Blogs

The two videos S.Yaeger and I shared in class:

Here is the Urban Dictionary page for "queering" that we were talking about in class: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=queering. What confused me specifically was this definition of queering: "Forcible anal sex given to a man, usually by a group of 4-5 men, not for the purposes of enjoying the experience, but to teach the victim a lesson or punish him." I have never heard it defined this way before, and the violence of the definition shocked me so much so that I intially thought it was a made-up comment by someone trolling the site.  

I really liked Aliza's juxtaposition of Plagiarism to Tissue Sampling. Like I mentioned in class on Thursday, I think they're very much same processes. With that claim, I'm also claiming that our physical self doesn't belong to us.

Yes, it's a scary thought. But I really don't believe that we own ourselves. At a molecular level, what makes you, you, is your DNA. Even if you have different mutations that are unique to only you—or your family—the fact remains that 99% of your DNA is similar to every other human being's DNA (Stix). Only 1% of your DNA is different from your next door neighbor, your professor, or even Obama. Thus, our DNA, the building block of the self, is collective property. If we all have similar DNA and it’s the same for everyone, it’s not really yours. It’s shared, collective property that you really don’t have any rights to; if scientists want to take your DNA, your consent is not needed.

Not to destroy anyone's fond childhood memories but The Lion King is not Africa. I know some people are thinking "Duh" and I used to think that went without saying...until I went there, set up an internship tracking animals for this summer, and came back. The misunderstandings range from the minorly annoying idea that all Africa is a jungle or the constant shock people feel when learning how "brutal" the animal world is. A point I find endlessly ironic, but I won't go into that. What was most surprising to me, however, were the reactions I got when I described my internship. I was asked if I would be working with "natives" and if I was nervous about it. The same person asked if I would be hiking through the game reserve in order to track the animals. I was stunned by the implication that I "should" be more nervous about working with the people who live there (who by the way are awesome, hilarious, and if I can learn 1/10th of what they know I will be beyond thrilled), then the animals I'm tracking. To give a little perspective there is a saying that Ben, the tracker I met in Ngala, eventually translated into English for me after 20 minutes of valient effort (and a fair amount of laughter) to teach me how to say it in Shangaan. The saying is this "You don't have to be the fastest--you just have to be faster than one other person". If I were indeed to wander around a game reserve by myself I can think of at least 15 ways I would die, only 5 of which involve predators.

(when you drop by to post on Sunday evening) to include a link to whatever text, images or videos or audios you've been using to "set the scene" for our class meetings. Thanks!

Wil Franklin just shared with me a rather remarkable New Yorker piece by Jonah Lehrer, The Truth Wears Off: Is there something wrong with the scientific method? (December 13, 2010). I urge you all to read it, and bring your reflections to class, or post them in this space...

I just wanted to share a conversation that I had with my dad (actually through texting in the beginning of class).

Me: VA sad about your pictures "Papa Bacchus is baller yo"

Dad: I have no idea what "baller yo" means. Hope it is good :)

Me: "baller, yo" - baller is a really cool envied (kind of best of best) guy and "yo" provides emphasis

Dad: :)

Me: Baller is kind a synonym for pimp. It's a man who has reached success and wealth, or a thug who has made it to the top (comliments of urbandictionary.com)

Dad: I am so pleased you know this stuff.

Me: Important knowledge . Today's literacy! (As I sit in my literacies and education class)

Dad: I prefer Keats.

recall - - Discourse = “set of values and viewpoints in terms of which one must speak and act, at least while being in the discourse” (Gee)

So Mia and I were talking about going to this country club/Alumni benefit/conference. (we went to an alumnae conference in Santa Monica over the weekend to represent the 360 program - this is a post that we wrote together on the airplane on the way there)

We started talking about clothing. We both realized that we had no idea what would be appropriate to wear in this environment – as neither of us has spent a significant amount of time in a country club (and by that I mean that I have gone to one once, and she has never gone to one). Should we wear skirts? Dresses? what length is appropriate?

So we’re wondering: what kind of discourse are we entering? Are we actually going to have an opportunity to speak frankly and genuinely about our experiences, or will the discourse silence some aspect of our behavior? It’s certainly silencing our creative fashion sense!

Clothing is a perfectly reasonable cause for concern – every time I’ve done any career counseling, I’ve been told that first impressions are essential. So appearance is essential. Uncertain about the kind of discourse you are entering + wearing the wrong thing = making your illiteracy obvious and embarrassing.

So that’s we were so worried about this on our trip to Ghana – we had no idea what our clothing would say about us. Legitimate? Eh, I think so.

Here's a clip of "Defying Gravity" being performed at the Tony Awards--I just shared the song in class, but this gives a little bit more of the feel for the musical.

Today’s discussion on Skloot’s intentions behind sharing a “melodramatic story” inspired me to continue the discussion. Since “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” is mainly composed of Skloot’s findings about HL's cells and family and the process of obtaining them, she might have wanted to appear more relatable. The details she provided may have made some readers transport themselves to that moment in her life. Emphasizing certain things made her story more truthful for her but not necessarily all readers. I wonder if her desire to tell the readers about her investigation was genuine of was it heightened by a marketing scheme…