Going into Philadelphia yesterday, I was certain that I was going to go to the Barnes Foundation, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, or both. However, plans change and time restrains. My group and I found ourselves on Walnut Street, a major shopping street in the city. While I did not get to see a Post-Impressionist painting, I did manage to purchase some clothes from Urban Outfitters, some books, tea, and perfume.

The Quiet Volume was extremely bizarre; I’m not too sure how else to explain it. It felt strange, having a man whisper instruction into my ear. Oddly enough, it did make me aware of what I wasn’t usually aware of when I’m in a library, or when I’m reading. I became conscious of the placement of my hands, the noises I was making, and what I was reading. Every flick of the nose, flip of the page, little cough was audible to the people around me.

One of the pieces that I felt connected with during my trip yesterday was Sunstein’s piece about finding serendipity. While attempting to find serendipity on the Internet might be impossible due to personalized news, it is possible to find serendipity in real life. Finding serendipity is considered old-fashioned, according to Sunstein, but in my opinion, I find it beautifully rare. A place might exist in the sense that it is a part of the city; however, coming across it might affect someone in such a way that cannot be explained.

I have not been able to get my hands on a copy of the book yet, but I am borrowing from Vaughan tonight!  I wanted to reflect on my experience with the Borenstein book. 

As stated in some of my earlier statements, blog posts, and sentiments in class I have come to this discussion apprehensive to immerse myself in the ideals of feminism.  Regardless of the socio-historical context in which many women have been left out of this movement, I struggled with Borenstein's use of sarcasm/satire in this workbook.  I will admit, as a social-science major, I am quick to find flaw and problems within a particular framework.  Although this is my personality (both of my parents are lawyers--I tend to argue/question.. ha!), I find myself to often be one of few in many of my classes that not only acknowledge the systematic oppression of minorities, but the more subtle/nuanced ways in which minorities face micro-level/macro-level racism/sexism/any of the isms today.  I realize that I am in a learning space which is hyper-sensitive to these various forms of oppression, but also we all come from different backgrounds and experiences which shape our lens of race/sexuality/gender/class/everything today.

My day in the city accompanied by Louise, Sara and Ava began as an adventure, free of restrictions except needing to be back at the Free Public Library by 3:00. Our group decided that instead of choosing a place or two to spend our day, we would just wander and see where the concrete streets would take us. We soon found ourselves outside of the Rodin Museum, were we were able to see the copies of the sculptures he created many years ago, each one full of varied but deep human emotions. We then found ourselves walking to the sculpture garden behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art, where we were able to interact with the art. We climbed on the sculptures that looked like worms reaching towards the sky, we sat above a modern fountain and felt the water move between our fingers underneath us. We then found a mountain of rocks that we chose to climb, giving us a beautiful view of the river. We chose to experience rather than plan, we made the decision to play.

I thought it was interesting that, for the most part, the class was in agreement that Kate Bornstein’s ‘My New Gender Workbook’ was very hypocritical in that her gender assessments encouraged a sense of ‘either/or,’ which she had been insisting that we stay away from for the majority of her book.  I also was a little irritated with the way that she presented these quizzes and with the summaries that were given about your personal score.  Like a lot of people in our class, I sensed negativity and a condescending attitude that really made me feel like I was not a welcomed reader.

However, it was mentioned in class that Bornstein’s personal stories were more relatable and actually taught more about the process of discovering your identity versus all the steps, quizzes and theories she was throwing at us.  For me, the mini biography she included and the tweets from real people who were in the process of discovering their identity are what made me want to continue reading.  I know we touched on this the first day of class, whether or not we wanted to learn about gender and sexuality with an objective or subjective lens, and we came to the conclusion that we needed a little bit of both.  Based on this conclusion, I think that was Bornstein’s intent with the structure of this workbook.  She presented us with some objective theories and steps for processing your identity but she tried to balance it out with some relatable evidence.

Why does society need to label a person's gender or sexuality?

Is is always society, don't people also label their own identity?

How can we separate what parts of our identity have been forced on us from what parts we define ourselves?

Do the parts forced on us also define us?

In what ways are parts of our identity forced on us-and is it unconscious or conscious?

Is discovering your identity ever a personal experience?

Fuck Gender Violence

Violence should not be a reaction to someone's identity.

Identity is personal and should be protected.

Protection is necessary for ourselves and others, but we too frequently ignore the protection of others.

"Other" is the second side of binaries that cause oppression.

In class on Thursday, during our modified version of the “Question” activity, as well as during the new “Statement” exercise, my group identified one overarching concern: not one of us “answered” the questions, or even made a succinct, declarative statement in response to the issue at hand. We seemed utterly incapable of distilling a broad question (like mine, “Where does gender begin?”) into a concise, concrete statement. All of the responses merely bloated the issue at hand with nebulous words such as “universe” invading almost everyone’s question series. Our responses were also riddled with shaky, timid statements that could easily be retracted, or our words were hedged with disclaimers. Why is this? Why are we seemingly (I am noting my inability to write fully declarative sentences here, as I automatically used a weak word like “seemingly”) unable to make decisive statements and stand behind them? Why are we afraid of answering our own questions?

Have I questioned my gender enough?
What defines "enough"?
Is being aware of your gender enough?
Is it ever over?
When did it begin?
Why did it begin? 


Gender is the best sex toy!
Toys are the best part of sex!
Sex evolves.
Evolution is essential for change.
Change those toys!
Toys aren't just for children. 

One of the major issues in Persepolis is how the views and expectations of women changed in revolutionary Iran as author Marjane Satrapi grew up there. The contrast between the more "liberal" views of her parents and the "conservative" ones of the people like Marji's schoolteacher shows the importance of cultural perspective when it comes to looking at gender. People forget that when coming to understand gender and gender roles in society, you also must consider other factors, such as culture and class. Gender does not exist on its own. Gender exists within an individual, but the roles that come with it exist around the individual. It is important to remember that, when studying gender, one cannot do so effectively looking exclusively through their own cultural lens. It is important to understand gender and gender roles throughout many different cultures.

I'm looking forward to our discussions on Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis this coming week. I studied the first half of Persepolis in my 12th grade English class, though I'm curious to see how my analysis and understanding will change with a more focused study. One thing I found interesting was the choice of medium, namely the undetailed comic style. When I originally took the art style into consideration, the point was made that since the drawings were very simplistic, it made the story more relatable. Since non-Iranians would be reading this book, the simple drawings could allow readers to not feel like they were reading the story of an "other", someone whose experiences were fundamentally different and ergo unrelateable. However, the style also leads to an enforcement of gender stereotypes due to its simplistic nature. It is very clear which figures are meant to be men and which are meant to be women based on external characteristics, traits that are meant to be clearly read as male or female. The style does not really allow for any variance in gender; it shows only two possible points on a the amorphous ball that is gender identity. 

While reading Persepolis, I struggled with the term “emancipation”. A religious man tells Satrapi that the veil she is forced to wear is emancipation – from the male gaze, leaving her free to worry about other things. But some women rebel against this ‘emancipation’ with things that attract the male gaze – makeup, hairstyles, tighter clothing, etc. It made me wonder: is it still rebellion if the women are rebelling by playing into their roles in a patriarchy? (to be more feminine, to please men, etc.) However, I have come to realize that emancipation is about freedom of choice and that these women were choosing to attract men when/because their society refused to let them do so, and that this is an act of rebellion.