Since Tuesday’s conversation, I have been thinking about what it means to be an n effective change agent and ways to challenge the system/dominant social structures. It just dawned on me after class on Tuesday how linear and ineffective my approach has been for my desired objective.  Before class and for the last four years, I believed that in order to disassemble the system you must first situate yourself in a position of power within the system. And then, only then, can real change occur through top down processes.   But that’s such a contradiction. Following the rules and guidelines of dominant discourse to mobilize upward and move into power only validates the system I would try to disrupt. If I use the system to mobilize into position of power, I am only reinforcing the idea that this very elitist and exclusive pathway is the only way to create change.  I have disregarded my agency.  Going into interviews I can wear whatever I want or talk however I want  to demonstrate I am still qualified for the position regardless if I conform to standard conventions- superficial conventions used to divide and exclude. They are not real indicators of the skillset, intelligence, work ethic etc.  I encourage others think of ways in which they can resist the system, without completely sacrificing their ethics or objective to advocate for change.

So, I was sitting in my English class  at Haverford, Topics in 18th Century Literature, and my professor shows us a website, The Brown University Women Writers Project. It's "a long-term research project devoted to early modern women's writing and electronic text encoding." One of the tabs on the site caught my eye- WWO Labs.

My initial reaction was, Oh Sh*t! My English Lab idea isn't as original as I'd hoped! I'm doomed! Then, after I recovered from my melodramatic thought-explosion, we explored the labs I found the Women Writers Projects Labs to be fascinating, fun, educational, and luckily, nothing like the labs I had imagined in my head- hallelujah.

Nevertheless, these WWO labs truly speak to just how broad the definition of "lab" really is. I implore you all to play and learn. You couldn't ask for a more direct link of science to literature!

http://www.wwp.brown.edu/wwo/lab/

I wanted to learn more about the outreach that Kate Bornstein does today, and her website "Hello Cruel World" is something that I feel is really great.

www.hellocruelworld.net

I think that most people who disregard conversations about gender and sexuality as something that doesn't pertain to them if their lives fit in the expected gender binary don't realize the amount such ignorance can further pain those who are struggling with their identities in such a way. Kate says "I think that the world needs more kind people in it, no matter who or what they are, or do"

I think that in some ways I am also guilty of not trying to learn as much about issues of gender and sexuality, because I have never struggled with my own sexual orientation or felt that I am wrongly gendered. Even so, the gender workbook helped me realize that the "ideal" woman and man are pretend ideas that no one can ever really fulfill no matter how hard that they try. Even if one considers themselves able to fit neatly inside society's accepted gender binary, the binary's ideals pose a problem for everyone. . . regardless of whether you 'appear' to be fitting well within it.

    Are quotes necessarily facts? For the most part I think they are. I have seen quotes as truths we can transfer into our writing in order to solidify our arguments (mostly in academic writing). However, this seems tricky because sometimes the context in which we use the quote(s) can alter such truths. Sometimes our statements (in writing) cause the misinterpretation of a quote(s) or of our paper as a whole. It is the writer’s fault the veracity of quotes is altered and therefore questioned.

These thoughts are willing to be challenged and polished in the near future. 

Since I was pretty clearly shaken up and a little incoherent today during our discussion of Half The Sky, I thought it would be beneficial to post here with my calmer, less certain thoughts, and see if we can't figure out a very complex set of problems together.

To begin with, I think that one thing that's important to discuss is the problem of problematic language vs valuable action.  This to say that, while I found much of the language in the text problematic, and while I felt rendered helpless by it, neither of those things make the actions of those inspired by the book less valuable.  Similarly, while I'd love to see, and try to work toward, a less binarist language of gender, using binary terms while attempting to raise money that will help to educate those who would otherwise be denied access does not negate the absolutely real and tangible value of such a drive.  

It's easy for me to sit in a position of relative priviledge at BMC and call out the problems in a text for which I am most likely not the audience, but the reality is that actions like those advocated for in Half The Sky are absolutely needed, and those actions absolutely need the financial backing of wealthy and well connected people to carry them forward. The questions I am left with, however are numerous.  At what point is problematic language a problem that takes presidence?  At what point does abuse closer to home take priority over global abuses?  Where does actual progress and solution end and white knighting begin?