Oh man, just finished my final for this class. While I completely did not intend it, my final ended up being 23 pages total. What really got me was the activist portion of the final. I went with the "campaign in a box" idea, though it ended up being a "campaign in a very, very long document" kind of a thing. I decided to create a hypothetical school called Sparta University that was going through some tough times. The university recently cut all of the women's programs on campus, which led to serious student disarray. I pretended that I was a campaign consultant hired out by some student on campus who wanted to create a campaign called "Save Women's Programs for Sparta!" but needed some guidance. So I put together a 15 page document for basically everything you need to know what running a campaign. It went over Targets, Strategies, Tactics, Goals, Timelines, etc. I even made a sample petition for this campaign to use!

It was really cool, albeit incredibly time consuming. But I think it could actually prove to be something pretty useful for anyone interested in starting their own campaign! I think that's what's most exciting about the project, is that it goes beyond the theoretical--someone could pick up that document and potentially turn it into a policy changing campaign. I think this was a really cool end to the semester because it shows that theory really does help with changing policy. While I would have been able to create a campaign before I wrote my theory piece, being able to have that theory to revolve it around was really interesting and seriously helpful. It made me zero in on the nuances of the campaign to see what I wouldn't have suggested before.

All in all--super proud of this final project :)

I just realized I never really blogged about the final presentations we did last week. My group focused on comparing the graphic novel of Jane Eyre to the BBC series we watched earlier in the semester. I thought it was incredibly fascinating to look at something that is entirely based in the visual rather than the visual. The assumptions and conclusions that one makes from a written work are based off of textual evidence and imagination. However, when words are sparse and visuals are everywhere, you are being told in a different way, how you should think.

So going into the graphic novel with that understanding, I was still incredibly surprised at what we were being told to think. Bertha Mason, as we discussed in our presentation, made a complete transformation into the 'other'. The only semblance of humanity she retained was her feminine figure--the rest was completely transformed into animal (of the gorilla variety). Why did the artist choose to do this? Why did he keep her figure, but make her walk on the tops of her hands?

While it was funny to talk about it in class, I was really disturbed by her depiction--as well as the female depictions in general. Jane was wearing an incredulous amount of makeup, Blanche looked more like a sculpture than a live human being, etc. What was the intent? Here we are given the madwoman in the attic and the 'angel in the kitchen' (is that what the other one is called? i can't remember). It is very clear what the artist is trying to say about gender roles. However, it is curious that Blanche should be the most regally depicted character. Under what I assume to be a gender bias, one would almost think that Blanche should be the one Rochester chooses in the end--based on the artist's depictions.

It is unnerving to think that some people will only ever be exposed to radically hurtful images such as the ones presented in this graphic novel. The perception and treatment of women can only be perpetuated by ignorance/complicity/etc. and pictures like these almost give permission for it.

Now that the semester is coming to a close, with all of my classes finished (holy shit!) and only three final projects to turn in--I'm left feeling pretty satisfied. While I was technically only in two classroom setting classes this semester, I feel like I learned more this semester than I did in any other. Specifically, this class has taught me to open my eyes towards places I would have never believed I was blind to. After being able to read the variety of texts that we did, I definitely have a lot of theories that I'll be able to carry with me and hopefully apply in any context that I can.

I think using this class in the context of Jane Eyre was the means for grounding us in theory. While we could have just read through De Beauvoir, hooks, Lorde, Mohanty, Spivak, etc. we instead used Jane Eyre as the common ground between all--complicating our understanding of both the story and the theories through the use of a grounded example. I really liked this method of learning, because I know I definitely learned.

Another method that genuinely helped my ability to grasp certain concepts was the Zine projects that we worked on. Being able to talk about theory in class is one thing, but to convey it with far less words and perhaps more images is something else entirely. You have to be very economical with your choices if you want your point to get across. I definitely learned a lot just from looking through the various zines we made.

Overall I'm crazy satisfied with how this class went--I wish I had taken more like it throughout my MSU career, or at least had more access to theory.

I remember Dr. Renzi talking about an email she received not too long ago from MSU administrators. The email stated that Professors have an obligation to report cases of sexual assault that has either been admitted to them by the student, or perhaps a case of suspected assault. I just read this article from the Huffington Post about Title IX--a 40 year old federal gender equity law that also talks about cases of rape.  Essentially, I found out that if a school does too little to enforce this law or does too about sexual assault can lose federal funding.

I thought that was really interesting--especially tied to the email that Dr. Renzi received. Is this recent administrative awareness about sexual assault on campus due to the controversy that happened on campus last year (where two MSU basketball players were accused of taking turns raping a woman) even though no criminal action was ever taken? I doubt it. It seems, like aways, that there is a power structure in place. And when it is beneficial--or required--to act a certain way, that is the way in which people/whatever act.

I realize this is a pretty cynical take, and hopefully this stronger awareness of sexual assault can lead to a decrease in such acts, but I'm not sure that forcing professors to 'tattle' on their students is what is best for the students who have already been through something unimaginable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/for-colleges-rape-cases-a_n_1445271.html?ref=college

Yesterday's class was really interesting for me. I couldn't stop thinking about the classroom dynamic. I feel like there is this propensity to believe that if there is a 'diverse' classroom, then there needs to be an acknowledgment--either upfront or by yourself--of the diversity. However, this usually happens on an individual level. If we were taking me for example, I would be seen as the "Jewish" one, and would have the ability to speak for the Jewish people in terms of my own personal experiences in class discussion. It doesn't really seem fair that I have to represent an entire religion. Likewise, it doesn't seem fair that someone would have to speak for their own cultural group based off of color, religion, geographic location, sexual preference, gender, age, etc.

In class I said I think it ought to be mentioned in the beginning of any class that a disclaimer should be mentioned. It should be an acknowledgment of the individuality within the room, but that no individual should ever have to speak for whatever group they may or may not wish to be associated with.

While it may seem like one of those statements that don't need to be said, because everyone just assumes it, those are often those most forgotten sentiments. For the sake of knowledge, identifying structural concepts is more important than a spokesperson. What I mean by concepts is understanding the historical and structural background that has formulated the spokesperson's experiences. We cannot pretend that by getting one person's viewpoint on a certain matter means we understand the matter entirely. Yes, learning from each other's personal experiences is important for many reasons (a key reason that is slightly unrelated, is the mere ability to have effective communication and listening abilities), however, it is not a holistic understanding.

This is where I think detrimental knowledge comes into place. When one claims to have knowledge of a certain topic, but really this knowledge came from a singular perspective--there is much that is missing. This missing information, or the misinformation the individual holds, can be dangerous.

I don't mean to cut this off short, but my computer is about to die! I hope some of this makes sense...

So I've been thinking about what I can do for the creative portion of my final project, and I think I have a pretty good idea. I was thinking about how all we've read is theory so far in this class, which makes sense as it is a theory class. However, I've been a little frustrated throughout the class trying to reconcile theory and real life application. Yes someone may have a flawless feminist theory, and it could be the most beautiful piece of writing ever seen--but can it actually be transformed outside of the page and into people's physical actions? I'm not so sure. I do hope it is possible though!

So going along with that, I think that my creative portion will be a 'Campaign in a Box.' I'll create an entire campaign along the lines of my theory of complicity so that there isn't just the theoretical, there is the empirical as well. The campaign box will include a full campaign plan--targets, tactics, strategies, goals, coalition partners, events, timelines, sample petitions, etc. It'll also have a how-to guide for starting a new campaign either by yourself or with a group of people. I will do my best to have this be as realistic as possible so that if anyone were ever interested in using the materials for the campaign I create, or any campaign at all, they could utilize my 'Campaign in a Box' and not only talk about change--but facilitate it as well.

What do you guys think?

So I was really interested in our class discussion today and the issues brought up from our reading. I thought Mohanty did a good job at finding a new facet through which to understand solidarity beyond the confines of sisterhood. I think the most important aspect of her explanation, and the aspect that I most agreed with, was that of mobility. Someone needs to come from somewhere before they can be in solidarity with you. Where was it? It could have been on the side you are opposed to. But because Mohanty stresses the possibility of mobility, it means that we are not stuck in the same rut that previous understandings have caused.

I think that is also what keeps the individuality within the 'we.' If the individual decides to move to the side you are on, then it was their individual choice. Now that they're in a group, though, some would say that their individuality is lost. However, they can make the exact same choice to leave your group. That freedom will always be there (oh god, I hope!). This is not the case with the example of sisterhood, as Professor Renzi brought up today. If you have a sister, than you will always have a sister--that cannot change. However, with reflective solidarity, it calls for the constant reexamination of what it is you are in solidarity with. I can dig that :)

After finishing Wide Sargasso Sea, by Jean Rhys, I couldn't help but feel a little overwhelmed. The story of the mysterious "madwoman in the attic" is revealed in these 100 or so pages. Her name is not Bertha, but Antoinette, like her mother. Antoinette (jr)'s story is told in three parts. The first is of her upbringing, how she grew up in a home of slave owners falling into disarray because the Emancipation law had been passed. Her time was spent isolated but filled with the beauty of her surroundings. The second part of her story is told mostly in (who we assume to be) Mr. Rochester's voice. His story fills in the details of how the two came to be met in matrimony. But more importantly, it tells the story of their rapid decline as companions and the complete deterioration of any remnants of naiveté either of them had. Then, the third part of the story, which is only a handful of pages, is the only portion of the novella which takes place in England. It chooses a couple of important characters to place in the story (Grace, Richard, Jane, Rochester) to give the reader a sense of timeline in terms of Jane Eyre itself. 

What I found most interesting throughout the novella, was the theme of insanity. Bertha in Jane Eyre is normally the character most associated with insanity--the madwoman in the attic. However, Wide Sargasso Sea, provides the opportunity to take a closer look at what it means to be insane--and whether our eye has been too carefully locked on Antoinette. While Antoinette's narrative in the first portion of the novella is disjointed and unreliable, it is the unnamed Mr. Rochester who's narrative we call even further into question. This happens because his narrative demands that we believe he is the sane one--that he is the victim. However, as the story progresses, he is the one who starts falling apart in a much more visible way. He begins hearing the thoughts of Christophine during a lengthy conversation at the end.

But what is most interesting about this look into the 'insanity' of any character, I think, is the environmental impact that led up to such a claim. Antoinette's mother was believed to have always been insane, however, from the story Antoinette tells, we are led to believe that it could have been the events happening around her which caused it--or at least exacerbated it. Antoinette seems to be following down the same path.

While this story precedes the 20th century, I think it's interesting to compare it to the massive popularity eugenics policy had during that time. Most scientists, Robert Yerkes for example, did not believe that the environment had any impact on a person's intelligence. That has since been disproved. But the implications of ignoring people's experiences are massive. They have led to the dehumanization of characters such as Bertha, because she is written off immediately as the insane one. It takes a closer examination (albeit even a fictitious one) to understand that things are never as simple as they may seem.

So I mentioned gender neutral housing a few weeks ago in class and I just wanted to follow up with it! Flexible housing at MSU passed today!

I guess the details are that it's a two year pilot program that will allow people of differing genders to live together--whether it is transgender individuals, or siblings, or whatevs! We got it! And it's going to be happening in West McDonnel and North Wonders.

If you want to read more about it, then just check out this website: http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2012/03/rha_passes_bill_to_start_flexible_campus_housing_option_in_the_fall

So in this blog, I'm going to go back to my  first essay, as it has been something I've been working on since the assignment. I started to get in to complicating Beauvoir's theory at the end, and it's something I'm really interested in. What do you guys think?

In my first essay, I spent time talking about complicity both within the world of Environmental Justice, and within the world of Feminism. However, the connection I was trying to draw between the two of them was not as firmly established as I had hoped for it to be. In the paragraph discussing EJ, I told the story of what happened to Buffalo Creek, West Virginia. In this town, there was a huge sludge pool, which erupted and killed over 100 people. This eruption was nearly predicted by town members, but the coal company sent in  an inspector who reported that everything was fine with the pool only days before it erupted. The company claimed that the eruption was “an act of God,” but the residents knew that it was an act of complicity by the inspector to cut additional regulatory corners, and resulted in the murder of their loved ones.

The reason I bring up the Buffalo Creek instance is because it helps describe the metaphysical murder women undergo when acting complicit. Simone de Beauvoir, in her introduction to her book The Second Sex, gives us a good example of what complicity means to a woman. Complicity means that you are an accomplice to something wrong. And it has become the norm of behavior in which women have accepted for centuries in order to maintain “advantages with the superior caste; the superior caste, referring of course, to men” (10). Complicity always surfaces when there is a tension of power, Beauvoir explains, and it implies sticking to the status quo of the established power.

Many women act with complicity in order to derive satisfaction from the benefits of sticking to the status quo (which comes from the drama of believing that women need men to find meaning. It is “between the fundamental claim of every subject, which always posits itself as essential, and the demands of a situation that constitutes [them] as inessential” (17)). Because women have been deemed inessential, and therefore lived without meaning, they had to resort to finding their own meaning through men—through being complicit with men’s rules. However, as they allow the “man who sets the woman up as an Other”, they lose who they actually are (10). Their act of complicity is actually an act of metaphysical murder, for these women rid themselves of the possibility that they could have an essential self without having a man around, before ever giving it enough thought to realize that it was already there, it was already theirs.

But as Beauvoir stated, this has been happening for centuries, and many woman are unaware that an act of complicity is taking place. In essence, this has become so engrained within women that we don’t realize it is happening, including Beauvoir. For when she states “…and we will see the difficulties women are up against just when, trying to escape the sphere they have been assigned to until now, the seek to be a part of the human Mitsein,” we believe that she sees this as ‘out of women’s hands’ for it has been assigned to us (17). However, that excuse of ignorance holds as much merit as the excuse that claimed 100 people died in Buffalo Creek due to “an act of God.” As in Buffalo Creek, God can not be blamed as the instigator for women’s metaphysical murder, it is the conscious (or unconscious) continuance of complicity. 

I want to spend time talking about Butler's theory from the opening of her book Undoing Gender. I think I've been most fascinated by what she's had to say because hers comes across as the most complex writing  I've been exposed to thus far. When talking about what it means to 'undo' your gender, and the implications that is has--I can't help but want to have a four hour long discussion about it to make sure I'm really on the same page with what is happening. To say that your gender is not something that belongs to you necessarily, but is its own essential self that determines large parts of you, is a scary thought. And it is one of my favorite points that Butler elicits. It can determine who you are because it can take away other options for who you could be. Gender comes with a disclaimer: you will be what I (and society) tells you to be. But this disclaimer is written in invisible ink. The actual price tag written in black and bold type says something along the lines of: you can be anything/anyone you want to be!!!!!

But we all no that utopia really means no place--and the world we are all in does not actually have a place for such freedom of choice. Unless of course you break free from the boundaries assigned to you at birth by undoing your gender--by breaking stereotypes down and showing others that it is possible for them to do the same. And within this new mindset, perhaps it is possible to create the image of you that you wish to be--perhaps after this revolution of the mind is it possible to be anything/anyone you want to be(!!!!).

I'll definitely be coming back to this thought soon.

I went in to this blog wanting to talk about Audre Lorde's description of the erotic, but I'll admit, I got a little sidetracked and instead went to look at her poetry and found an amazing poem that tied in my blog from last week and to her chapter titled "The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action". I pasted it below for your reading pleasure:

Coal by Audre Lorde

I
is the total black, being spoken
from the earth's inside.
There are many kinds of open
how a diamond comes into a knot of flame
how sound comes into a words, coloured
by who pays what for speaking.

Some words are open like a diamond
on glass windows
singing out within the crash of sun
Then there are words like stapled wagers
in a perforated book—buy and sign and tear apart—
and come whatever will all chances
the stub remains
an ill-pulled tooth with a ragged edge.
Some words live in my throat
breeding like adders. Other know sun
seeking like gypsies over my tongue
to explode through my lips
like young sparrows bursting from shell.
Some words
bedevil me

Love is word, another kind of open.
As the diamond comes into a knot of flame
I am Black because I come from the earth's inside
Now take my word for jewel in the open light.

Now, I realize there is only a loose connection between my previous blog (namely, the title of coal) and this poem, but what stood out to me more was the theme of words and what is being spoken. In the aforementioned chapter, what struck me as most powerful was her reasoning behind the pointlessness of silence. Essentially her point was that she was only hurting herself by staying silent--if she had, she would have been unable to communicate with those who helped propel her forward into a new life of understanding and acceptance. When she was dealing with cancer she realized that "death...is the final silence" (41). Her point there is that at some point (hopefully in the distant future), we will all die, and then the privilege of speaking will no longer be afforded to us. What we need to do now is take full advantage of our opportunity to speak while we can.

Further, I think that there's another inherent point within that. While she says that we all need to speak up more, even if we need to force ourselves out of our normal silent habit, some people are not able. The reason the feminist movement began was because women didn't have a voice. We had been socialized to believe that our rightful place was beneath men in every aspect of life. Women have had to, and continue to this day, to fight for the voice that didn't exist.

I think this shows a greater importance to what Audre Lorde is saying. So many people (both within the feminist movement, and any other movement) have been born without the privilege to speak. Therefore, to ignore that privilege, is to laugh in the faces of those who live in forced silence.

I'd like to add a small disclaimer to this blog before I start:

I am not well versed in the subject of Feminism. While it is one that my friends and I have brought up in discussion on numerous occasions, I do not count myself as one who understands it as well as I know it deserves. However, a subject that I have spent a bit more time working with, is Environmental Justice (EJ). I think a good definition of EJ is from the EPA's website, "Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."

The reason I'm bringing up EJ is because I've given up on keeping track the number of times I've compared the Feminist movement to the Environmental one. If you were to interchange a few words here and there, they'd seem nearly identical. In bell hooks' book Feminist Theory, she has a big beef to pull with the bourgeois women feminists--and for good reason. "The condescension [the white bourgeois feminists] directed at black women was one of the means they employed to remind us that the women's movement was 'theirs'--that we were able to participate because they allowed it, even encouraged it; after all, we were needed to legitimate the process. They did not see us as equals" (12). This exact feeling of being 'used' as tools to legitimate a process has been felt by every single person in MSU Beyond Coal, as well as all others working in the environmental movement on campus. 

For the past two years, I've been president of this incredible group working to transition MSU off of coal and other fossil fuel energy to 100% renewable energy. We currently have the largest on-campus coal plant in the entire nation, which begs the question: exactly how Spartan Green are we? When 37 people die in Ingham county every year because of coal related issues, I say--not very. Last year, the University decided to put together an Energy Transition Steering Committee to map out MSU's energy future--this was a public acknowledgment that our current energy infrastructure would not do for the long haul--some of our boilers are over 45 years old, and some without regulatory measures taken to ensure the smallest amount of emissions are emitted. When we administration told us of this committee, we were ecstatic! Finally, we could actually get somewhere in protecting human health and the safety of the environment--this plan could do that. When they asked me and a member of MSU Greenpeace to be on this committee as the student voices, we were encouraged even further. 

However, it was mere weeks into this committee that we learned our presence on the committee was no more than a PR move. They didn't actually want our opinions on the matter, considered the suggestions we posited naive and it seemed had an agenda the whole time without a true effort of wanting to work towards something new. And so I bring us back to the aforementioned hooks quote. The exact same feelings she and the black feminist community were feeling are shared by the MSU environmental community, as well as the environmental movement as a whole. 


We cannot allow our movements to become complicit with those who would try to prevent us from moving forward. The most important thing for us all to do is to continue on full speed ahead. Change has happened in the past and it can happen again, but not without some serious passion to fuel it.

The other day, I was on the huffingtonpost website trying to get my fill of GOP humor, when I found a couple of articles/videos talking about gender neutrality. We had talked a little about them in class, and it was a topic that I found incredibly interesting. (A few years ago, I was in an English class that focused entirely on the works of Ursula K. Le guin. One of her books that we read was titled "The Left Hand of Darkness." This book told the story of a world where people did not define themselves by their gender (at least depending on what time of the month it was), because they were able to switch back and forth between the two. In a world of androgyny, the singular gendered person is alien. "The Left Hand of Darkness" really left an impression on me, and I have since been interested in the subject of androgyny.)

The video that I found was a Fox news report about a preschool in Stockholm that was neither for girls nor boys. It was for 'friends' only. This school was completely gender neutral. Despite the Fox news reporters uncomfortably wriggling in their seats over the concept of such an experiment, it was really informative. But I bring this up not for its content, but for the reaction it elicited from my roommate (I'm not sure if it matters but for the sake of full disclosure, my roommate is gay). I didn't realize that he had been standing behind me while I was watching the report, but when it was over, I turned and saw him there, looking pretty hesitant. He said he wasn't sure he would ever want to put his children through something like that--having them go without gender for the first six, or so, years of their lives.

I tried to explain what the reasoning behind it would be--it would eradicate gender roles--the ones that told him all throughout his own childhood that his love for musicals should not be equal to his love for sports (even though they still are), it would help one realize their identity from a truly personal level, rather than a prescribed level. The benefits, in my opinion, were endless. But he still seemed hesitant. When I asked him why this made him so uncomfortable, he said "well I wouldn't want my kid to be the only one without a sex growing up! That wouldn't get rid of their isolation, that would ensure it."

"But what if it were an entire school that did it? What if your kid wasn't alone in this?" I responded.

"Oh well then that's totally fine." He said, seeming much more comfortable with the whole notion, and then walked away to go watch videos on Youtube.

I sat there thinking for a few minutes after he left about how much easier it is for anyone to do...well anything, if they don't think they're alone. The fear of really standing out is enough to comfort people into submission of fitting in. But after a few minutes of thought, I decided to store this moment away for another time. That time came a bit sooner than I thought, though! After reading Simone de Beauvoir's introduction to her book "The Second Sex," I immediately came back to my conversation with my roommate. When Beauvoir started questioning "where did this submission in women come from?" with the answer: "Refusing to be the Other, refusing complicity with man, would mean renouncing all the advantages an alliance with the superior caste confers on them" (10).

Complicity. Being an accomplice to a crime. We are all so bought in to the 'business as usual' model, that anything else, any notion of change, scares us shitless.  And even beyond the fear, there is the general lack of concrete understanding of what change could look like. For example, the woman, who's name I can't currently recall, who decided the solution to feminism was cyborgs, was completely shutdown in the Gubar article we read. We cannot actually visualize such a world, and so we are incapable of understanding it, committing to it, standing behind it, etc.

I'm not trying to say that feminists don't know what their ultimate goal would look like, I'm saying that there isn't one concrete, or a grouping of concrete goals. This is a huge problem, because it divides the feminist community. Because it seems that feminists have been incapable, or at least not done that great of a job, of working together (across the racial, class, religion, sexual orientation, etc. lines), they cannot have a tangible image or chance at success. In my last blog post I talked about the lack of connection people felt to the movement, because it was disjointed. This time, I bring up the same issue but under a different microscope. It's not because it's purely disjointed, but because it seems the there's a refusal to put the pieces together to create a cohesive front from which to attack--and whether this is out of fear, resentment, ignorance, whatever, the point is--feminism is fighting too many battles at once. The movement cannot expect to move forward into a future of equality, if they aren't exemplifying the equality they seek within themselves.

I think that's a strong enough sentence to end on. Check back soon!

A few weeks ago, I was perusing the world of Facebook, as I had nothing better to do during the long days of winter break, when I happened upon a website called 'Feminist Ryan Gosling'. The website featured pictures of Ryan Gosling with accompanying sayings like this one:

The website was originally made for a few students studying feminist theory--they needed a better way to remember the material, and so Feminist Ryan Gosling was born. The reason I'm bringing it up, the reason I made it the title of my blog is because in an interview, the founder, Danielle Henderson, admitted that the greatest challenge facing feminism today was that "...there's a distinct, active movement that tends to get blamed more than it gets praised and there's a distinct amount of people who agree with and trumpet feminist ideals, but aren't actually doing anything in their community. The fact that there's not enough of a connection to a movement is a big problem."

I thought her point was completely valid--and definitely extends beyond the bounds of feminism. Sure, we can spend all of our time complaining about issues, saying that 'this is to blame' or 'that is to blame,' but without actually taking any action--the problems can only grow. Nevertheless, there's a lot more at play here when she points out the lack of connection to the movement. After reading the Susan Gubar article about "What ails feminist criticism?" I was struck by precisely how much of feminism's history has played into that very problem. Gubar talks about the issues some feminists have of needing to make sure every single possible group of woman is included in discussions of equality--for fear of seeming hypocritical, racist, whatever you want to call it.

So by making an emphasis of including everyone, it should seem that there wouldn't be a problem of connection, right? Well, maybe not so much, as Gubar points out. "In keeping with Jouve's stance, not only some faculty but many students these days make obeisance to the necessity of considering (without subordinating) race, class, gender, sexuality, and nation in litanies that often translate into depressingly knee-jerk essays rejecting out-of-hand the speculations of a given literary or theoretical work simply because it neglects to discuss x (fill in the blank--bisexual Anglo-Pakistani mothers; the heterosexual, working-class, Jews-for-Jesus community of Nashville, and so forth). Too often, each text becomes a grist for a mill that proves the same intellectually vapid--though politically appalling--point that racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia reign supreme."

Phew. Sorry about that. It took me a few go-overs on that one to get what she was saying. Basically what Gubar was getting at was that through the emphasis of every possible grouping of woman, we are getting more and more distracted from the purpose we originally sought--equality to men in political, social and economic terms (I know this is a pretty abbreviated definition, but lets go with it for now.). And beyond that we're becoming/became/are a disjointed movement. I suppose a rough comparison would be to that of a dismantled car. While all of the parts are there, and in theory, we can see that its purpose is to propel one to the next destination, it lays useless in its separation. Feminism has all of the right components to be an incredible movement, but it is too disjointed to propel itself forward.

And so, in good full-circle form, that is why I think there isn't enough connection to the movement, like Danielle said. How can we expect people to connect to something that is hardly connected itself?

More on this next time!