Blogs

Tool kit cultural tool kit

Media can be our windows and our barriers

Filtering out undesirable images.

Keeps things in and Keeps things out

Sanitized and pristine

Cultural toolkit used to unpack

Dominant discourse and

Screen Racial profiles.

OH GOSH, 200 PAGES OF READING TO DO!

Turn the PAGE.

Start with a blank page

So we can get on the same page.

Same page.

-Brittney and Amanda

When we read, the Learning
curve is really Important; after all,
Access works both ways, the text as
A veil
Protection
Division
Desire
Control...
We touch and manipulate, we
Turn a page of the
Stars of a constellation.
To be of use, here, we are
Building and
Learning. Leaning on
Generational differences, our own Urban dictionaries.
There are
endless opportunities, but
the supplies are not
endless. Access to resources,
Different resources for different tasks,
Cultural capital, these
are the problems we face.
It’s the Danger of a single story:
reading and co-creating and becoming

By Emily, Julia, Manya, and Allison

A friend of mine told me that Drops of Jupiter by Train is about lesbians or lesbianism (I don't know the difference between the two terms). He said that it's still being debated. I try to listely closely but I couldn't make any connection. Does anyone see it? 

I think Ashley Judd's puffy face! (If you are fortunate enough to not know what this "controversy" is then simply google of "Ashley Judd puffy face".) is nothing if not relevant to our class topic. I think her reaction is novel enough to justify posting not only a link but a direct quote:

"I hope the sharing of my thoughts can generate a new conversation: Why was a puffy face cause for such a conversation in the first place? How, and why, did people participate? If not in the conversation about me, in parallel ones about women in your sphere? What is the gloating about? What is the condemnation about? What is the self-righteous alleged “all knowing” stance of the media about? How does this symbolize constraints on girls and women, and encroach on our right to be simply as we are, at any given moment...

Our discussion on Thursday about how we felt while watching Live Nude Girls Unite! was incredibly rich, and for me, in a personal way. It didn't strike me as odd while watching the film that I wasn't uncomfortable seeing the women's naked bodies but instead uncomfortable watching one of the male patrons watching the women dance. I realized that what was so unsettling for me was that I was thinking about how I would feel were I one of those dancers and I had to experience the intensity and invasiveness of that gaze. This line of thinking reminded me of these: http://whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/20496298751/when-a-hot-girl-complains-about-getting-hit-on http://whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/20630965979/when-im-walking-alone-and-i-have-to-pass-a-group-of

During our brainstorming questioning session about sex work I found myself repeatedly comming back to the same theme: that having "something wrong with you" or "having problems" is an inherent prerequestite of being a sex worker. I think this idea comes up a lot within the media, specifically television or movie portrayals of sex workers, where a character's participation in such "demeaning" work is explained/rationalized via their terrible (read: abusive) childhood or their substance abuse problem. I definitely view Live Girls Unite! as attempting to paint a different/new picture of the sex industry; and while it succeeded in revealing to me a relatively novel image of sex work, it definitely has not erased the more cliche (possibly more realistic) image of sex work as taken up by persons with impaired agency.

Sex work is always a hot topic in feminist studies. Some women insist that exotic dancing and other sex work is inherently degrading. Others find it a liberating expression of free choice and sexual independence. Julia Query, the narrator and one of the main characters in the documentary, after a while, just found it boring.  In other words, it was a job. Live Nude Girls Unite displays, its share of exposed flesh, but at heart it's a movie about work for me. I guess that’s why I really couldn’t tell I like it or not, because it is a ‘real’ documentary for me. It made me believe that whatever you wear or don't wear when you're doing it, is still work. Without excessive political posturing, the film dismantles stereotypes about women who work in the sex industry and makes its powerful feminist argument in an unpretentious way.

For the first time in a really long time, I don't have much to say. I find myself confused between what I thought was clearly the message of Slaughterhouse Five, and the discussions we had this past week.

I thought that Slaughterhouse Five clearly showed the effects of war and how it cannot be reversed, can never be properly addressed, and most certainly, that the very root of the problem, which is war itself, can never be stopped. This was done by what appeared to a lack of structure, by the juxtaposition of Billy Pilgrim's so-called "time travels" and his reality, by the clever invention of Tralfamadorians and what they have to say. It seemed as if on the outside, Billy Pilgrim has gotten over what he has seen at war, by merely saying "So it goes" for every death he has to encounter or remember, relive. In reality, however, he still cannot escape his tragic past, and the way which he copes with it is by imagining this world of Tralfamadore, where everything already exists, has already happened, where he is not accountable for anything he had no power over, and where the inhabitants seem to be nonchalant about even the most devastating events like death, because there's no other way to correct, alter or change them. Tralfamadore was his escape, where he need not feel guilty for how he felt, being unable to stop the bombing in Dresden. I thought the message was to show that these are inescapable effects of war, that there is no way of changing it, just as his imagined world of Tralfamadore perceives time and events.

Watching “The Undefeated” this weekend was a very complicated and interesting experience for me. The film itself was quite obviously biased, and didn’t really make much of an attempt to seem otherwise--there was a lot of really exaggerated language, often accompanied by dramatic music or clips of earthquakes and car crashes to make a point. However, it did make me start to think about my perceptions of Sarah Palin. I very much want a woman to be president, to represent women in the government--does that mean that I should support all women who run for office, just because they are women? I don’t think so; if we really want gender equality, then we should support women because we support their politics (and in turn, because their politics support women). Another question that watching “The Undefeated” brought up for me that ties into bell hooks as well is how much ground Palin actually gained for women by running for vice president. bell hooks makes the point that women can be just as sexist as men, and I think that Sarah Palin’s politics don’t help women. She is opposed to abortion (including in cases of rape) and opposed to same-sex marriage, which I think are issues that concern many women in the United States. The National Organization for Women, in fact, supported the Obama/Biden campaign over the McCain/Palin campaign in the 2008 election.