Blogs

http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Miss+Universe+Canada+disqualifies+transsexual+contestant/6355165/story.html

This morning, I stumbled accross the linked news story about a trans women being disqualified from Canada's Miss Universe Pageant for publicly acknowledging that she is trans.  I thought this topic might be of interest to our class for two reasons.  The first being that Jenna's disqualification illustrates how much tranphobia is a part of the cultural landsape of many western countries and how little understanding there seems to be about trans identities.  

The second is that beauty pageants have long been a hot bed issue for feminism as feminist activists protesting the Miss America pageant in 1968 recieved national news coverage.  In fact, I believe that it was that protest that led to the misconception that femnists burn their bras, as a threat to do so was made at the protest.  The women protesting the pageant in 1968 were protesting the way that women were viewed as objects and cut off from many potential careers.  Even though the protests drew a good deal of attention, it seems like little has changed in the world of pageantry since then, and I think that Jenna's story illustrates that.

The radio recording "Listening Beyond Life and Choice: The Civil Conversations Project" reminded me that I have to speak up in class even when I do face the faintest disagreement. Frances Kissling, a dedicated activist on ProChoice abortion, refrained from speaking about women's rights to an abortion and  focused on the underlying problems of discourse  between two entities with different ideologies. In her years of activism, she was faced with the lack of constructive dialogue between her ProChoice side and the ProLife activists and described how there may not be a possible common ground when there are deep differences between two groups. One has to acknowledge their position in a debate and have the "courage to be vulnerable with person who you disagree with".

Although I was not in complete disagreement with the "dreams as a reality" discussion in class on Tuesday, I did however was very questioning (in mind) about the topic. I sat back and listened, trying to understand how one classmate may think of dreams as a reality (of multi-realities?). In reference to Kissling's radio discussion, there was no way for me to set a common ground for understanding when I did not share my (slight even if not deep) differences and idea on the topic. 

After reading Middlesex, I started to think about what it means to be in the middle. The facts in this case, as Cal tells us on the very first page, are that he was born and raised as a girl but was revealed as a teenager to be a boy, at least in genetic and chromosomal terms. If seen the world from a traditional binary way, Cal doesn’t belong to any side completely (or maybe none of us does?). Such in-the-middle position brings him confusions and struggles, but also enables him to become strong and to explore himself deeply since he has nobody similar to him. People often describe the birth of their new self in this way - we are reborn after facing an obstacle and overcoming it. Here, there is no rebirth, because Cal isn't Calliope born anew. He's just brand new, with a completely new identity, a whole new birth. His distance from Calliope is because he can't face who he is and was. Even as an adult, he's only on the cusp of accepting his body, his gender (both his current one and the former one), and his self for what they are. It's a second birth, almost because he has to grow up one more time and learn how to be a man.

Once again this week, I find myself inspired by Kobieta. (I hope you don’t think I’m picking on you since I often comment on your thoughts, I just find that you inspire me to think further about the questions that you raise.)

In class, Kobieta asked why is the truth important?  I think many of us can look at the issue of truth and find that there are many truths, not one, and that they are dependent on how we interpret a situation.  Certainly our memories seem true, but after listening to the radio lab, we learned that we reinvent our memories each time they are recalled, so maybe they are not true.  And since we all have different perspectives, we see different truths in the same experience (i.e. we all hear the same words in class but may not agree on how to interpret them, what they mean or what the implication is.)  So if 100% truth doesn’t exist, then how could it be important? 

I think what’s important about the truth is its potential.  The truth allows us to make predictions and provides us with certain expectations about outcomes.  The truth is defined as something that has a basis as a fact or belief that is commonly accepted, so if everyone is on the same page (i.e. we have common agreement on the truth) then we can make decisions based on predictable facts.  Even if we can’t agree on the truth either within ourselves or with others, I think it’s important to strive for it in order to make better sense of our world and how we choose to interact with it. 

Going through My Gender Workbook has made me think a lot more about what gender is and what it isn't.  I still find myself thinking in a fairly conservative way, that there are "men" and "women," but I actually am starting to think about why I think that way and if those assumptions true and what they mean.  It's very hard for me to understand what a "non-gender" would be.  It's also confusing how Bornstein talks about rejecting gender, but at the same time talks about her (hir?) own gender and how we can all find our own gender/expressions - so...is there gender or not?  Or are there many genders that are personal to each individual?  I also have trouble understanding whether Bornstein believes that our gender identities are fluid (as she seemed to in the beginning of the book), or if we have a TRUE identity which is hidden by our own performance of socialy-constructed gender.  Does Bornstein argue that we have an essential self at all, or that everything about us is dynamic?  I guess the message of the book is getting through to me...somewhat.  

     After skimming  through “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”,  a group of glossy picture pages assembled at the middle of the book caught my eye. These are pictures of HL’s family and where she was raised etc.  arranged in a chronological order. I asked myself why all these images had to be in the middle of the book and not in different sections(for the sake of the chronology established by the author). I believe this assortment of pictures in “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” could’ve been better organized so that it could be a more efficient “break(s)” in the reading. As a reader I would’ve preferred to know a little bit about the life of Henrietta the woman during her lifetime before reading about Henrietta's cells. (Glossy pages 1-3) and implement the remaining glossy pages at the end of the section the author makes reference to that particular event (s) instead of putting them all in an additional  “Where are they now?” section (about her family) which would only apply to glossy pages 7-8.

I must admit that I enjoy having pictures interrupt my reading for the purpose of enriching my experience. 

My group did a presentation on children's and young adult literature in Ghana, in which I specifically focused on what was being read. It is interesting to be reflecting on my presentation on children's and young adult literature in Ghana now that I have actually visited Ghana. Before I left for Ghana, I had the opportunity to Skype with Kathy Knowles, a Canadian writer who has started libraries throughout Ghana. She spoke of how most Ghanaians don't read for pleasure because it's seen as a mostly academic endeavor and how almost all literature is written in English, usually a third language particularly for those who live in rural areas.

I want to write my post in response to our class focusing on Olga Broumas' poem "Cinderella". Reading this poem highlighted the various perspectives that always exist and how it is valuable to approach texts and situations in open and respectful ways. Reading the poem with the title "Cinderella" immediately sets up the reader to draw connections to the fairytale that many of us are familiar with already; titles have the power to change the way the text is considered before the reader even engages with it. This poem could be read without the tittle and it is possible that the reader would not associate the text with a Cinderella story. In our group, we discussed how key words like "slipper of glass" and "ashes" give hints to a connection, but also could be read as separate from the aspects of Cinderella we already know. Even changing "glass slipper" to "slipper of glass" changes what readers imagine when they read the poem. The idea of reading Broumas' poem without the title gives a chance to start drawing connections from a blank slate that allows for the generation of unrestricted ideas.

When dchin and epeck read us And Tango Makes Three on Thursday, I mentioned a webevent, created by a student in the core course in gender studies last semester, which might interest you all: it's about Making Sense of the "Gay Penguin" Controversy, and it questions the wisdom of "anthropomorphising animals to contribute to a conversation about human" behavior.

If you are interested in thinking some more about (and creating new) texts to teach children about gender variance, you might find inspiration in a couple of other projects created for that class; see, for example,
Mommies, Daddies, Families,
A Rainbow of Sex Difference,
The Stories We Tell Ourselves and
A Handbook for the Boy Scouts of America....