Rachel Miles
Jeannina Perez
WST 3015 (Introduction to Women’s Studies)
28 March 2010
Activism
My involvement was interrupted again this week, this time by a severe family emergency that had me heading back home almost every night after my classes let out. As such, I wasn’t able to attend tabling. I’m hoping this clears up by next week, but I’ll have to see; if it doesn’t, I’ll be emailing Rebecca, our community partner, to see if she has any alternative ways I can get involved. I did collect a few more signatures, this time by passing the petition around my anthropology class. My professor was, again, very supportive, but the reception from the class seemed a bit more stilted. It wasn’t nearly as bolstering an experience as soliciting my creative writing class for support was, but I suppose that’s par for the course in activism—some you win and some you lose.
Reflection
My favorite reading from this week was the collection of excerpts from Riverbend’s Baghdad Burning blog. The article and blog entries comprising it provided a fascinating look at an alternative perspective on the war in Iraq, particularly regarding actual versus perceived needs and responses of the Iraqi population. Contrary to popular U.S. belief, Iraq had modern amenities, utilities, and cultural attributes. Most surprising to me was the realization that “females in Iraq were a lot better off than females in other parts of the Arab word (and some parts of the Western world . . .)” (Riverbend 527)—a statement which directly contradicted the image I have always been presented with of Iraqi and general Middle Eastern women as the most severely oppressed and limited in the world. Connected to our project, this realization that presented perceptions of culture/identity are not always accurate is a bit sobering. It’s great to be able to say that my efforts are helping benefit an oppressed community, or that I have a personal connection to that community through a family member, or that I’ve done research on key issues, sure. But the simple, undeniable fact is that I will never understand what it means to be transgendered, which means that I will never fully understand if my actions are actually helping or hurting. I can immerse myself in the culture of the community (which would be so much more involved than what I’m doing now), but without being transgendered and experiencing things as a transgendered individual, I will always, to an extent, be an outsider incapable of completely understanding the situation.
Reciprocity
Again, I’m disappointed that I didn’t get a chance to table this week, although I’m still a bit more concerned about the situation at home. In all, this has been a fairly stressful week for me; the less-than-warm reception I got in my anthropology class didn’t help much, and it has all dampened my spirits about this project and life in general. Better luck next week, I hope.
Works Cited
Riverbend. “Baghdad Burning: Girl Blog from Iraq.” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 525-530. Print.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Activism Log V
*Note: Spring break week skipped!*
Rachel Miles
Jeannina Perez
WST 3015 (Introduction to Women’s Studies)
21 March 2010
Activism
Tabling was canceled this week because of Equal’s participation at a rally in Tallahassee. It was disappointing, but it also left me more time to collect signatures on my own. I actually spoke about the initiative in my creative writing class. My professor was extremely supportive of the project and allowed me about ten minutes at the end of class to explain it, the reasons/need for it, and to pass around a petition sheet. Not everyone signed, which I expected, but I was not met with any open hostility; in a nice turn of events, everyone seemed generally interested and receptive to the idea, even if it wasn’t something they ended up wanting to support.
Reflection
This week’s readings and class discussion covered a wide range of material, but as best I can summarize, they tended to focus on feminist conceptions of family and defining lifestyles. The article that struck me as most interesting was Ettelbrick’s “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” In it, Ettelbrick discusses her rejection of the gay marriage equality movement. For her, obtaining equal marriage rights would only perpetuate other systems of privilege, such as race, class, religion, etc. It would also do nothing to address underlying social heteronormativity; instead of celebrating the differences inherent in queer lifestyles and challenging perceptions of heternormativity, Ettelbrick feels gay marriage would only increase the presence and power of heteronormativity by forcing queer couples to “end up mimicking all that is bad about the institution of marriage in [their] effort[s] to appear to be the same as straight couples” (318), and as such worthy of the same privilege. Ettelbrick presents here another complication of passing, which is an issue facing much of the LGBT community, but particularly the transgendered population. Because society so viciously stigmatizes transgenderism, the temptation is strong to pass for cisgendered and gain social acceptance. But as Ettelbrick discusses, the cost of this social acceptance is, like in all cases of passing, a loss of identity and fundamental connection to a supportive community. Ultimately, is it worth forgoing support and total acceptance to be tolerated in spite of your differences, rather than acceptance because of them?
Reciprocity
I was definitely disappointed in the lack of tabling this week, but I do feel that the success in speaking to my class about the project has helped boost my esteem regarding my fears of soliciting support for this cause. It showed me that people may easily prove more accepting than I had initially assumed going into this project, which alleviates my stresses about tabling a bit.
Works Cited
Ettelbrick, Paula. “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 317-320. Print.
Rachel Miles
Jeannina Perez
WST 3015 (Introduction to Women’s Studies)
21 March 2010
Activism
Tabling was canceled this week because of Equal’s participation at a rally in Tallahassee. It was disappointing, but it also left me more time to collect signatures on my own. I actually spoke about the initiative in my creative writing class. My professor was extremely supportive of the project and allowed me about ten minutes at the end of class to explain it, the reasons/need for it, and to pass around a petition sheet. Not everyone signed, which I expected, but I was not met with any open hostility; in a nice turn of events, everyone seemed generally interested and receptive to the idea, even if it wasn’t something they ended up wanting to support.
Reflection
This week’s readings and class discussion covered a wide range of material, but as best I can summarize, they tended to focus on feminist conceptions of family and defining lifestyles. The article that struck me as most interesting was Ettelbrick’s “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” In it, Ettelbrick discusses her rejection of the gay marriage equality movement. For her, obtaining equal marriage rights would only perpetuate other systems of privilege, such as race, class, religion, etc. It would also do nothing to address underlying social heteronormativity; instead of celebrating the differences inherent in queer lifestyles and challenging perceptions of heternormativity, Ettelbrick feels gay marriage would only increase the presence and power of heteronormativity by forcing queer couples to “end up mimicking all that is bad about the institution of marriage in [their] effort[s] to appear to be the same as straight couples” (318), and as such worthy of the same privilege. Ettelbrick presents here another complication of passing, which is an issue facing much of the LGBT community, but particularly the transgendered population. Because society so viciously stigmatizes transgenderism, the temptation is strong to pass for cisgendered and gain social acceptance. But as Ettelbrick discusses, the cost of this social acceptance is, like in all cases of passing, a loss of identity and fundamental connection to a supportive community. Ultimately, is it worth forgoing support and total acceptance to be tolerated in spite of your differences, rather than acceptance because of them?
Reciprocity
I was definitely disappointed in the lack of tabling this week, but I do feel that the success in speaking to my class about the project has helped boost my esteem regarding my fears of soliciting support for this cause. It showed me that people may easily prove more accepting than I had initially assumed going into this project, which alleviates my stresses about tabling a bit.
Works Cited
Ettelbrick, Paula. “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 317-320. Print.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
If the Aptly-Given Episode Title Fits . . .
Rachel Miles
Jeannina Perez
WST 3015 (Introduction to Women’s Studies)
17 March 2010
If the Aptly-Given Episode Title Fits . . .
The pilot episode of Brothers and Sisters (named, ironically enough, “Patriarchy”) introduces us to the Walker family, a large, hectic group consisting of Mom, Dad, and five siblings. Although I don’t regularly watch the show, I have heard of it, mostly because of the notice it has received for the storylines surrounding Kevin, an openly gay member of the Walker family, and his developing relationship with eventual-husband Scotty. This episode, however, focuses on Kitty, the second-eldest Walker child, so this discussion will follow suit.
Kitty begins the episode in New York City, where she lives estranged by merit of distance from the rest of her Los Angeles-based family. She returns to LA primarily for work concerns; already a successful politically-conservative radio pundit, she is currently investigating a position as the Republican speaker on a late-night political television show. Her trip also includes visiting her family to celebrate her birthday. With the rest of the family involved in their own drama, Kitty’s major conflicts for the episode are her indecision about the job offer and her fear of confrontation with her mother, who is far more of a political liberal than she. The latter conflict resolves fairly positively. Kitty and Nora do argue in one scene, but for most of the episode, their issues are kept under wraps. While there is certainly noticeable tension between them, Kitty still receives reassurance that her worries of being rejected by her mother are unfounded: Nora admits that they “will probably always violently disagree,” but also that “[she] [has] never stopped loving” (“Patriarchy”) her daughter.
Though both conflicts have compelling points of analysis, I found the issues surrounding the job offer a bit more interesting, largely because they incorporate several aspects of the stress Kitty faces. Her Republican politics are the butt of many of her family’s jokes and what she perceives as a barrier between them; the job would require her to relocate to LA, forcing her to relinquish the independence-by-distance she has acquired since moving away from her family; and her boyfriend Jonathon pressures her to turn down what they both know is a highly strategic career move in favor of marrying and staying in New York with him. For Kitty, this job offers her the chance to advance her politics and reconnect on some level with her family, but potentially at the expense of the family she could have with Jonathon. Her situation is not uncommon among career-focused women, who often follow “the ‘be a man’ strategy;” they “finish school, find a job, acquire skills, develop seniority, get tenure, make partner, and put children off until the very last minute” (Crittenden 342). The problem with Kitty’s situation, and with that of the general career-focused woman, is, as Crittenden discusses, the assumption that parenthood is primarily the woman’s responsibility, even at the expense of her salary and career. Jonathon’s proposal exemplifies this. He offers her what is essentially an ultimatum: Kitty can either take this job and advance her career, or she can remain stagnant at work, marry him, and start a family, which no doubt will later become her responsibility to sacrifice for and raise. The consequences of not taking the job, then, seem ludicrously restrictive for someone so driven and career-focused as Kitty.
In some lights, however, the consequences of taking the job are just as restrictive. It is clear that Kitty has worked to gain independence outside of her family, probably because her political views differ so much from theirs. While she shows some regret about the distance this has created between her and her siblings, she also seems attached to the idea of remaining independent from them, which moving back to LA would hinder by sheer proximity. Taking the television job would certainly advance her career and identity as an empowered, political woman, but it could simultaneously pull her firmly back into a family defined by its relational identities to each other. She would be a career woman, yes, but also a sister and a daughter, with those roles prioritized by the sense of obligation that would likely develop from reconnecting with the rest of the Walkers. Even as the move would protect her from sacrificing her career for the relational identities of Jonathon’s wife and their children’s mother, it could easily force her, again, into another, different set of care-focused, “nonthreatening and disempowering roles . . . in society” (Seely 100) she has already worked to escape. Ultimately, Kitty makes no decision by the episode’s end and the conflict goes unresolved, leaving us with a clear sense of how difficult it is for a woman to not only choose between her family and her career in a society structured to offer her no other options, but also for her to maintain her own independent identity when our understanding of women inherently connects them to the roles they fill for someone else.
Works Cited
Crittenden, Ann. “The Mommy Tax (2001).” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 337-345. Print.
“Patriarchy.” Brothers and Sisters. ABC. 24 Sept. 2006. Web.
Seely, Megan. Fight Like a Girl. New York: New York University Press, 2007. Print.
Jeannina Perez
WST 3015 (Introduction to Women’s Studies)
17 March 2010
The pilot episode of Brothers and Sisters (named, ironically enough, “Patriarchy”) introduces us to the Walker family, a large, hectic group consisting of Mom, Dad, and five siblings. Although I don’t regularly watch the show, I have heard of it, mostly because of the notice it has received for the storylines surrounding Kevin, an openly gay member of the Walker family, and his developing relationship with eventual-husband Scotty. This episode, however, focuses on Kitty, the second-eldest Walker child, so this discussion will follow suit.
Kitty begins the episode in New York City, where she lives estranged by merit of distance from the rest of her Los Angeles-based family. She returns to LA primarily for work concerns; already a successful politically-conservative radio pundit, she is currently investigating a position as the Republican speaker on a late-night political television show. Her trip also includes visiting her family to celebrate her birthday. With the rest of the family involved in their own drama, Kitty’s major conflicts for the episode are her indecision about the job offer and her fear of confrontation with her mother, who is far more of a political liberal than she. The latter conflict resolves fairly positively. Kitty and Nora do argue in one scene, but for most of the episode, their issues are kept under wraps. While there is certainly noticeable tension between them, Kitty still receives reassurance that her worries of being rejected by her mother are unfounded: Nora admits that they “will probably always violently disagree,” but also that “[she] [has] never stopped loving” (“Patriarchy”) her daughter.
Though both conflicts have compelling points of analysis, I found the issues surrounding the job offer a bit more interesting, largely because they incorporate several aspects of the stress Kitty faces. Her Republican politics are the butt of many of her family’s jokes and what she perceives as a barrier between them; the job would require her to relocate to LA, forcing her to relinquish the independence-by-distance she has acquired since moving away from her family; and her boyfriend Jonathon pressures her to turn down what they both know is a highly strategic career move in favor of marrying and staying in New York with him. For Kitty, this job offers her the chance to advance her politics and reconnect on some level with her family, but potentially at the expense of the family she could have with Jonathon. Her situation is not uncommon among career-focused women, who often follow “the ‘be a man’ strategy;” they “finish school, find a job, acquire skills, develop seniority, get tenure, make partner, and put children off until the very last minute” (Crittenden 342). The problem with Kitty’s situation, and with that of the general career-focused woman, is, as Crittenden discusses, the assumption that parenthood is primarily the woman’s responsibility, even at the expense of her salary and career. Jonathon’s proposal exemplifies this. He offers her what is essentially an ultimatum: Kitty can either take this job and advance her career, or she can remain stagnant at work, marry him, and start a family, which no doubt will later become her responsibility to sacrifice for and raise. The consequences of not taking the job, then, seem ludicrously restrictive for someone so driven and career-focused as Kitty.
In some lights, however, the consequences of taking the job are just as restrictive. It is clear that Kitty has worked to gain independence outside of her family, probably because her political views differ so much from theirs. While she shows some regret about the distance this has created between her and her siblings, she also seems attached to the idea of remaining independent from them, which moving back to LA would hinder by sheer proximity. Taking the television job would certainly advance her career and identity as an empowered, political woman, but it could simultaneously pull her firmly back into a family defined by its relational identities to each other. She would be a career woman, yes, but also a sister and a daughter, with those roles prioritized by the sense of obligation that would likely develop from reconnecting with the rest of the Walkers. Even as the move would protect her from sacrificing her career for the relational identities of Jonathon’s wife and their children’s mother, it could easily force her, again, into another, different set of care-focused, “nonthreatening and disempowering roles . . . in society” (Seely 100) she has already worked to escape. Ultimately, Kitty makes no decision by the episode’s end and the conflict goes unresolved, leaving us with a clear sense of how difficult it is for a woman to not only choose between her family and her career in a society structured to offer her no other options, but also for her to maintain her own independent identity when our understanding of women inherently connects them to the roles they fill for someone else.
Works Cited
Crittenden, Ann. “The Mommy Tax (2001).” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 337-345. Print.
“Patriarchy.” Brothers and Sisters. ABC. 24 Sept. 2006. Web.
Seely, Megan. Fight Like a Girl. New York: New York University Press, 2007. Print.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Alright, Alright, Alright: Violence in "The Rake's Song"
Rachel Miles
Jeannina Perez
WST 3015 (Introduction to Women’s Studies)
8 March 2010
Alright, Alright, Alright: Violence in “The Rake’s Song”
The Decemberists’ “The Rake’s Song” describes the extreme violence a man commits to escape the perceived limitations of married and parental life. Shortly after marrying at age 21, the song’s protagonist finds himself father to three children—a boy, Isaiah, and two girls, Charlotte and Dawn—each one considered more of an unfortunate, unwanted burden than the last. But with his wife’s death in labor for their stillborn fourth child, he finds his chance for escape. He systematically poisons, drowns, and beats to death his other three children, leaving him free physically and emotionally to resume his previous bachelor lifestyle.
Personally, I am still a bit unsure about the point of the violence in the song. On one hand, it presents violence as excusable within the confines of the narrator’s perspective, which is certainly an issue. For the narrator, his marriage is a means to an end. He signs on for readily-available sex, not for children and the responsibilities of a family. In his understanding, the children “her womb [starts] spilling out” (The Decemberists) are his wife’s burden, completely detached from him by his lack of desire for them. This understanding of women and children connects the protagonist’s later violence to the “general pattern of violence between the powerful and the powerless” (Kirk and Okazawa-Rey 267): as a man in a patriarchal society, the narrator’s freedom and power before marriage were seemingly unchecked; even after marriage, and furthered by his alienation of himself within his undesired family, his power remains greater than that held by his wife and children. Killing his children, then, is simply him exercising his greater power over people he views as disposable. Because he associates his children entirely with his wife, her death, for him, removes all reason for their existence; they are now entirely unwanted, and as such, his disposing of them to reclaim his freedom and identity as a bachelor is acceptable. As we are given no other insight into the story, it is expected that we, too, will understand his reasoning and excuse his violent actions as a man’s rightful struggle to regain his autonomy.
Obviously, this presentation of violence is problematic. But are there grounds for viewing “The Rake’s Song” as a statement against domestic violence? In some sense, yes. By presenting us with only the protagonist’s reasoning behind his actions, the song pressures us to accept the story and the violence within it. However, doing so also raises the question of why we feel so compelled to easily accept and excuse violence when we are confronted with it. Are there larger systems and influences at work convincing us to sweep things under the rug and move on? The lyrics hint at addressing such larger systems, particularly patriarchy, in their reduction of women to wives and wombs, even as they idealize men and the concepts of masculine freedom and independence. Unfortunately, they never seem to go beyond hinting at it as something pervasive and dangerous to all of society. The patriarchal mindset is here ascribed to a self-identified rake, or “dissolute man in fashionable society” (“Rake”), furthering the perception that such an attitude is an individual problem, not a systemic one. So while it neatly raises the question of why “we make excuses for male temper,” the song’s presentation of male temper and resulting violence as being the anomalous traits of bad-apple individuals ultimately distracts us from the larger issue that these are, in actuality, things we “as a culture” (Seely 200) create.
Works Cited
Kirk, Gwyn, and Margo Okazawa-Rey. “Violence Against Women.” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 257-272. Print
“Rake.” Princeton WordNet 3.0. Princeton University, 2006. Web. 8 Mar. 2010..
Seely, Megan. Fight Like a Girl. New York: New York University Press, 2007. Print.
The Decemberists. “The Rake's Song.” The Hazards of Love. Capitol Records, 2008. Web. 8 Mar. 2010.
Jeannina Perez
WST 3015 (Introduction to Women’s Studies)
8 March 2010
The Decemberists’ “The Rake’s Song” describes the extreme violence a man commits to escape the perceived limitations of married and parental life. Shortly after marrying at age 21, the song’s protagonist finds himself father to three children—a boy, Isaiah, and two girls, Charlotte and Dawn—each one considered more of an unfortunate, unwanted burden than the last. But with his wife’s death in labor for their stillborn fourth child, he finds his chance for escape. He systematically poisons, drowns, and beats to death his other three children, leaving him free physically and emotionally to resume his previous bachelor lifestyle.
Personally, I am still a bit unsure about the point of the violence in the song. On one hand, it presents violence as excusable within the confines of the narrator’s perspective, which is certainly an issue. For the narrator, his marriage is a means to an end. He signs on for readily-available sex, not for children and the responsibilities of a family. In his understanding, the children “her womb [starts] spilling out” (The Decemberists) are his wife’s burden, completely detached from him by his lack of desire for them. This understanding of women and children connects the protagonist’s later violence to the “general pattern of violence between the powerful and the powerless” (Kirk and Okazawa-Rey 267): as a man in a patriarchal society, the narrator’s freedom and power before marriage were seemingly unchecked; even after marriage, and furthered by his alienation of himself within his undesired family, his power remains greater than that held by his wife and children. Killing his children, then, is simply him exercising his greater power over people he views as disposable. Because he associates his children entirely with his wife, her death, for him, removes all reason for their existence; they are now entirely unwanted, and as such, his disposing of them to reclaim his freedom and identity as a bachelor is acceptable. As we are given no other insight into the story, it is expected that we, too, will understand his reasoning and excuse his violent actions as a man’s rightful struggle to regain his autonomy.
Obviously, this presentation of violence is problematic. But are there grounds for viewing “The Rake’s Song” as a statement against domestic violence? In some sense, yes. By presenting us with only the protagonist’s reasoning behind his actions, the song pressures us to accept the story and the violence within it. However, doing so also raises the question of why we feel so compelled to easily accept and excuse violence when we are confronted with it. Are there larger systems and influences at work convincing us to sweep things under the rug and move on? The lyrics hint at addressing such larger systems, particularly patriarchy, in their reduction of women to wives and wombs, even as they idealize men and the concepts of masculine freedom and independence. Unfortunately, they never seem to go beyond hinting at it as something pervasive and dangerous to all of society. The patriarchal mindset is here ascribed to a self-identified rake, or “dissolute man in fashionable society” (“Rake”), furthering the perception that such an attitude is an individual problem, not a systemic one. So while it neatly raises the question of why “we make excuses for male temper,” the song’s presentation of male temper and resulting violence as being the anomalous traits of bad-apple individuals ultimately distracts us from the larger issue that these are, in actuality, things we “as a culture” (Seely 200) create.
Works Cited
Kirk, Gwyn, and Margo Okazawa-Rey. “Violence Against Women.” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 257-272. Print
“Rake.” Princeton WordNet 3.0. Princeton University, 2006. Web. 8 Mar. 2010.
Seely, Megan. Fight Like a Girl. New York: New York University Press, 2007. Print.
The Decemberists. “The Rake's Song.” The Hazards of Love. Capitol Records, 2008. Web. 8 Mar. 2010.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Activism Log IV
Rachel Miles
Jeannina Perez
WST 3015 (Introduction to Women’s Studies)
7 March 2010
Activism
Tabling started this week. I had planned to go, but migraines and unexpected group meetings kept me busy. I did get a copy of the petition sheets, and I have already collected a few signatures from friends.
Reflection
This week continued our discussions and readings on violence against women. I also did my discussion-leading this week on Morales’ article “Radical Pleasure: Sex and the End of Victimhood.” It took me a read-through or two to completely understand what she was discussing, but once I got it, I really enjoyed it. She raised an interesting point with the victim-survivor trap that I, for one, hadn’t considered before reading her article. It’s true that “victim” and “survivor” are both social categories, and as such come with sets of rules for those individuals and the people who interact with them to follow that allow the trauma experienced to be adequately recognized. Those rules are, as Morales describes, incredibly limiting, largely because they inhibit people from making any real progress toward reclaiming themselves and identities separate from and not defined by the trauma they have experienced. In some way, I think the rules aspect holds true for activism, as well. It seems to me that activists come in two types: optimistic but naïve and jaded but determined. In any case, people have some idea of what to expect from activists, and activists have rules to follow if they want their movements to receive social recognition as even semi-legitimate. Unfortunately, playing by those rules often means playing roles that turn people off of your efforts. I see this a lot outside Student Union: people promoting a cause are ignored by other people walking by who just want to get to class. It’s incredibly frustrating because it limits both the public’s chance to participate in activism and activism’s chance to fulfill its goals and incite change. I really hope our project can overcome this obstacle.
Reciprocity
Although I didn’t go to tabling this week, I heard it went well. I collected some signatures on my own, and I was very pleased with the support my friends have shown for my involvement in this project. I know I’ll need to do tabling coming back from spring break, but to be honest, I’m not entirely looking forward to it. Public speaking and attention-grabbing have never been my strongsuits, so I know I’ll be nervous the whole time I’m out there. Still, this project is designed to push the limits of my comfort zones, so we’ll see how it goes.
Works Referenced
Morales, Aurora Levins. “Radical Pleasure: Sex and the End of Victimhood.” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 283-284. Print.
Jeannina Perez
WST 3015 (Introduction to Women’s Studies)
7 March 2010
Activism
Tabling started this week. I had planned to go, but migraines and unexpected group meetings kept me busy. I did get a copy of the petition sheets, and I have already collected a few signatures from friends.
Reflection
This week continued our discussions and readings on violence against women. I also did my discussion-leading this week on Morales’ article “Radical Pleasure: Sex and the End of Victimhood.” It took me a read-through or two to completely understand what she was discussing, but once I got it, I really enjoyed it. She raised an interesting point with the victim-survivor trap that I, for one, hadn’t considered before reading her article. It’s true that “victim” and “survivor” are both social categories, and as such come with sets of rules for those individuals and the people who interact with them to follow that allow the trauma experienced to be adequately recognized. Those rules are, as Morales describes, incredibly limiting, largely because they inhibit people from making any real progress toward reclaiming themselves and identities separate from and not defined by the trauma they have experienced. In some way, I think the rules aspect holds true for activism, as well. It seems to me that activists come in two types: optimistic but naïve and jaded but determined. In any case, people have some idea of what to expect from activists, and activists have rules to follow if they want their movements to receive social recognition as even semi-legitimate. Unfortunately, playing by those rules often means playing roles that turn people off of your efforts. I see this a lot outside Student Union: people promoting a cause are ignored by other people walking by who just want to get to class. It’s incredibly frustrating because it limits both the public’s chance to participate in activism and activism’s chance to fulfill its goals and incite change. I really hope our project can overcome this obstacle.
Reciprocity
Although I didn’t go to tabling this week, I heard it went well. I collected some signatures on my own, and I was very pleased with the support my friends have shown for my involvement in this project. I know I’ll need to do tabling coming back from spring break, but to be honest, I’m not entirely looking forward to it. Public speaking and attention-grabbing have never been my strongsuits, so I know I’ll be nervous the whole time I’m out there. Still, this project is designed to push the limits of my comfort zones, so we’ll see how it goes.
Works Referenced
Morales, Aurora Levins. “Radical Pleasure: Sex and the End of Victimhood.” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 283-284. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
