look from the professor and said, "I know I probably can't do it now, but I totally didn't see the back of the page." And--he let me go sit back down and do the bonus questions! I could have gone out in the hall, looked them up, and then gone back in and gotten them right (I was out there for a good five minutes). But, he (and he knew my name! and I never talk in that class! and it's kind of big!) let me do it again. Now I have this guilt that I should actually read for that class and start paying attention and participating. Just 'cause he was so nice.
In other midterm-related news, I got my grade back for one of my classes today. And, there was an error. The last page, where all of my partial credit, etc, was added up showed that I had missed a short answer question. I hadn't. I looked through the test like five times. Now, because of very generous bonus points, I still had over a 100 on the test (101, actually). But, darn it, I wanted those four points! So, I felt like a crappy person, standing in line to have a correction when I wanted to get a 105 instead of a 101, but, it IS four points, you know?
Anyway, I just was working out and am kind of gross, so I'm gonna go take a shower.
Edited to add: I know that last bit sounds a bit annoying... oh no! 101! how tragic! But, seriously... four points... may come in useful later if I don't do so hot on other assignments.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Reason #1,568 why google is cooler than dry highlighters*
I was looking for an article that is stored in an encyclopedia that one can only get access to through a paid subscription. So--when I googled what I needed, the first result was a page in that online encyclopedia. I click. It tells me to join for access. I click back to my search results and, in my computer illiterate style, wonder what "cached," a link right under the page I need, means**. I click on it. Apparantly google takes snapshots of pages when they crawl the web. And a cache is that snapshot. I have everything I need. I have cheated the system. I feel cool and special. And am now returning to writing my essay***.
*and those are ridiculously cool. Other than that, though, they have no relation to this post whatsoever.
**please do not ruin my illusions by commenting that any idiot would know what a cache is. I feel special in my unique knowledge at the moment, and I'd prefer to leave it that way, thank you very much.
***from which I was procrastinating by writing this post.
*and those are ridiculously cool. Other than that, though, they have no relation to this post whatsoever.
**please do not ruin my illusions by commenting that any idiot would know what a cache is. I feel special in my unique knowledge at the moment, and I'd prefer to leave it that way, thank you very much.
***from which I was procrastinating by writing this post.
Monday, October 03, 2005
So, Roberts ditched the Gilbert & Sullivan stripes.
I'm kind of sad.
In better news: Roy Moore is running for Governor of Alabama, which should provide me with quite enough newstainment.
In better news: Roy Moore is running for Governor of Alabama, which should provide me with quite enough newstainment.
Move over chess people--
UTD, ever the nerdy school, can now boast, in addition to its number 1 ranked chess team, the third best debate team in the country.
Finishing ahead of UTD in the latest rankings were, in order of finish, Missouri State University and the University of Kansas. Rounding out the top 10 were the University of California – Berkeley, Wayne State University, the University of Michigan, the University of Iowa, Emporia State University, Miami University of Ohio and Dartmouth College.
I admit, I like going to a school where our top "sports" are chess and debate, even if I am myself am a pathetic slacker.
Of course, our football team is undefeated...
And, you know, nonexistant. (For now at least.)
But, seriously, congrats debaters! I only know a few of y'all, and even though you're weird, you make me proud(ish) to go to UTD.
Finishing ahead of UTD in the latest rankings were, in order of finish, Missouri State University and the University of Kansas. Rounding out the top 10 were the University of California – Berkeley, Wayne State University, the University of Michigan, the University of Iowa, Emporia State University, Miami University of Ohio and Dartmouth College.
I admit, I like going to a school where our top "sports" are chess and debate, even if I am myself am a pathetic slacker.
Of course, our football team is undefeated...
And, you know, nonexistant. (For now at least.)
But, seriously, congrats debaters! I only know a few of y'all, and even though you're weird, you make me proud(ish) to go to UTD.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Funny Design
Here are two articles you must read about intelligent design. No, they're not deep philosophical treatises about either science or education or evolution or creation. But they're kind of funny. And they make some very good points (well, especially... no.. only the Lithwick one. But you should totally read the other one first.)
"Intelligent Design" by Paul Rudnick, from The New Yorker, 9/26/2005. It's hilarious.
Also, Dahlia Lithwick's "Mind the Gaps" over on Slate.
"Intelligent Design" by Paul Rudnick, from The New Yorker, 9/26/2005. It's hilarious.
Day No. 3:
“Just to make everyone happy,” said the Lord
God, “today I’m thinking oceans, for contrast.”
“It’s wet, it’s deep, yet it’s frothy; it’s design without dogma,” said Buddha, approvingly.
“Now, there’s movement,” agreed Allah. “It’s not just ‘Hi, I’m
a planet—no splashing.’ ”
“But are those ice caps?” inquired Thor. “Is this a coherent vision, or a highball?”
“I can do ice caps if I want to,” sniffed the Lord God.
“It’s about a mood,” said the Angel Moroni, supportively.
“Thank you,” said the Lord God.
Also, Dahlia Lithwick's "Mind the Gaps" over on Slate.
But the critics are missing the beauty of this new theory. Because the really great thing about intelligent design is that it takes all the awkward uncertainty out of science. It says, "You know those damn theoretical gaps and conundrums that send microbiology graduate students into dank basement laboratories at 3 a.m.? They don't need to be resolved at all. Go back to bed, sleepy little grad students. God fills those gaps."
Let's face it: The problem with science has always been that each new discovery unleashes thousands of new questions and ambiguities. So really, the more we discover new stuff, the stupider we get. Clearly, that isn't working. ID says we shouldn't bother ourselves with resolving scientific inconsistencies or untangling puzzles. We should recognize that what God really wants is for us just to stop learning.
I can't sleep.
So I figured I might as well update.
I took my two tests today: one went fine. The second one I'm sure went fine, but I'm concerned about a few things: 1) in the main essay we were given a choice between two readings we had been assigned to apply to a particular framework and I had not really read either of the readings well. But that might be ok, I might have winged it, but I am particularly mortified by, 2) the fact that I think I might have, throughout that essay, referring to the concept of "technical control" as "technological control." Why I would do this, I'm not sure. I'm just as unclear as to if I even did it. I just have this vague sense that I might have and it's freaking me out. I don't think it will count too terribly much against me, if I did. But it will make me seem like a great big idiot, won't it?
Anyway, this will be a busy weekend. I suppose that the group I was going to get together for study with for my Wednesday midterm isn't going to get together. We were going to meet tomorrow. I could be a good person and email everyone and set it up. But, really, studying in groups isn't for me. At least not until I've had a chance to work out the material on my own for a while. Groups are good for discussing things and helping out other people and explaining it (for some reason, explaining an issue makes me understand it a lot better), but as I've not really studied at all, meeting in the morning would be a bad call. Also, given the fact that it's around 4:30 am, meeting in the morning poses other challenges as well.
I need to study for the GRE.
I know I talk about it and make jokes about it and buy books right and left about it. But, now I actually have to, um, use the books.
I also need to clean my room. Quite honestly, it amazes me to behold every semester anew the depths to which my room will sink during midterms and finals weeks. It's truly quite bad. I would take pictures except, 1) I don't have a digital camera, and 2) it would be embarrassing.
In addition to getting loads of reading and planning and studying done this weekend, I have a lot of Thinking to do.
Oh, and I also just started a fascinating new book and finished a fascinating old book. I promise to blog about them later. Indeed, this weekend I have so many things to do that I am sure I will need a nice way to procrastinate later on, and blogging about books seems by far the most appropriate way to go about doing that.
And, in searching for articles about something completely different, I found several interesting looking articles (though I don't know that they would look quite so interesting if I didn't have quite so many other things to do!) that I intend to read this weekend. I will, of course, be blogging anything interesting. As if you cared.
Anyway, I am now starting to feel vaguely sleepy, so I'm gonna head to bed. Sorry for their very unwieldy and rambling post about nothing at all. If you're still reading, I offer my apologies. If you've skipped to the last paragraph, well, you haven't missed much!
I took my two tests today: one went fine. The second one I'm sure went fine, but I'm concerned about a few things: 1) in the main essay we were given a choice between two readings we had been assigned to apply to a particular framework and I had not really read either of the readings well. But that might be ok, I might have winged it, but I am particularly mortified by, 2) the fact that I think I might have, throughout that essay, referring to the concept of "technical control" as "technological control." Why I would do this, I'm not sure. I'm just as unclear as to if I even did it. I just have this vague sense that I might have and it's freaking me out. I don't think it will count too terribly much against me, if I did. But it will make me seem like a great big idiot, won't it?
Anyway, this will be a busy weekend. I suppose that the group I was going to get together for study with for my Wednesday midterm isn't going to get together. We were going to meet tomorrow. I could be a good person and email everyone and set it up. But, really, studying in groups isn't for me. At least not until I've had a chance to work out the material on my own for a while. Groups are good for discussing things and helping out other people and explaining it (for some reason, explaining an issue makes me understand it a lot better), but as I've not really studied at all, meeting in the morning would be a bad call. Also, given the fact that it's around 4:30 am, meeting in the morning poses other challenges as well.
I need to study for the GRE.
I know I talk about it and make jokes about it and buy books right and left about it. But, now I actually have to, um, use the books.
I also need to clean my room. Quite honestly, it amazes me to behold every semester anew the depths to which my room will sink during midterms and finals weeks. It's truly quite bad. I would take pictures except, 1) I don't have a digital camera, and 2) it would be embarrassing.
In addition to getting loads of reading and planning and studying done this weekend, I have a lot of Thinking to do.
Oh, and I also just started a fascinating new book and finished a fascinating old book. I promise to blog about them later. Indeed, this weekend I have so many things to do that I am sure I will need a nice way to procrastinate later on, and blogging about books seems by far the most appropriate way to go about doing that.
And, in searching for articles about something completely different, I found several interesting looking articles (though I don't know that they would look quite so interesting if I didn't have quite so many other things to do!) that I intend to read this weekend. I will, of course, be blogging anything interesting. As if you cared.
Anyway, I am now starting to feel vaguely sleepy, so I'm gonna head to bed. Sorry for their very unwieldy and rambling post about nothing at all. If you're still reading, I offer my apologies. If you've skipped to the last paragraph, well, you haven't missed much!
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Light posting this week
I have two tests on Thursday and though I undoubtedly have very fascinating and important things to say, I will not be saying them. At least not until Thursday night.
Feel free to leave me encouraging messages.
Feel free to leave me encouraging messages.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Why I am a generally useless person:
I have nothing whatsoever that could, by anyone, be construed as mildly interesting to say. I am still feeling sickish, I have to read for my class tonight, I will probably read spark-notes rather than the actual text, I have to read for classes tomorrow, I can't bring myself to do any sort of homework until I clean my room, and although I have a low tolerance for mess, I generally dislike cleaning, I have to study for two tests on Thursday, I have to study for the GRE, and I have to seriously start thinking about graduate schools.
And all of the above is why I suck and am useless. Alas. I need some motivation. And some advil.
And all of the above is why I suck and am useless. Alas. I need some motivation. And some advil.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Is Little Women a Feminist Novel?
Whether Alcott’s LW is a feminist novel depends on many things: namely, how one defines “feminist” and how one reads the book. I believe that LW is a feminist book, and I am defining feminist as a book that values the experiences of women and empowers women to see beyond socially prescribed gender roles and empowers them to be creative and take control of not only the text but also their lives.
Certainly one could do a reading of this book and see that it enforces separate spheres gender roles, that Jo may be a tomboy when she is younger but that she gradually grows into the “Mother Baher” role at the end, taming her wildness and her anger. Mr. March praises Meg for her “housewifely skills,” and Amy learns not to be selfish or vain. But Beth, who seems to embody the ideals of separate spheres, a true “angel in the house” who had no greater ambition than to stay at home and keep house, dies from what Barbara Sicherman calls a “failure of imagination.” The Castles in the Air chapter shows that the girls have creative dreams and ambitions, even though they don’t really achieve them in the end.
But the thing about the ending is that it’s so easy to ignore, and, indeed, that’s what many women have done. In the end, Jo gets married and gives up her writing (because Prof. Baher disapproves) to serve as a mother to not only her own children but to other peoples’ as well. Sicherman says that because the ending seems so forced and artificial that LW has become a “problem text” that women keep coming back to, and, in some cases, like Simone de Beauvoir, exercising their own creativity, letting our their inner Jo March, and rewriting the text. Though the ending conforms to social expectations for women at that time, we can see through the text the ways in which those expectations are resisted, especially by Jo, who not only wrote stories that she wanted to, but got paid for it! M. Carey Thomas, as well as de Beauvoir, imagined themselves in the role of Jo, they saw themselves and their ambitions to create and write in her and used Alcott’s text as an inspiration.
Another way in which LW can be considered a feminist novel is the way in which it values the experiences of women. At the time, under a doctrine of separate spheres, women were in the home, and the truly important stuff was what went on in the public world. Notably missing from the text of LW are references to the outside world. Events such as the Civil War are only relevant to the extent that they intrude upon the private world (i.e. Mr. March being away at war).
The experiences of the family and of private life are most important. Bonds between women are valued. Most of the men in these novels served a plot function rather than a character function. Mr. Brooke forces Meg to deal with her materialism, Mr. Laurence helps Beth to overcome her shyness; in short, the men are there to help the women on their quest for moral development. Laurie is the only truly developed male character, but that makes sense within this framework, because he’s essentially an honorary March girl. He even has a girl’s name. He participates in the Pickwick society and promises to play by the girls’ rules.
LW also shows that being a good woman isn’t all sitting around the house, being nice, and looking pretty. It takes work. She shows us Meg’s experiences making the jelly and struggling with balancing being a good mother as well as a good wife. Alcott also dispels the notion that women are somehow just naturally better than men, naturally more moral, sweeter, kinder, etc. She shows us that not only does Jo have to deal with her anger but Marmee, who has been set up almost as this paragon of virtue who is looked up to by all her girls, struggles with anger every day of her life.
In the end, when all the girls are married off and have families of their own (except Beth, being dead and all), they come back and Marmee reminds them that their bond, the mother daughter bond, the sisterly bond, was what’s most important in life. Important stuff may be going on in the outside world, but, ultimately, it’s the relationships that matter. So, it seems that Alcott does endorse the idea of separate spheres in LW, but somewhat radically suggests that the private sphere is more important than the public one.
So, in the end, while LW does have this overt endorsement of separate spheres ideology and can be read as a set of instructions on how to become a good woman, it can also be read as valuing women’s relationships and experiences in a way that they usually weren’t valued or appreciated. Though (and kind of because) it has a problematic ending, women have been able to disregard the fact that Jo eventually is tamed and see themselves in Jo, to be able to aspire to write, to achieve, to be successful. I do believe that LW is a feminist novel precisely because it allows the readers to interact with the text and empower themselves, as Thomas and De Beauvoir did.
Certainly one could do a reading of this book and see that it enforces separate spheres gender roles, that Jo may be a tomboy when she is younger but that she gradually grows into the “Mother Baher” role at the end, taming her wildness and her anger. Mr. March praises Meg for her “housewifely skills,” and Amy learns not to be selfish or vain. But Beth, who seems to embody the ideals of separate spheres, a true “angel in the house” who had no greater ambition than to stay at home and keep house, dies from what Barbara Sicherman calls a “failure of imagination.” The Castles in the Air chapter shows that the girls have creative dreams and ambitions, even though they don’t really achieve them in the end.
But the thing about the ending is that it’s so easy to ignore, and, indeed, that’s what many women have done. In the end, Jo gets married and gives up her writing (because Prof. Baher disapproves) to serve as a mother to not only her own children but to other peoples’ as well. Sicherman says that because the ending seems so forced and artificial that LW has become a “problem text” that women keep coming back to, and, in some cases, like Simone de Beauvoir, exercising their own creativity, letting our their inner Jo March, and rewriting the text. Though the ending conforms to social expectations for women at that time, we can see through the text the ways in which those expectations are resisted, especially by Jo, who not only wrote stories that she wanted to, but got paid for it! M. Carey Thomas, as well as de Beauvoir, imagined themselves in the role of Jo, they saw themselves and their ambitions to create and write in her and used Alcott’s text as an inspiration.
Another way in which LW can be considered a feminist novel is the way in which it values the experiences of women. At the time, under a doctrine of separate spheres, women were in the home, and the truly important stuff was what went on in the public world. Notably missing from the text of LW are references to the outside world. Events such as the Civil War are only relevant to the extent that they intrude upon the private world (i.e. Mr. March being away at war).
The experiences of the family and of private life are most important. Bonds between women are valued. Most of the men in these novels served a plot function rather than a character function. Mr. Brooke forces Meg to deal with her materialism, Mr. Laurence helps Beth to overcome her shyness; in short, the men are there to help the women on their quest for moral development. Laurie is the only truly developed male character, but that makes sense within this framework, because he’s essentially an honorary March girl. He even has a girl’s name. He participates in the Pickwick society and promises to play by the girls’ rules.
LW also shows that being a good woman isn’t all sitting around the house, being nice, and looking pretty. It takes work. She shows us Meg’s experiences making the jelly and struggling with balancing being a good mother as well as a good wife. Alcott also dispels the notion that women are somehow just naturally better than men, naturally more moral, sweeter, kinder, etc. She shows us that not only does Jo have to deal with her anger but Marmee, who has been set up almost as this paragon of virtue who is looked up to by all her girls, struggles with anger every day of her life.
In the end, when all the girls are married off and have families of their own (except Beth, being dead and all), they come back and Marmee reminds them that their bond, the mother daughter bond, the sisterly bond, was what’s most important in life. Important stuff may be going on in the outside world, but, ultimately, it’s the relationships that matter. So, it seems that Alcott does endorse the idea of separate spheres in LW, but somewhat radically suggests that the private sphere is more important than the public one.
So, in the end, while LW does have this overt endorsement of separate spheres ideology and can be read as a set of instructions on how to become a good woman, it can also be read as valuing women’s relationships and experiences in a way that they usually weren’t valued or appreciated. Though (and kind of because) it has a problematic ending, women have been able to disregard the fact that Jo eventually is tamed and see themselves in Jo, to be able to aspire to write, to achieve, to be successful. I do believe that LW is a feminist novel precisely because it allows the readers to interact with the text and empower themselves, as Thomas and De Beauvoir did.
Why I love Jason's family:
"Mom threw me out of the house earlier...then told me not to go because I couldn't take the car." --Jason, just now, in an IM conversation
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
On Writer's Shame (Or: Why Smaller Classes are Better)
I am never happy with the sorts of papers and essays I turn in in classes. I always know that I can do better. But one thing that's interesting over the past year or so is the degree to which that shame has spurred me on to do better. See, my freshman and sophomore years, I knew that my writing was crap, and it upset me, but I didn't feel any personal attachment to it. I was in big classes, I never spoke up, professors never knew my name. In short, a teacher may read my crappy work, give it a grade, give it back, and never think, "Oh, that's Jennifer Bridges's essay" because they simply would never associate the name "Jennifer Bridges" with anything other than a name on a roster.
Maybe it's the same now, but I like to think not. I regularly participate in classes and all of my teachers know my name. Plus, my classes are alot smaller. All of this has been something that has happened in the past year. And the thing that I've noticed coming along with this is this deeper sense of shame about my writing. Honestly, I don't think my writing is terrible. I mean, I get good grades on it. I just have this niggling feeling that if I spent more time on it, it could be so much better.
Now that my teachers know who I am, I feel a greater responsibility not to turn in utter crap. I feel like my work will be more associated with me rather than just a grade to type into the computer. Maybe I'm wrong and teachers, even if they know your name, really don't care and don't think about who's writing what.
Either way, I've said all this to say that I have a stupid little essay that I have to write. I can sit down and get it done with quickly. It won't be very good, but it will meet all the requirements. But I just can't bear the idea of a teacher reading it and thinking, "that's Jennifer's work." But, darn it, I'm just so lazy.
Maybe it's the same now, but I like to think not. I regularly participate in classes and all of my teachers know my name. Plus, my classes are alot smaller. All of this has been something that has happened in the past year. And the thing that I've noticed coming along with this is this deeper sense of shame about my writing. Honestly, I don't think my writing is terrible. I mean, I get good grades on it. I just have this niggling feeling that if I spent more time on it, it could be so much better.
Now that my teachers know who I am, I feel a greater responsibility not to turn in utter crap. I feel like my work will be more associated with me rather than just a grade to type into the computer. Maybe I'm wrong and teachers, even if they know your name, really don't care and don't think about who's writing what.
Either way, I've said all this to say that I have a stupid little essay that I have to write. I can sit down and get it done with quickly. It won't be very good, but it will meet all the requirements. But I just can't bear the idea of a teacher reading it and thinking, "that's Jennifer's work." But, darn it, I'm just so lazy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)