I'm reviving this shit, whether y'all like it or not.
First, I'd like to point out that Burney's Evelina shows up with considerable frequency on 18th century syllabi. I'm considering proposing a syllabus about 18th century "feminists"...should this be on my syllabus?
Second, I'm drunk.
Third, would it be bad if I assigned The Age of Wonder (which has been scathingly reviewed on this site) in a class on religion/literature/secularism in the 18th century?
Fourth: see #2.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Adventures in Heterosexual Privilege
As a feminist woman, I'm quite aware of the workings and consequences of male privilege. It's easier, however, to note privilege when you're not a member of the group being privileged.
Last year, I took a job working in the field of Women's and Gender studies. I knew this meant that when the inevitable "so what do you do for a living" conversation appeared, I would be judged accordingly, many people being heartily discomfited by us vicious, humorless feminists. (And I can't tell you how many times I've gotten "but you don't seem like a feminist." You mean I don't seem like the false construction of a feminist, friends, because Rush Limbaugh's hate speech isn't a true definition of what feminists are, or believe. I need one of those 'this is what a feminist looks like' t-shirts...) I was less aware, however, about another way in which people would judge me. A story:
I was out with some friends, and one of these friends was telling an older woman of her acquaintance that I'd just gotten a new job in Women's and Gender studies. The older woman congratulated me, and then began that favorite past time women are compelled to participate in: body snarking. She was complaining about how old and ugly she was (which was odd--we'd just met) and I of course engaged in that other past time women are compelled to do: making her feel better. I said "Girl, you're looking fine." I expected either a dismissal (no, no, I'm hideous, etc) or a laugh, but what I got was an abject look of terror. She froze, brought her hand to her throat, muttered something about men, and ran away. I was totally confused about what had just happened, until I realized that she thought I was hitting on her. Women's and Gender Studies = Gay Feminazi.
I started laughing, because I don't care if people think I'm gay, and I found it ludicrous that this woman would think I was hitting on her. However, it suddenly struck me that this was not so funny, and that if it weren't for my heterosexual privilege (i.e. if I had said, "oh, honey, I'm not gay," we would've had a laugh about that miscommunication and she wouldn't have been horrified by me) I'd feel like shit. I was embarrassed that I'd never really examined this privilege before, as I don't think that you need to be part of an oppressed group to appreciate the challenges they face. It must be fucking awful to have people think you're a sexual predator just because you identify as Queer--there was fear in that woman's eyes as she ran away from me (and not to brag or anything, but she'd be pretty damn lucky to land me--I'm a catch, people). It's never assumed that a heterosexual person will be attracted to every person of the opposite sex, and yet often these same heterosexual folks assume that gay men are attracted to ALL MEN and lesbians are attracted to ALL WOMEN. And those queers, well, who even knows, right? So depressing.
What I learned from all this is that even those of us who examine power structures (including privilege) as part of our day to day work can still benefit from the cliched "Putting yourself in someone else's shoes." Before this incident, if someone had said to me "you don't understand the benefits you gain merely by being straight" I would've been insulted, thinking "of course I know--I study this!" But I didn't completely understand, and being progressive doesn't give one a pass for ignorance. No one likes being called out on things like privilege, and while it's easy to get defensive, it's better to listen, and to engage in some serious self-reflection.
Last year, I took a job working in the field of Women's and Gender studies. I knew this meant that when the inevitable "so what do you do for a living" conversation appeared, I would be judged accordingly, many people being heartily discomfited by us vicious, humorless feminists. (And I can't tell you how many times I've gotten "but you don't seem like a feminist." You mean I don't seem like the false construction of a feminist, friends, because Rush Limbaugh's hate speech isn't a true definition of what feminists are, or believe. I need one of those 'this is what a feminist looks like' t-shirts...) I was less aware, however, about another way in which people would judge me. A story:
I was out with some friends, and one of these friends was telling an older woman of her acquaintance that I'd just gotten a new job in Women's and Gender studies. The older woman congratulated me, and then began that favorite past time women are compelled to participate in: body snarking. She was complaining about how old and ugly she was (which was odd--we'd just met) and I of course engaged in that other past time women are compelled to do: making her feel better. I said "Girl, you're looking fine." I expected either a dismissal (no, no, I'm hideous, etc) or a laugh, but what I got was an abject look of terror. She froze, brought her hand to her throat, muttered something about men, and ran away. I was totally confused about what had just happened, until I realized that she thought I was hitting on her. Women's and Gender Studies = Gay Feminazi.
I started laughing, because I don't care if people think I'm gay, and I found it ludicrous that this woman would think I was hitting on her. However, it suddenly struck me that this was not so funny, and that if it weren't for my heterosexual privilege (i.e. if I had said, "oh, honey, I'm not gay," we would've had a laugh about that miscommunication and she wouldn't have been horrified by me) I'd feel like shit. I was embarrassed that I'd never really examined this privilege before, as I don't think that you need to be part of an oppressed group to appreciate the challenges they face. It must be fucking awful to have people think you're a sexual predator just because you identify as Queer--there was fear in that woman's eyes as she ran away from me (and not to brag or anything, but she'd be pretty damn lucky to land me--I'm a catch, people). It's never assumed that a heterosexual person will be attracted to every person of the opposite sex, and yet often these same heterosexual folks assume that gay men are attracted to ALL MEN and lesbians are attracted to ALL WOMEN. And those queers, well, who even knows, right? So depressing.
What I learned from all this is that even those of us who examine power structures (including privilege) as part of our day to day work can still benefit from the cliched "Putting yourself in someone else's shoes." Before this incident, if someone had said to me "you don't understand the benefits you gain merely by being straight" I would've been insulted, thinking "of course I know--I study this!" But I didn't completely understand, and being progressive doesn't give one a pass for ignorance. No one likes being called out on things like privilege, and while it's easy to get defensive, it's better to listen, and to engage in some serious self-reflection.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
What's up, babycakes? Emailing with the Womance
Lily Pistil:
So terrifying, I had to share... as you scroll down, it just keeps getting worse...
http://jezebel.com/#!5754286/these-sexy-womb-cakes-will-haunt-you
Lady Perriwhig:
This is not real.
Kitty Carney:
They are all the worst one. Okay the one womb with a view one is the worst one, but the others are also the worst one.
Dr. Villanelle:
So terrifying, I had to share... as you scroll down, it just keeps getting worse...
http://jezebel.com/#!5754286/
Lady Perriwhig:
I think this is what put the 'problem' in 'the problem of other minds'...
This is not real.
Kitty Carney:
They are all the worst one. Okay the one womb with a view one is the worst one, but the others are also the worst one.
Dr. Villanelle:
MY EEEEYYYYEEESSSS!! MY EYES!!!
I'm going to go cry in a corner now and never even *think* the word "womb" every again...
ever.
Lady Perriwhig:
etc.
Kitty Carney:
hahahah Lady Perriwhig totally beat me. I had all the wombs typed out and everything.
Lily Pistil:
So weird. That's just what this headache I've had all day sounds like.... wombwombwombwombwombwomb...
Maybe my body is telling me to eat a cake fetus suspended in jello.
Lady Perriwhig:
Are you sure it's a headache? Maybe you should look south...
Lily Pistil:
I'm not sure I can bend that way. I will have to break out the hand-mirror.
deejay.telepathic:
Oh man I miss the most glorious threads while I am at work. I am forwarding this to everyone I know who has passed a human through her vagina.
Lady Perriwhig:
Only the ones who've passed humans? So exclusionary!
Lily Pistil:
Yeah! What about my alien baby!?!?
Lady Perriwhig:
wombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwomb
wombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwombwomb
womb
etc.
Kitty Carney:
hahahah Lady Perriwhig totally beat me. I had all the wombs typed out and everything.
Lily Pistil:
So weird. That's just what this headache I've had all day sounds like.... wombwombwombwombwombwomb...
Maybe my body is telling me to eat a cake fetus suspended in jello.
Lady Perriwhig:
Are you sure it's a headache? Maybe you should look south...
Lily Pistil:
I'm not sure I can bend that way. I will have to break out the hand-mirror.
deejay.telepathic:
Oh man I miss the most glorious threads while I am at work. I am forwarding this to everyone I know who has passed a human through her vagina.
Lady Perriwhig:
Only the ones who've passed humans? So exclusionary!
Lily Pistil:
Yeah! What about my alien baby!?!?
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Text Transcript: On The Age of Wonder
Apparently, Doctor Villanelle's last blog post was not enough to contain her ire about dipshit academics in love with the phallus, because that bitch be textin' me. It was gloriously rage-filled, so read on, friends:
Doctor Villanelle: You ever read Age of Wonder?
Lily Pistil: I have. But very quickly. I found it kind of annoying.
DV: Thank you! I posted a not quite coherent response to it last night (don't blame me, blame the plague) and I was in hopes that I wasn't the only one that found it aggravating...
LP: So in the tradition of great man of history ball-licking. I don't know why everyone likes it.
DV: Seriously, I lost my shit when I was reading it... Why is it that when Keats talks about the soul he's a touching and inspiring genius, and when Mary Shelley talks about the soul she's a pregnant woman who may have learned some shit from her husband?? WTF yo!
LP: I know!!! It will be interesting when this guy comes out with his next book about the lost women scientists of the 19th century. I wonder which body parts he will attribute their discoveries to?
DV: Certainly not their minds..... And please tell me he's actually going to write about some female POETS and not just write off all the lady folk as silly novelists. Gawd! I just about screamed when I was reading his chapter on Frankenstein.
LP: I think this one will only be about scientists.
But ladies can't be poets, silly woman. Poems require genius. Ladies aren't geniuses.
DV: Well... That ought to be interesting... I certainly hope he makes sure to acknowledge their male chaperons and inspirations.
LP: Oh I am sure.
DV: Oh my gosh! You're right! I forgot for a moment that the category of woman was used to designate a life form purely dedicated to the creation of children and the male genius (which aren't always that far apart)! My bad!
LP: Here is a line you might appreciate I just read in Burke: "If beauty in our own species was annexed to use, men would be much more lovely than women..."
DV: Wow. I mean... Yep... That's just awesome... God bless the menfolk, huh?
LP: Bless their tiny, self-aggrandizing hearts, they can't help it.
DV: Because they're too worried about their tiny non-actualizing manhood?
LP: So I understand.
Doctor Villanelle: You ever read Age of Wonder?
Lily Pistil: I have. But very quickly. I found it kind of annoying.
DV: Thank you! I posted a not quite coherent response to it last night (don't blame me, blame the plague) and I was in hopes that I wasn't the only one that found it aggravating...
LP: So in the tradition of great man of history ball-licking. I don't know why everyone likes it.
DV: Seriously, I lost my shit when I was reading it... Why is it that when Keats talks about the soul he's a touching and inspiring genius, and when Mary Shelley talks about the soul she's a pregnant woman who may have learned some shit from her husband?? WTF yo!
LP: I know!!! It will be interesting when this guy comes out with his next book about the lost women scientists of the 19th century. I wonder which body parts he will attribute their discoveries to?
DV: Certainly not their minds..... And please tell me he's actually going to write about some female POETS and not just write off all the lady folk as silly novelists. Gawd! I just about screamed when I was reading his chapter on Frankenstein.
LP: I think this one will only be about scientists.
But ladies can't be poets, silly woman. Poems require genius. Ladies aren't geniuses.
DV: Well... That ought to be interesting... I certainly hope he makes sure to acknowledge their male chaperons and inspirations.
LP: Oh I am sure.
DV: Oh my gosh! You're right! I forgot for a moment that the category of woman was used to designate a life form purely dedicated to the creation of children and the male genius (which aren't always that far apart)! My bad!
LP: Here is a line you might appreciate I just read in Burke: "If beauty in our own species was annexed to use, men would be much more lovely than women..."
DV: Wow. I mean... Yep... That's just awesome... God bless the menfolk, huh?
LP: Bless their tiny, self-aggrandizing hearts, they can't help it.
DV: Because they're too worried about their tiny non-actualizing manhood?
LP: So I understand.
Monday, December 13, 2010
You know them ladies... always thinkin' with the ovaries...
Why is it that when a man sits down and begins to address the nature of the soul and the origin of consciousness, he gets talked about like this...
"Such questions [of the nature of the soul], traditionally the province of theologians and philosophers, were now increasingly considered by physicians, science writers, and those who studied what Coleridge called the science of the mind.' They had already been the subject of ingenious scientific experiments in Europe, which gave rise to increasingly fierce debates surrounding the work of Luigi Galvani in Italy and Franz Anton Mesmer in France" (314). (1)
Such strong statements, such ingenious scientific experiments being engaged in by men ACROSS THE CONTINENT!! with FIERCE DEBATES!! and POETRY!! They were like POETS! But SCIENTIFIC POETS! poets of the MIND!!
Don't see what I mean? How about this, you'll like this one...
"But for them [young poets] it still seemed more a psychological than a physiological question. Coleridge in his conversation poems was exploring the metaphysical notion of a 'one Life' that unified all living forms; while Wordsworth in 'Tintern Abbey' wrote tentatively and beautifully of a 'sense sublime/Of something far more deeply interfused/Whose dwelling is in the light of the setting suns.' Both writers, at this most radical point in their lives, were trying to avoid an explicit reference to God, while retaining their intuitions of a 'spiritual' power -- whatever that might be-- both within man and within the natural universe. It was a balancing act, that, perhaps, could only be performed in poetry" (316).
Just gives you the warm fuzzies, huh? Imagine Wordsworth, at a most radical point in his life, grappling with the question of the divine and the origin of the soul, beautifully and tentatively making his way to his conclusions in a demonstration of balance, poise and grace that one could, perhaps, only imagine in the world of late romantic poetry.
Just... *tears up* Just give me a minute here... I think I'm gonna cry.
*takes a minute*
*gets over it*
Aaand moooooving on... one last one, just to make my point.
"Keats [in the Lamia poem] never lets his reader forget this traumatic birth, and what it costs the serpent to become a human being. His extraordinary invention, perhaps the most brilliant and thought-provoking of all his narrative poems, engages many of the moral issues surrounding Vitalism, the nature of life, and the notion of human consciousness. Above all, perhaps, it asks if the beautiful Lamia has a soul" (325)
That's just... beautiful. Heart-wrenching really. Such genius, such thought-provoking narrative... such engagement with moral issues and the really tough questions of like, consciousness, and the soul. Really, just... touching...
So yeah. the dudes. The dudes had it going on. So what about the lady folk? What were they up to? Well, Mary Shelley (thanks to the helpful helperness of her husband Percy Shelley, never forget the helpful helperness of her husband) was penning a little ditty known as Frankenstein. It's written that,
"Mary's brilliance was to see that these weighty and often alarming ideas [of science and psychology] could be given highly suggestive, imaginative and even playful form. In a sense, she would treat male concepts in a female style. She would develop what William Lawrence [the hero of the first part of the text and a scientist] had dismissed in his lectures as a 'hypothesis or fiction'" (327).
So yeah, ladies were writing, and they were writing in lady style. 'Cause lord knows that fiction (not poetry, never poetry) was the creation of what real scientist would call derisively a hypothesis-- the antithesis of real science, of real fact finding, of THINGS. (2)
Don't believe me? Well, in case you didn't get that female genius comes filtered through their ovaries, let's take a later example from the text...
"As her novel developed, Mary Shelley began to ask in what sense Frankenstein's new 'Creature' would be human. Would it have language, would it have a moral conscience, would it have human feelings and sympathies, would it have a soul? (It should not be forgotten that Mary Shelley was pregnant with her own baby in 1817.)... Here again it seems that [Percy] Shelley, who was attending medical consultations with Lawrence throughout spring 1817, and may sometimes have been accompanied by Mary, made an opportunity for all three of them to explore these specialist themes" (331) [author emphasis].
Oh yeah, ladies totally think with their bits and their babies. Now Keats, Keats had "extraordinary invention," and questions about the soul of a beautiful woman.(3) Shelley, well, she may have tagged along to some science debates with her dude and, well, she was preggers, so let's not go reading too much into her "female style" and her "highly suggestive" and even "playful" form. Nope, nothing to see here but some women talking about things their reproductive system thought up while in the presence of her husband and, I hope you caught this, the VERY SAME DUDE that called (derisively) what Mary wrote a "hypothesis or fiction."
Now, it is totally possible that I am misreading this text, but I think it highly suggestive (*snort*) that when the author here discusses the poetry of Wordsworth, he places the responsibility of the thought and imagination of the speaker firmly within the mind of Wordsworth. Meanwhile, in his discussion of Frankenstein, the author places the brilliant connections and allusions within the grasp of the characters themselves. It's like... they're like... totally real dude.
Exhibit A: "In a sense, both [Frankenstein and his creation] have lost their own souls. Drawing on the Miltonic imagery of Paradise Lost, both see themselves as fallen angels, doomed to eternal solitude and destruction" (333).
Yeah, 'cause, ya know. The characters have will. And action, and the ability to, like, write their own narrative, yo. Mary's lady bits probably hadn't read Milton, but man, her characters sure as hell did. Now Keats, man, he really knew how to explore some issues, to dive into narrative... and Mary, man, she's just lucky her characters were so well read, huh? Maybe they picked it up from her husband? After all, he was pretty well written, yeah? And Mary, well, she only wrote that one book... right?
Right?
I mean, wait. It's not like she wrote more than one novel huh? It's not like she wrote, like 14 novels or some such thing... (4) or she was big into multiple genres like poetry, biography, or any thing like that... that's crap...
Right?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Nobody? That's right, 'cuase she totally did. Hot damn, her ovaries got around... I mean, like, can you image all the work they had to do? All the work everyone around her had to do? All the dudes who had to facilitate her "specialist themes"? (5)
Damn. Guess I need to take my lady bits and go think somewhere else, who knows, maybe if I meets the right man, they'll write my dissertation for me!
Dr. Villainelle.
1 The Text at Hand is Richard Holmes The Age of Wonder, which isn't really all that bad of a text... if you excuse what I find to be a crap reading of Frankenstein and a frankly overblown approach to the whole era. Yeah, I like the poetry, too. It's awesome. But it's also problematic. And I know that you've got it out for William Lawerence, but if you title a chapter "Dr Frankenstein and the Soul," and then spend the whole time talking about how Mary Shelley got lucky that everyone around her (including her characters) were so damn smart, and all you really wanted to do was set up a punch line about how William Lawerence was the one who lost his soul (oh ha, ha, ha. yeah, you really got me there Richard), then title the damn thing "William Lawerence and the Miracle of the Female Reproductive System when Impregnated by Smart Men and their IDEAS." But I guess that doesn't have quite the same ring, now, huh?
2. Okay, okay, okay. Yes, I know, the novel gets quite a bit more problematic than this, and it's not right of me to make broad sweeping generalizations about the novel in the late Romantic/early Victorian time period... but my point is, does anyone else find it odd that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS CHAPTER DOES? The general trend of this chapter (can't talk about the whole book, sorry, author fail) is that men are POETS and SCIENTISTS and women write FICTION which is the antithesis of SCIENCE which is an awful lot like POETRY.
3. Okay, okay. I'm totally being a bit unfair. The beautiful woman was actually a bit of a snake and the whole thing is very beautiful and tragic... but don't you get the messed-up-edness of it all? That Keats is a genius when he talks about a beautiful woman/monster/thing, and Mary Shelley was unduly influenced by enveryone around her when she writes about an ugly man/creature? Yeah, maybe not, but it's my post and I DO what I WANT!
4. This website is pretty much crap, but it's better than Wiki, and it spend a bit more time talking about Mary than Percy, so I'll count it as a win.
5. That's totally what she said.
"Such questions [of the nature of the soul], traditionally the province of theologians and philosophers, were now increasingly considered by physicians, science writers, and those who studied what Coleridge called the science of the mind.' They had already been the subject of ingenious scientific experiments in Europe, which gave rise to increasingly fierce debates surrounding the work of Luigi Galvani in Italy and Franz Anton Mesmer in France" (314). (1)
Such strong statements, such ingenious scientific experiments being engaged in by men ACROSS THE CONTINENT!! with FIERCE DEBATES!! and POETRY!! They were like POETS! But SCIENTIFIC POETS! poets of the MIND!!
Don't see what I mean? How about this, you'll like this one...
"But for them [young poets] it still seemed more a psychological than a physiological question. Coleridge in his conversation poems was exploring the metaphysical notion of a 'one Life' that unified all living forms; while Wordsworth in 'Tintern Abbey' wrote tentatively and beautifully of a 'sense sublime/Of something far more deeply interfused/Whose dwelling is in the light of the setting suns.' Both writers, at this most radical point in their lives, were trying to avoid an explicit reference to God, while retaining their intuitions of a 'spiritual' power -- whatever that might be-- both within man and within the natural universe. It was a balancing act, that, perhaps, could only be performed in poetry" (316).
Just gives you the warm fuzzies, huh? Imagine Wordsworth, at a most radical point in his life, grappling with the question of the divine and the origin of the soul, beautifully and tentatively making his way to his conclusions in a demonstration of balance, poise and grace that one could, perhaps, only imagine in the world of late romantic poetry.
Just... *tears up* Just give me a minute here... I think I'm gonna cry.
*takes a minute*
*gets over it*
Aaand moooooving on... one last one, just to make my point.
"Keats [in the Lamia poem] never lets his reader forget this traumatic birth, and what it costs the serpent to become a human being. His extraordinary invention, perhaps the most brilliant and thought-provoking of all his narrative poems, engages many of the moral issues surrounding Vitalism, the nature of life, and the notion of human consciousness. Above all, perhaps, it asks if the beautiful Lamia has a soul" (325)
That's just... beautiful. Heart-wrenching really. Such genius, such thought-provoking narrative... such engagement with moral issues and the really tough questions of like, consciousness, and the soul. Really, just... touching...
So yeah. the dudes. The dudes had it going on. So what about the lady folk? What were they up to? Well, Mary Shelley (thanks to the helpful helperness of her husband Percy Shelley, never forget the helpful helperness of her husband) was penning a little ditty known as Frankenstein. It's written that,
"Mary's brilliance was to see that these weighty and often alarming ideas [of science and psychology] could be given highly suggestive, imaginative and even playful form. In a sense, she would treat male concepts in a female style. She would develop what William Lawrence [the hero of the first part of the text and a scientist] had dismissed in his lectures as a 'hypothesis or fiction'" (327).
So yeah, ladies were writing, and they were writing in lady style. 'Cause lord knows that fiction (not poetry, never poetry) was the creation of what real scientist would call derisively a hypothesis-- the antithesis of real science, of real fact finding, of THINGS. (2)
Don't believe me? Well, in case you didn't get that female genius comes filtered through their ovaries, let's take a later example from the text...
"As her novel developed, Mary Shelley began to ask in what sense Frankenstein's new 'Creature' would be human. Would it have language, would it have a moral conscience, would it have human feelings and sympathies, would it have a soul? (It should not be forgotten that Mary Shelley was pregnant with her own baby in 1817.)... Here again it seems that [Percy] Shelley, who was attending medical consultations with Lawrence throughout spring 1817, and may sometimes have been accompanied by Mary, made an opportunity for all three of them to explore these specialist themes" (331) [author emphasis].
Oh yeah, ladies totally think with their bits and their babies. Now Keats, Keats had "extraordinary invention," and questions about the soul of a beautiful woman.(3) Shelley, well, she may have tagged along to some science debates with her dude and, well, she was preggers, so let's not go reading too much into her "female style" and her "highly suggestive" and even "playful" form. Nope, nothing to see here but some women talking about things their reproductive system thought up while in the presence of her husband and, I hope you caught this, the VERY SAME DUDE that called (derisively) what Mary wrote a "hypothesis or fiction."
Now, it is totally possible that I am misreading this text, but I think it highly suggestive (*snort*) that when the author here discusses the poetry of Wordsworth, he places the responsibility of the thought and imagination of the speaker firmly within the mind of Wordsworth. Meanwhile, in his discussion of Frankenstein, the author places the brilliant connections and allusions within the grasp of the characters themselves. It's like... they're like... totally real dude.
Exhibit A: "In a sense, both [Frankenstein and his creation] have lost their own souls. Drawing on the Miltonic imagery of Paradise Lost, both see themselves as fallen angels, doomed to eternal solitude and destruction" (333).
Yeah, 'cause, ya know. The characters have will. And action, and the ability to, like, write their own narrative, yo. Mary's lady bits probably hadn't read Milton, but man, her characters sure as hell did. Now Keats, man, he really knew how to explore some issues, to dive into narrative... and Mary, man, she's just lucky her characters were so well read, huh? Maybe they picked it up from her husband? After all, he was pretty well written, yeah? And Mary, well, she only wrote that one book... right?
Right?
I mean, wait. It's not like she wrote more than one novel huh? It's not like she wrote, like 14 novels or some such thing... (4) or she was big into multiple genres like poetry, biography, or any thing like that... that's crap...
Right?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Nobody? That's right, 'cuase she totally did. Hot damn, her ovaries got around... I mean, like, can you image all the work they had to do? All the work everyone around her had to do? All the dudes who had to facilitate her "specialist themes"? (5)
Damn. Guess I need to take my lady bits and go think somewhere else, who knows, maybe if I meets the right man, they'll write my dissertation for me!
Dr. Villainelle.
1 The Text at Hand is Richard Holmes The Age of Wonder, which isn't really all that bad of a text... if you excuse what I find to be a crap reading of Frankenstein and a frankly overblown approach to the whole era. Yeah, I like the poetry, too. It's awesome. But it's also problematic. And I know that you've got it out for William Lawerence, but if you title a chapter "Dr Frankenstein and the Soul," and then spend the whole time talking about how Mary Shelley got lucky that everyone around her (including her characters) were so damn smart, and all you really wanted to do was set up a punch line about how William Lawerence was the one who lost his soul (oh ha, ha, ha. yeah, you really got me there Richard), then title the damn thing "William Lawerence and the Miracle of the Female Reproductive System when Impregnated by Smart Men and their IDEAS." But I guess that doesn't have quite the same ring, now, huh?
2. Okay, okay, okay. Yes, I know, the novel gets quite a bit more problematic than this, and it's not right of me to make broad sweeping generalizations about the novel in the late Romantic/early Victorian time period... but my point is, does anyone else find it odd that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS CHAPTER DOES? The general trend of this chapter (can't talk about the whole book, sorry, author fail) is that men are POETS and SCIENTISTS and women write FICTION which is the antithesis of SCIENCE which is an awful lot like POETRY.
3. Okay, okay. I'm totally being a bit unfair. The beautiful woman was actually a bit of a snake and the whole thing is very beautiful and tragic... but don't you get the messed-up-edness of it all? That Keats is a genius when he talks about a beautiful woman/monster/thing, and Mary Shelley was unduly influenced by enveryone around her when she writes about an ugly man/creature? Yeah, maybe not, but it's my post and I DO what I WANT!
4. This website is pretty much crap, but it's better than Wiki, and it spend a bit more time talking about Mary than Percy, so I'll count it as a win.
5. That's totally what she said.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Violence Against Women is HILARIOUS!
Tis the season! As I was (poorly) wrapping some Christmas presents, I had the TV on in the background. Since I don't have cable, the two tv channels available to me are Fox and NBC. Double yay. NBC's multi award winning show 30-Rock was on, and I wasn't really paying attention, because I find Tina Fey's single-women over 30 are pathetic act annoying, but then, to my delight, I saw that one of the characters, played by Tracy Morgan, was screening a documentary at a Women's Shelter on x-mas, to maintain a "serious" image to help his chances at winning a Golden Globe.
What followed was comedic genius! Tracy's character walks into a room full of hollow-eyed, frightened looking women, and says "Listen up, a Man is speaking" and then goes on to say that his film will mirror their own sad lives. OH HO HO HO! My sides, they burst with the hilarity! Wait, why aren't you laughing? Maybe you don't get that this is a satire? You see, the women are in the shelter probably because they've been abused, most likely by their male partners (and some of them have their small female children with them as well) and so when Tracy's character says what he does, he's poking fun at the fact that not listening to men is what got them there in the first place! And their lives...hahaha, so sad! It's funny because it's true!! He's insensitive!!
Seriously, why aren't you laughing? God, you feminists have no sense of humor.
This makes me absolutely sick. I'm going to opt for the radio from now on, and I'm also planning on sending a letter to NBC about this. They won't give a shit, but perhaps if enough people complain, they'll feel the sting of those lost advertising dollars.
What followed was comedic genius! Tracy's character walks into a room full of hollow-eyed, frightened looking women, and says "Listen up, a Man is speaking" and then goes on to say that his film will mirror their own sad lives. OH HO HO HO! My sides, they burst with the hilarity! Wait, why aren't you laughing? Maybe you don't get that this is a satire? You see, the women are in the shelter probably because they've been abused, most likely by their male partners (and some of them have their small female children with them as well) and so when Tracy's character says what he does, he's poking fun at the fact that not listening to men is what got them there in the first place! And their lives...hahaha, so sad! It's funny because it's true!! He's insensitive!!
Seriously, why aren't you laughing? God, you feminists have no sense of humor.
This makes me absolutely sick. I'm going to opt for the radio from now on, and I'm also planning on sending a letter to NBC about this. They won't give a shit, but perhaps if enough people complain, they'll feel the sting of those lost advertising dollars.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Women in Space
I know: it seems like Dr. Villanelle should be writing this post. However, I speak not of science fiction space for this particular post, but rather, the vast 3-dimensional realm we material beings inhabit.
Women are socialized to take up as little space as possible, whereas men are socialized to take up as much space as possible. When occupying the same space, such as on a sidewalk, women are expected, perhaps unconsciously, to defer to men. If you're a woman (cis-gendered or otherwise), try this experiment: when walking down a shared space, and a man or group of men is heading toward you, don't get out of their way. Nine out of ten times you will enjoy a shoulder slammed into your shoulder, followed by a dirty look. I and many of my friends have tried this, and as much as the more chivalric (snort) sex would have you believe, they are not going to demur to your lady-like presence. Exhibit B: Mansitting
This male ownership of space has been haunting me at the gym lately. I tend to go to the gym later at night when it's less crowded. The cardio equipment is separated into two rooms: one with two rows of treadmills--10 in each row, and another room with elliptical machines--8 in each row. I was using an elliptical machine a few weeks ago, and was the only one using one until a middle-aged man came up and, despite the 14 other machines available, hopped up next to me and started gawking over at the readout on my machine, so he could see, I don't know, if he was going faster, or at a higher crossramp or whatever. I was annoyed, and glared at him, and finally had to drape a towel over my panel so he'd stop staring over. A few minutes later, another younger man showed up, chose the machine on the other side of me, and tried to gawk over at my panel, only to be thwarted by my towel. This sort of thing has continued to happen every time I've gone to the gym since to use the cardio equipment.
GO THE FUCK AWAY.
Seriously! I hear my male friends joke all the time about leaving a space between urinals, or not sitting next to each other at the movies (wouldn't want someone to think you were gay, right?) so why the hell is it okay to not only crowd my space, but also to assess my workout? I wanted to deck a guy who came over when I was using some weight-lifting equipment, and told me "not to be too macho about it." Thanks for your uninvited and uninformed feedback, sir--you should really be a personal trainer, no, really.
So here's the part where I say that not all men are alike, and of course there are men who respect women's space. If you could kindly inform your "bro's" about this, however, I know I'd be grateful. (I give a nod to Eric, the admin of the above posted facebook group).
However, I'm so weary of the solution to this problem being "separate space for women". Segregation is never a good answer, though I've found myself drawn to the "women's section" of my gym, which of course has infinitely shoddier equipment. Separate but equal is bullshit. How about plain ol equality instead?
Women are socialized to take up as little space as possible, whereas men are socialized to take up as much space as possible. When occupying the same space, such as on a sidewalk, women are expected, perhaps unconsciously, to defer to men. If you're a woman (cis-gendered or otherwise), try this experiment: when walking down a shared space, and a man or group of men is heading toward you, don't get out of their way. Nine out of ten times you will enjoy a shoulder slammed into your shoulder, followed by a dirty look. I and many of my friends have tried this, and as much as the more chivalric (snort) sex would have you believe, they are not going to demur to your lady-like presence. Exhibit B: Mansitting
This male ownership of space has been haunting me at the gym lately. I tend to go to the gym later at night when it's less crowded. The cardio equipment is separated into two rooms: one with two rows of treadmills--10 in each row, and another room with elliptical machines--8 in each row. I was using an elliptical machine a few weeks ago, and was the only one using one until a middle-aged man came up and, despite the 14 other machines available, hopped up next to me and started gawking over at the readout on my machine, so he could see, I don't know, if he was going faster, or at a higher crossramp or whatever. I was annoyed, and glared at him, and finally had to drape a towel over my panel so he'd stop staring over. A few minutes later, another younger man showed up, chose the machine on the other side of me, and tried to gawk over at my panel, only to be thwarted by my towel. This sort of thing has continued to happen every time I've gone to the gym since to use the cardio equipment.
GO THE FUCK AWAY.
Seriously! I hear my male friends joke all the time about leaving a space between urinals, or not sitting next to each other at the movies (wouldn't want someone to think you were gay, right?) so why the hell is it okay to not only crowd my space, but also to assess my workout? I wanted to deck a guy who came over when I was using some weight-lifting equipment, and told me "not to be too macho about it." Thanks for your uninvited and uninformed feedback, sir--you should really be a personal trainer, no, really.
So here's the part where I say that not all men are alike, and of course there are men who respect women's space. If you could kindly inform your "bro's" about this, however, I know I'd be grateful. (I give a nod to Eric, the admin of the above posted facebook group).
However, I'm so weary of the solution to this problem being "separate space for women". Segregation is never a good answer, though I've found myself drawn to the "women's section" of my gym, which of course has infinitely shoddier equipment. Separate but equal is bullshit. How about plain ol equality instead?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)