Sgt. Pepper, Giroux

I'd like to start out with what I thought was Giroux's most pertinent quote to postmodernism.

"In Eastern Europe and elsewhere there is a strong call for the primacy of the political and the ethical as a foundation for democratic public life whereas in the U.S. there is an ongoing refusal of the discourse of politics and ethics" (384).

Here Giroux is talking about the non-activism of the American people. Dr. Rog used the example in class of the fall of the Soviet Union, and how it was due to the oppressed yearning for a voice. Giroux suggests that it is almost selfish of us to keep so quiet when we have so much opportunity to speak, but he also addresses the issue of why we keep so quiet. In our democratic society it seems almost like a waste to not utilize our freedoms, but how truly democratic is our society? In the same way Butler argues that women technically have the freedom of speech, but are hardly acknowledged, so goes the same treatment of the American people. While we do live very free lives, we have little power over the structure of our society. A perfect example of this is our presidential elections that will be held this November. While technically each citizen does have the right to vote, it is pretty clear that the results are decided way before any voting takes place. Do you think it was an accident that both the Democratic and Republican candidates last election (Bush and Kerry) both attended Yale University and were both part of the same secret society there? It really wouldn't have mattered who won; the same actions would have been taken either way. I guess what I'm getting at is that changing the structure of our society seems near impossible. The only way for it to happen would for people to start raising their voices again. While the "big men" do have a lot of power, I think if millions of citizens revolted against them something could get done.

Sgt. Pepper, Cixous and Butler

I loved the structure of class last Thursday. I think it emphasized the truths of Butler's theories better than anything else we could've done. By not allowing the men to speak, we were going directly against the hegemonic truth that white males are the dominant, prevailing group in the United States. For those 90 minutes, everything that society teaches us to believe no longer applied. And what became of it? Chaos. I thought it was important that Dr. Rog allowed the men to write down their thoughts, offering them a sense of what it's like to have some voice, but not much. By letting them speak their minds with no one necessarily hearing what they had to say, I think it provided a more accurate mirror of everyday life of women. It's important to note that women do have voices, but that they are practically silenced from the day they are born. In reality, women do also have the right to freedom of speech, but they do not have the power to actually make anything of it.

"Every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud" (163).
I see a lot of truth behind Butler's quote here, having directly experienced it every day. As we women get older and start to realize the way society is really run, it is blatant that there is an obvious trend going on. Wealthy white males have always run the show, and they still do. I liked the idea Dr. Rog pointed out in the word "history," and how it can be broken down to "his-story." Now that our country has undergone a feminist movement, we have thankfully gained many rights we didn't have originally. Unfortunately though, now that we all of the same freedoms as males, people assume all is fixed, and aren't interested in it anymore. The truth is we do have a voice, but it's so small that you can barely hear it. And the boys in class on Thursday felt the torture.

Elizabeth Byrne -Giroux

Going into today's class I was uneasy as I couldn't formulate a pre class post. After class I learned alot about my self. I could have taken a shot at what I though Giroux was saying, but due to my lack of confidence in academics in and out of the classroom I didn't do a pre- class post. When we were talking about men and women, I thought to myself "is the reason I don't speak up in class is because I am a girl?" As the class continued I came to the conclusion that I don't think it is because I am a girl. I have grown up always being shy in classrooms and went to a boarding school where everyone was from what i thought, much smarter than me. However, as I continue to write this blog i am thinking- could it be because I am a girl and my inferiority or shyness in classrooms started a long time ago? 

Anyway, now that I have a better understanding of Giroux I think that I may be an exact person that Giroux is talking about. After what Rachel said in class about how she liked how classmates relate theorys to personal experience- I am going to try my best to give examples from life in regards to this essay. When he talks about pedagogy in west and how some where along the way the educational system has abandoned what is at the essence of the U.S - a full participant in democratic society.  When talking about this in the beginning of class really made me think about my role in this country and about how "every vote counts". My mom has registered me as a voter since I was 18 and I never have. I want to start with the fact that my mom registered me to vote-- showing a total lack of interest on my part to be involved with the future of the country in which i am a citizen of. Then in the past two years i have never voted. I know who my parents support and i think well i guess i could just vote for what they thing- but because i dont know much about politics i choose not vote because i dont have a stance either way. This is were the point that education needs to do something about the lack of interest. I am not blaming this on school or education because I believe it all my fault that i do not read more newspapers or familiarize my self with the world around me. However, I do think that somewhere throughout my time in school that i learned that i could do the bare minimum and still get by.  (once i got to college i quickly learned that i was not going to get by with that) Linking myself to teachers, I think that they also believe that they can get by with teaching children the bare minimum they need to pass the proper tests. 

Something else I found interesting was the quote "the limits of reason must be extended to recognizing other ways in which people learn or take up particular subject positions." (387) The things in class that were mentioned were experience, social, interaction, influence, and family. I am having trouble typing what I am thinking and not sure if this is correct link (someone please correct if i am wrong or has a better understanding of this quote) but along the lines of how the boys in the class couldn't see how women were inferior or how  Dr. Tillman or Dr. Cummings would have trouble running the experiment done in class the other day.  Leading to the idea that "critical pedagogy needs to create new forms of knowledge through its emphasis on breaking down disciplinary boundaries and creating new spaces where knowledge can be produced."(386)  

July-->Irigaray

I personally did not understand this reading at all, I don’t know if I was supposed to dig deeper into it or what. It talked about the male and female sexual parts, but it didn’t explain what it was comparing it to. Hopefully in class I will get a better understanding. I plan to continue this essay when I know what I am talking about.

ChittyChittyBangBang Giroux

Giroux's "Towards a Postmodern Pedagogy" is a very interesting article. Giroux challenges the traditional approach to education with what he calls a “border pedagogy". One of Giroux's main goals is to overcome the obstacle of "the other" and unite into one learning experience. Another difference in this border pedagogy approach is the importance of critical thinking. This is a way of thinking that CMC majors need to learn to do.

"This means providing students with the critical capacity to challenge and transform existing social and political forms, rather than simply adapt to them. It also means providing students with the skills they need to locate themselves in history, find their own voices, and provide the convictions and compassion necessary for exercising civic courage, taking risks, and furthering the habits, customs, and social relations that are essential to democratic public forms" (384).

I think this is a very important quote and that there is much more to education than text books. Experience provides education that text books and school teachers can't always give you. It is important to broaden your horizons and "take risks" in order to find out who you are. Giroux also addresses the issue of ethics and relations. In critical pedagogy focusing on differences can be very helpful in understanding how other social groups function in a democratic society and also how to interact with all of these other social groups. Overcoming racism and gender differences are essential in communicating and operating in a free democratic society. It reminds me of Derrida and the concept of difference vs. differance and De Saussure: "In language there are only differences". The same could be said about critical pedagogy.

I feel like I have been lucky with my educational experience and that I have viewed school similar to the way Giroux speaks about it. I weight my learning experiences inside and outside of the classroom equally. My life experiences sometimes help bring in knowledge I have been taught in school and it’s what makes the information really make sense to me. There are endless possibilities and education never ends. "What kind of citizens do we hope to produce through public education in a postmodern culture?" (385) I think that we want well rounded citizens who are experienced and look at life critically.

Starfish Giroux

Henry A. Giroux discusses education in a way I think directly links to this class, CMC 300. “Education must be understood as producing not only knowledge but also political subjects. Rather than rejecting the language of politics, critical pedagogy must link public education to the imperatives of critical democracy” 384. What Giroux is saying is education should not just be one person learning information, but a person being taught to look at the information critically. This reminded me of our class because the education we are gaining from it allows us to do just that. We are viewing the world around us, this postmodern society, with a critical mind.

“The language of critical pedagogy needs to construct schools as democratic public spheres. In part, this means educators need to develop critical pedagogy in which the knowledge, habits, and skills of critical rather than simply good citizenship are taught and practiced. This means providing students with the opportunity to develop the critical capacity to challenge and transform existing social and political forms, rather than simply adapt to them.” I think this quote pretty much sums up the critical media major. The critical media major educates us to develop critical pedagogy. We look at the world with a critical mind, and I notice that I actually am more critical when watching television, or even just looking at the world around me. I have learned to analyze the things I see. I have learned not to just accept them but think about them in depth.

Cuckoo Giroux

I think I have been spoiled in the aspect that I have always been in a school environment, well since middle school that promotes learning through experience and developing skills that will be useful in the real world. I really feel like through being actively involved has really enhanced my learning experience, I don’t know how I would have learned other wise. I also believe that this was only because I went to school that was so small. With a graduating class of 24 we were able to do so many more things that the public education system. With the focus being on personal achievements students learn so much more in the long run, while immediate outcomes are not always clear, but it should be important of who they will become rather than if everyone can score high on standardize test and meet all of the general requirements.



This reading highlights certain points that I have been making all last week when trying to fight to keep our house by explaining that through having us live together we are gaining experience that cannot be taught through reading a textbook. We are learning form past and our mistakes to improve what we have. Giroux writes, “providing the students with the opportunity to develop the critical capacity to challenge and transform existing social and political forms, rather than simply adapt to them.” While we do not do this on an external level, we are still learning through having the opportunity to challenge what is already in place. Through being in a local sorority we have to transform certain aspects to make things work, we cannot adapt to what has been done in the past because we would fall apart. We have to take everything and learn from it through actively being involved. Also with being small everyone has more of a chance to get involved in some aspect. Last year I had a position because I was nominated, it was something that I probably would not have stepped up to do but decided to anyways. It is through having a small part that I have decided to take on larger roles and become more of a voice for us. We have taken what Gioux is saying about our education system and have shown how it is effective.

Cuckoo 4/24

First off I really enjoyed today’s class……

Gender issues are something that woman have to fight against everyday. When it comes to jobs we have to fight harder to get the same job as a man even if we are more qualified because people do not like the idea of woman having power (I know this isn’t true in all cases but believe it to be true in many). In high school I did a project at a magazine and noticed that the majority of the higher jobs were held my men. This notion that men have to support the family and have the dominant voice is something that has been instilled into us since we were younger. Looking back to middle school I have always noticed that girls talk more when guys are not present. This is something that my school clearly noticed as well, there were times they would dived our class up based on gender because girls would learn better in environments with out guys.

I have noticed this to be true. My freshman year I was in art class that was manly upper classman guys, I think that there were three girls. Everyday going to that class I was so intimidated, I would keep to myself and do my work. It didn’t help that I am not one to talk all the time, but even the one sr. girl who was in the class and was close to the majority of the guys did not say much. They dominated the conversation. At times they would taunt me about why I didn’t talk a lot and I would quietly answer the continue on with my work. If this was a group of girls I know that I would talk more, I played varsity sports through out high school so as a freshman I was surrounded by older girls and while I did keep to myself I spoke up more and was not immediate by them.

This idea that men are suppose to be more dominate has been instilled in us since we were young. It is hard to break away from something that we have known for so long. So as we grow older we are still trying to fight to be heard or have more power because of precedent. It is because of the past that many people fall into what other see fit for woman to do because they are scared to step out of the boundaries that have been set. This was clear in class when some of them were frustrated that they could not talk. By placing this restriction on them I think made some of them possible want to talk more because they power to talk was taken away. They ability to dominate a conversation wasn’t possible.

Going on to talk about working in a group of guys and them dominating is true, in the aspect of them not willing to listen to what the girls always have to say. More often than not when I am working with guys they like to take control by telling everyone what needs to be done and rarely like to listen to the opinions of others.

romulus Giroux

One word,  Harvard.  The best and worst can be found in the United States. 1 in 2 Americans do not complete high school, and the he last time I checked only about 27% of the population attained a Bachelor's Degree. College is an American rite of passage. College teaches a person how to think. "This means providing students with the opportunity to develop the critical capacity to challenge and transform existing social rather than adapting to them." (384) College also serves as a gateway to the professional class. To experience college is the stuff of movies. It takes you on a path of self discovery and awareness of all the things around you. At the age of 12 I was focused. I had imagined my reality differently from my family, I wasn't content. At times when I reflect on past, I feel like uncontrollably throwing up. I inspired myself to acquire knowledge, I knew I wanted to liberate myself.  To critically analyze  the world and the Universe is a hobby of mine. 

"Curriculum can be viewed as a cultural script that introduces students to particular forms of reason which structure specific stories and ways of life." (386)  People who do not make it through high school, live drastically different realities from their counterparts. They are burdened with influences unique to their individual lives. Of the kids who graduate high school, not all will be able to go, and a not everyone will make it. The type of education one gets will depend on factors such as the type of institution, its cost, size, location, campus, student body etc. There is hierarchy amongst American post secondary institutions. One's status becomes determined by his or her alma mater. 

A Bachelors can be hard to obtain, but essential. Shouldn't there be more people within the population who have a Bachelors?

Nichole Giroux

Education as Giroux explains it, is the answer to gaining greater knowledge and life skills in order to succeed in his critical pedagogy in different democratic spheres. I think that what he writes is not only valuable information but some that can be applied in various subjects. For example, I just finished my Environmental Literature class with professor Phalen and our topic of the course was finding the balance between ecology and democracy. Giroux writes about the importance of politics and ethics. One of the authors wrote about the land ethic which basically talks about finding democracy not only amid people but among the land too. In another one of my classes, American Politics, we were taught that in order to have a true democracy, all people have to understand that they are equal to ANY other citizen of those people… one person one vote. The same can and should be applied to the environment; why do we think we are so superior to plants and animals that we can kill them, move them, and not give them the same rights as humans. Well the same idea that I learned in Politics class can also be applied to this reading. The comments write about the expectation of universal material which strains resources to the limits. Finding democracy among people is important enough but finding democracy (im using this word to mean equality) among the global relationship is much harder.

Naturally, as we have been taught before, every past experience effects how we perceive the next thing. Then too, education systems in place will influence children to think one way or another about “specific cultural narratives” which Giroux points out as very important in filtering what kids might think after they are taught a lesson on school because they are the future owners of our fragile planet.

Jiggy Giroux

Giroux describes his critical pedagogy in the means of education as a the development of democratic public spheres. He believes that education is linked to a greater understanding of concepts and skills that create a well rounded, self suffient individual. I would have to agree with his notion of developing real skills that incourage risk, courage and personal voice. Often in our public education, even today, it seems like a factory of students all learning the same required information. Students lose the oppurtunity to find themselves in our present educational system that promotes a sense of unified learning, not individual acheivements. It is only at the college level that students begin to make real choices for themselves that allows for personal growth and discovery. Shouldnt this be happening earlier in the educational process? Were is the freedom to explore in public education up through high school? I believe that a transformation of the educational process will have to happen in order for our nation to continue growth and compeat with other nations. Though better than most countries, the US still needs to develop better systems of education that focus on the individual student rather than whole states and counties. Too much is put on preformance of large groups of kids rather than the personal education that takes place everyday. I think that having more career planning and thought earlier in the process would take so much pressure off college students who are still searching for careers. The school system needs to be a growth process that promotes achievement not just passing a class that you never wanted to take. Take classes you love and love what you do, our age is of constant requirments that leave students tierd of the schooling process.

BubbaNub: Giroux

      Giroux's model for a "border pedagogy" is an interesting one that combines the politics of voice within a more critical framework of education.  I agree with Giroux as he examines the notion that "we have become a society that appears to demand less rather than more of democracy" (384).  Everyday we are bombarded by distractions and entertainment, which all come together to help us forget our rights and responsibility to our nation.  In Giroux's model, education would need to start as critical thinking, not just with the students, but also with the teachers.  Schools should be democratic public spheres where we critically examine our nation and have the opportunity to challenge and transform it rather than conform.

     Clearly today this is not the case.  A large portion of schools, particularly the under-funded urban schools, merely churn out more factory workers and ditch diggers who are unaware of the ideological processes that have shaped their future.  Critical pedagogy is a language, one that works to clarify the tainted language that is used on a daily basis.  By giving students and teachers this framework and the skills to properly analyze our society, we can begin to break down the root of sexism and racism.  Giroux says that we need to exercise our critical radical voice, because using the same language we are taught from the beginning condemns us to silence.

BubbaNub: 4/24

   In regards to Thursdays class, I do not know where to even begin.  The experiment as a whole, although interesting, could not accurately represent the point that Doc. Rog was trying to prove.  By silencing the men, the exercise became more of a game and as we all know it can be difficult to pass up good opportunities for a joke.  The fact that most men were engaged in their computers does not equal the assumption that they were uninterested in the female opinion.  Because writing was their only tool, it took more time to formulate their thoughts and get them out.  I am a male in the class, and while I did exaggerate and joke, I keenly listened to every female voice that was speaking, and in this I was disappointed.

     A majority of my comments attempted to facilitate the discussion and keep it pertinent to the original discussion.  However, I felt as though the female lead discussion steered itself towards superficial topics and tangents.  Only when Doc. Rog interjected did the discussion get back on course.  This could be due to a number of reasons.  As previous people have mentioned in their blogs, this could have happened because the females felt powerful, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Then again, maybe it is just a difference of opinion in the male/female psyche that lead me to consider their conversation as largely superficial.

ChittyChittyBangBang 4/24

"Every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud" -Butler

Thursday's class was a very interesting experiment and I think proved exactly what Dr. Rog was aiming for. The term phallologocentrism represents the essence of language. It moves beyond the term we previously learned, logocentric. If you break down phallolocantrism, phallic stands for masculinity. This is the essence of the discussion and experiment performed in class on Thursday. Butler suggests that women have writing but men have voice. We live in a male dominated society where women often feel inferior. Women in CMC 300 even admitted that when working in a group that is primarily men they tend to stay quite and just follow because they find it difficult to get their voiced heard and taken seriously.

Dr. Rog decided to reverse these roles and let the women control the class’s conversation while the men had to purely listen and if they wanted to speak they had to write it down and pass it to a woman. At that point the woman could decide whether or not she wanted to acknowledge or read the man's comment. I was stunned by how dead on this experiment was with the realities of society according to Butler. The women felt empowered and began to speak more and interact loudly and efficiently. The men on the other hand were practically ripping their hair out due to frustration. Some of the men were often rude and forceful when trying to give women their comments completely disrespecting them like they have historically been known to do. The women embraced their new position and used it mockingly towards the men almost.

I also found it interesting that the men claimed (through written accounts) that they would not mind if their significant other made more money than them. I really do believe that at least for the majority of men, they would feel intimidated to the point that it could destroy the relationship, just like in Ariel's example. The men enjoy being the providers and the money makers because that is men's role in society; it is where their power derives from. I don't think men could handle giving up even a little bit of their power. Yes, women are not as silenced in society as they used to be. Women have gained status although the unequal mindset is still there in one way or another, and I am doubtful that it will ever fully disappear.

July 4-24-08

On Thursday, class showed me how life is from a different point of view. In class, my Professor, who is a man silenced all men present in the room, which created a discussion among all the women in the class. This exercise was based on Foucault’s theories about the woman’s voice in society. I thought it was so funny how the boys could not let the women control the conversation with interrupting with their written comments, I mean really is that hard to be inferior? Try being a woman for a week! Also, I felt like every time Dr. Rog suggested something that referred to the actions of the women, we actually stopped doing what we were doing and adjusted due to his opinions. Do woman like being inferior or is it in our nature? This question should be taken into consideration by all females because we are the only ones who have an issue with the way were being treated and the only ones who can fix it!

As one can see, I personally agree with Foucault because men are superior in modern society due to their hierarchy positions that they hold. For example, the president of the United States has always been a man because the population feels comfortable with a strong and forceful individual controlling and securing their lives. The media shapes the population’s minds into thinking how a man or woman should be perceived by different individuals. After generating a common ideal about the duties and emotions of the two opposing sexes, they raise their offspring according to the opinions of the hegemonic forces. One way an individual may show that they are convinced is by buying their baby boy G.I. Joes and the baby girl Barbie Dolls. Both of these toys signify masculinity and femininity, which is the object of the parent. Does a child really understand what kind of toy they are playing with?

NewYorker 4/24

From reading everyone's post class reactions, and hearing about class from a few friends, I wish I was able to be there in person. The experiment sounds like a great idea, and very creative. This made me think of an experiment the GLBT club in my high school did. Everyone that was a member was not allowed to speak at all the entire day, representing the forced silence of those that are too afraid to come out of the closet. They get silenced by a society that is against them (whether that is true or not), and not everyone feels comfortable coming out, especially in high school where people can be very judgemental. But being a woman in this day and age, I have never felt discrimminated against. I know we are not equal to men all the time (by some standards), but I have been able to do what I want to do in life so far - play sports, go to school, get a job, own a car, etc. Although this wasn't the case several decades ago, we have certainly made strides.
But when I was thinking about it, sometimes I do get a little more shy or uncomfortable to say certain things around guys. Of course the dynamics change and the conversation changes with an all-girl group or a co-ed group, but isn't that the same way for guys too? They definitely have different conversations when they are all male rather than if they are with women too. But is that because society does that to us? Or there are just life issues that one gender would rather discuss than another - hm, maybe again because of the stresses of the "norm" of the gender.
This issue could go even further, by recognizing how some high schools seperate the boys and the girls for phys ed class, but then bring them back together for academics. A social issue, or a physical one? Or what about all boy schools and all girl schools? Do the tests show that girls study better or are smarter without the intimidation of men? Or vice-versa? Since I have been in co-ed education all my life, I cannot say. But I know I like being surrounded by both genders to get a full scope of answers and opinions.

romulus 4.24

The men of CMC 300 would have lead a dynamic conversation. Having no voice was an ego blow that completely shook my reality. Choosing to be quiet is a completely different from it being mandated that you are. Its brutal not having a voice, and as Lisa noticed the majority of the boys including myself lost interest in the class discussion. I spent my time on multitasking on the Internet. I was utilizing AIM and Facebook's new hangout to establish communication with one of the girls in the class. It took some time but I was successful.
The topic of confidence was interesting to me. I had always dealt with self esteem issues. I was easily intimidated by everyone for numerous reasons, but a series of changes helped me overcome that. My first car wreck marked a new chapter in my life. I remember being on the side of the road crying hysterically about two things. My car and my life. It was a reality wake up call. I almost wiped myself out, and made me realize that I wasn't living up to my full potential. It took a few months to fully recover, but I came out much happier.
Spending an entire week with a best friend, Sasha, also market a another chapter in my life. I embraced my identity and discovered a community in which I dreamt about. That was the week I broke out of my shell. I let myself explore and engage.
This academic year witnessed several experiences that significantly reshaped my mentality. Some more extreme than others, but decisions, agents, etc. working to correct personal imperfections. I knew where my problems stemmed from, including my lack of confidence, so I initiated on a journey to destroy the old me.
I do not understand why sex is a determinate in a persons confidence.

Jiggy 4/27

This weeks class showed the fustrations that women must feel in everyday situations by the silencing of the men in the class. I found the experiment to be affective in annoying the men and giving alittle taste of the struggles of the women in our western culture. I did have many problems with it, it was by far not perfect. For one the experiment showcased the instant abuse of power by women. The experiment should have showed that once power was givin to the women that they were more responcible then men have been, but it was the oppisite. Once in possession of the power they quickly began to like the feeling, keeping the male voice surpressed. This shows how it is human nature to hold and keep power, maybe for once women can see that the power of voice is not something to give up. I dont think that there is any setting, however, where the female voice is completly silenced in our modern world. The issue is more of speaking out and up to the ideas that females have. I could have spoken on thursdays class, the power to speak was only taken away in the written rule sence. Speach is powerful and can at no time in our culture are women asked not to speak, they just dont speak up. I believe that the experiment can be useful but also is a product of a male dominated society. The experiment was put on by Dr. Casey and without his permission would have never taken place. This further takes the side of a male dominated soceity were the male makes and decides the rules. The real world meaning to an experiment like that would have been if Dr. Casey had said nothing and the girls in the class said that they wanted and took control. This is what the real world is really like, having to step up against authority and male domination to get a female voice heard. The world is not a classroom in many cases and the ability to have experiments is a luxury we pay 45,000 a year to have. In order to make real change the urge to speak out and up has to come from within the female voice and push society to a new and greater level.

DetectiveDanny 4/24

Our little experiment in class on Thursday made me realize a few things about gender relationship dynamics. Once the experiment was proposed, the women immediately latched onto their new found power without questioning the morality of the exercise. No where in American society today are women arbitrarily silenced like the men were, yet they made it seem like somehow the tables were all of a sudden turned. They felt like they were getting back at us, when all we ever did was be born male. We never purposely oppressed anyone in class, Dr. Rog has been very good about making sure everyone who wants their voice to be heard gets to talk.
I also realized that no matter how hard we try, it is almost impossible to truly understand the opposite sex. Our brains work differently and there will always be a gap, as the boundary between genders is too far to successfully cross with a class experiment or anything else.
Also, this experiment reminded me of a video I saw in one of my psychology classes starring Dr. Zimbardo of Stanford University. He randomly assigned people to be a guard or a prisoner in a fake prison. After a while, the guards started acting like mean guards and the prisoners became depressed and submissive. All of a sudden the girls thought they had some new ability to be heard, so they speak up louder and more often.

sawsaw 4/24

I was very fascinated with the content of Thursday's class. I found it to be very interesting and insightful. There were many things I learned about the women from the exercise we did. First, I learned that women are much more comfortable sharing their views and opinion with other women. As soon as Dr. Rog started the exercise, I saw a big difference in the amount of discussion and participation. We were more willing to share our true feelings and express different ideas and opinions we had. This showed me that women are more confident in numbers. They were less intimidated by what men think and are much more willing to stand up to a man. The second thing I learned was that men are unlikely to listen to a women unless they are forced into certain circumstances. During the majority of the exercise the men were either ignoring what the women were discussing by going on their computers or working on other things or they were tuning out the women and focusing on their counter argument. This shows me that men are disrespectful to the views and opinions of women if they are different from their own. Another important thing I got from this exercise was that women almost always look to men for power. Even though the women had the power throughout the entire class, they were still waiting on the men to share their opinions or gain acceptance on their ideas. This shows that men have a certain stronghold on women. Women's insecurities were evident in the fact that they still wanted to hear ideas from the guys and still valued what they said. Although this exercise was intended for the guys to understand and experience what women have been faced with, this exercise showed me a lot of things about women. I learned a lot of valuable things about myself and about women as a whole.

Starfish 4/24

Yesterday’s little experiment proved to be very interesting. I noticed many different things. When the women in the room were the only ones allowed to talk, different women who never spoke up that much in class before had a voice. They participated in the conversation and added a lot of solid contributions. I wonder why they spoke so much now, and not during regular class periods. Did it have to do with the men not being able to have a say? Did they feel more comfortable with just talking to women or did they feel obligated to say something since the men could not contribute to the discussion?

Another thing I noticed was how many of the men in the room reacted to not being able to speak. Many of them seemed bored and others seemed angry or anxious. Many of them wrote down messages, but some of the men in the room’s comments were not valid contributions to the conversation. It seemed that they were writing silly or stupid comments just to get attention back. Was it really that hard for them to just sit there, and listen without being immature? A couple of the men in class stated that women should not complain about not being heard because in today’s society they have just as big as a voice as men do. I wish this was the case but it is not true all the time. I have felt like my voice was not as important as a man’s before and I am sure many other woman can think of one time they felt the same way. I think this exercise really allowed the men to know what women in the past and present have had to go through to get in a word here or there. “Every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud.” –Cixous. Some of the men in the room got the chance to endure that “torture” as well.

Wouldntulike2know 4/24

I absolutely loved yesterdays class. What a great idea from Dr. Rog to limit the mens expression to writing! Seeing how frustrated they got actually brought me satisfaction that I really didn't even know I needed. This experiment proved that I, falling into Althuser's position that People who believe themselves to be outside ideology are in fact, completely in ideology. Irigaray reinforces this in explaining how women are not aware of their own desires, sexual or not. She says "Must the multiple nature of female desire and language be understood as the fragmentary, scattered remains of a raped or denied sexuality? This is not an easy question to answer. The rejection, the exclusion of a female imaginary undoubtedly places woman in a position where she can experience herself only fragmentarliy as waste or as excess in the little structured margins of a dominant ideology, this mirror entrusted by the (masculine) "subject" with the task of reflecting and redoubling himself." The fact that I didn't even know that women are oppressed in this manner was rather shocking. For the thirty minutes that we engaged in this role reversal, it became clear how we as a society operate, "excluding the female imaginary" thereby allowing us to experience ourselves "only fragmentarily" Seeing the few men get so irritated by this exercise, forcing their voices to be fragmented, was highly enlightening. I think we should do it more often!

kMO Cixous & Butler

I never regarded feminist theory as being important to a critical media and culture major but after reading Judith Butler I see the connection. Dr. Rachel Ward somewhat discusses this topic in my communication 300 class which has helped me understand some of the more difficult concepts such as women denoting a common identity. Over the years it has become more prominent for the term woman or women to represent a “site of contest” which has led to some studies regarding name significations. I found this quote to be extremely interesting…”If one is a woman, that is surely not all one is; the term fails to be exhaustive, not because a pregnedered person transcends the specific paraphernalia of its gender, but because gender is not always constituted coherently or consistently in different historical contexts…” The political assumption that there must be a universal basis for feminism, one which must be found in an identity assumed to exist cross culturally has become somewhat of a cultural phenomenon. It would be interesting to get more in depth on this topic because as a woman I feel very uneducated. We represent an entire group which has been stereotyped for years so it would be of interest to me to find out how this affects current day mass media.

Bella Post Class4/25

Class yesterday was an extremely interesting experience. I have never been put in a position where a male professor put the girls in power of the class, on purpose. One thing I find interesting is how, though there are far fewer males in most of my classes than there are females, the males still tend to assume roles of power at time. I really enjoyed Dr. Rog’s comments about raising our hands, and commenting on the boys’ behavior. I know most of the guys, especially Danny, became extremely frustrated by not being able to speak. Some of the other guys sat quietly and listened, but many of them felt the need to express themselves. I think I learned a lot yesterday about the disjoint between men and women. For instance, Danny said he is not able to accomplish anything when he works with a girl or a group of girls–he says he has to take charge of the situation in order to finish the project. I have worked with Danny and I would say he is quite the opposite. He doesn’t always bring his full attention to the project or to class and is often focused on other things. If I were to respond to Danny, I would tell him that he doesn’t take control of a group, his group takes are of him. I think that many men are spoiled–they think everything comes easily, they don’t have to work to get a woman, to be successful, some of them just believe it’s going to be handed to them. As a woman, I know that I will have to work twice as hard as my male peers in order to be successful. Depending of where I decide to work after college, I know I will struggle to be as competitive as my male colleagues. The struggle of being a woman is something I have grown up and am fully aware of, so experiences like yesterday’s class, where the women are specifically put in power, was extremely interesting.

July-->Helene Cixous

Helen Cixous’s subject line is so interesting and controversial because it talks about the feminine role that women have either encountered or will encounter. There are a few men enrolled in my class, which means it is dominated by women, so I am excited to read the comments from my fellow colleagues. Blogging will definitely relieve some tension about women vs. men. Inequality that separates a man from a woman can easily be compared with racial inequalities among the black and white community.

Gender roles in society are supposed to be equal to one another, but as a woman I will have to admit that it has not reached its goal yet. Cixous agrees by mentioning, “Organization by hierarchy makes all conceptual organization subject to man” (male privilege). The United States is dominated by men, especially in hierarchy positions. Ever since we’ve established a government in the U.S. it has been a man holding down the fort. I don’t mind men holding higher ranks, but it becomes a problem when their success comes with a negative attitude. Respect is often the reason why both sexes can’t maintain a successful relationship.

Also, in reference to the domination that a man holds in the United States often comes with a shift in attitudes from the man and woman. We are not subject to be inferior to men, but in some cases women are more passive because it’s a common norm. Masculinity is normally forced on a man when he exits his mother’s womb. If it’s a boy he gets a blue room, once he grows old enough to walk he gets to throw a football, in his teenage years he is taught his role in society, and as he gets older he maintains an ego that causes he to believe he is higher than all women.

kMO Cixous & Butler

elizabeth byrne -april 24

I thought todays class was really able to show alot about how men and women interact not just in a classroom setting, but also in American Society. Through out history women haven't had much of a voice, but at the same time I think it is up to an individual to make her voice heard. I don't think Hillary Clinton is a good example of a women getting into power because she has prior history and knowledge that helped her get to where she is now. Not just any women could make it to where she has gotten her self. But at the same time, Hillary Clinton (regardless of her political beliefs) is showing women and girls around the country that it is possible. It is a movement that women are continuously getting higher positions in the corporate world and regardless if men like or not- it is happening every where right in front of our eyes. After class, elyse and i were talking about confidence in men and how secure they are with themselves in regards to the wife/ woman making more money.  Because of ideologies and society men feel that they have to hold more power or be a more dominant figure and now that women are going that extra step men have to step back and realize that yes this is the 21st century and they are going to have to actually work for a top position rather then getting it just because he is a man. In my brothers case, he has finally realized that it is not about Wallstreet and so what if his wife makes more than him or if he isnt making the amount of money he is making each year. Why sacrifice happiness for money when happiness is what matters? 

As I said earlier I think it is a sign of security for men to be happy with women as top figures and ceo's of companies , I also think that it is a sign of insecurity when women are afraid to have their voices heard or to act dumber around boys/ men. Just as men follow some ideologies i also think that women let themselves fall into the women roles (household chores, lower jobs, less income etc.) just because it is the easy way out. 

Nichole April 24

What did this exercise teach us? That I’m glad I didn’t go to an all girls school. I think, not so much the men in class, but more so the uneducated and other men in society, would say that they wouldn’t mind taking the back seat to women who wants to work in the corporate world, but that most of them really would mind. However, I do not agree that this is because of society and has more to do with the way that one is raised and the level of confidence bestowed upon them. My boyfriend, for example wears more pink than I do (ever hear the saying, only a real man can wear pink?) and has no problem getting the occasional pedicure with me (without polish of course). I think that the line between masculine and feminine is coming to an end. I wear blazers and vests confidently all the time and am not made fun of for it or called a feminist, and I know women that only shop at Dior Homme. Like Liza said, and I know her brother too, it’s no longer what someone HAS to do in life as much as what people WANT to do. I think he is confident enough in himself that he can pursue a career in teaching if that was his passion and not be discouraged if his future wife made more money. I don’t think a REAL man, one with confidence and happiness for his wife, should be humbled if she makes more than him. And in the end, who really cares what career you have as long as you are happy doing it… that to me is the point of life.

If a woman wants a career in a major corporation, she has obvious set backs and uneducated people might set her on a lower platform and might not offer her the job with the same credentials as a man, but she can rightfully pursue that career and I think that is what’s important here. I think we have all experienced the notion of “penis envy” that Iragaray writes about and that is because as aforementioned, a woman might not get the same job with the same credentials as a person of the opposite gender. Thus, if women had different sexual organs, she would get the job she wasn’t offered before and that is what Iragaray refers to in the essay.

Bumble: post class april 24

Today’s class was a very interesting drill. I believe that guy or girl, no one likes to be suppressed, or not given the right to speak. I think that this experiment might not accurately reflect what is happening in the world, simply because that is what Dr. Casey told us to do, so there was a different ideology of power structure at work. It would be interesting to keep some sort of tabs of how many times women speak in class and how many times their voices are heard and followed through on. What was said about being in-group projects and not be heard tends to be a common trend among women.

More importantly, despite what men might think, there are many times when women are silenced. Whether or not it is because of the outer ideologies at work, or stemming from inside there are many serious issues involved in this. In our cmc200 class we were talking about the notion of rape and dominance. There are numerous girls whom I know on this campus who have been sexually violated by guys and who are too scared (mainly for social reasons) to say anything. One girl even has an issue with understanding why the guy is at fault. If that is not the submissive ideology at work, then I do not know what is! Girls feel pressure to act in ways that they believe guys want us to. Maybe in certain arenas women have stepped up to vocalize certain things, but in sex… men dominate.

From the examples of girls who are raped and then continue to engage in sexual acts with the guy, because she feels like she needs to, it is clear that girls are constantly seeking approval from men.

I am curious about how much of what we say in class is taken seriously or is listened to at all? Is there selective hearing?

I am curious what guys think, and maybe it is the ideology of masculine power, but I am curious there is no escaping it!

There certainly are gender roles though in relationships which show the hierarchy of gender. Even the basic rule of dating, that the man must pursue, and the woman has to wait for the man to come to her.

boo boo bear 4-24

This is something I wanted to say when we were talking about how a guy would feel if their spouse/partner made more than they do. This is my response that I was about to pass on before the females in the class decided to cut off our power by not allowing us to pass on messages.
As long as a man does not have an ego, the female making more money than he does should not be a problem… this has caused problems in the past because some/most men have egos. For example: I want to be a high school teacher and baseball coach the rest of my life. My girlfriend desires to have a powerful well-paying career. The chances are, she will make more money than me, but just because she might make more money, this does not mean I will not be able to support my family in ways more important than finances (love, support, quality time, ect.). It is a common social belief and understanding that men should support the family (its actually a Christian belief as well). But support goes way beyond finances.

As far as what I learned in today’s class, I experienced the feeling that women have felt for hundreds of years. As soon as our discussion started and I was not allowed to express my feelings I FELT LIKE SOMEONE WAS SITTING ON MY CHEST. I wanted so bad to just blurt out my thoughts and join in the conversation. It almost makes it feel like your are not part of the class. This is why I think it is the dumbest thing for teachers, coaches or other authority figures to tell someone to shut up or quit talking. Speech, however so little or pointless, give people the sense of belonging. This makes people feel worthless. I imagine this is why some feminists are so extreme when it comes to equality.

Sgt. Pepper, Irigaray

Ok, so wow. I just sat myself down in the library, and curled up in one of those big leather chairs thinking I was about to read some critical theory that I most likely wouldn't understand. Little did I know, I was about to read some soft porn. I actually had to look over my shoulder to make sure no one was close enough to see what I was reading.

So the fact that I was being shy about such a sexual text, does that prove Irigaray's point exactly? What I got out of his article "The Sex Which Is Not One" is that ultimately women are forced to act inferior to men. It's this hegemonic practice that dates back a long way. "For when "she" says something, it is already no longer identical to what she means. Moreover, her statements are never identical to anything" (257). I think this idea of women bowing down to men definitely surrounds us in society. In advertisements and other media sources, the "shy, sexy woman" can be found everywhere one looks. And this propaganda is so well put out there that people hardly notice their acceptance of it. For one to truly be numb to gender stratification, practices really need to be taught (or not taught) from birth because the second a child steps into a classroom, girls are expected to stay quiet and boys are excused simply because of the saying "boys will be boys." My CMC 100 teacher, Dr. Cavanaugh, is actually putting this method of teaching gender equality into practice with his toddler-aged son. He told us that he does not give his son just "boy" toys, but Dr. Cavanaugh and his wife make sure to show no favoritism toward what our society sees as "masculine."

Though while I do agree with Irigaray that gender stratification is a problem, it seemed a little extreme when he compared women to slaves in the last paragraph. Of course, as a woman, I believe in equal rights for men and women, but I don't think 100% equality is what we need. I think we're different for a reason, and should be able to embrace our femininity.

NewYorker - Irigaray

This article seemed a little backwards to me, and somewhat outdated. Today, women are the most equal with men than they have ever been before. Sure, maybe in some cases they may earn a little less, or are still stereotyped as a homemaker, but overall they have come a long way. We even have our first woman running for President. That is something so new to us, yet in many other countries they have had women Prime Ministers for years. He talked about women wanting the masculine features, and while that may be true, we would be saying the same thing if the roles were reversed. But since it is man that is "dominant" of course women are going to want to be "dominant" as well.

Some people have already made interesting comments. Someone said that sometimes women aren't taken very seriously, simply because she is a woman. Therefore, it is key nowadays to dress for success - do not reveal too much skin, and look polished and professional. That way one can look the part. Just saying this though made me think about what we said in class- when a man wears a tie, it is more dressed up and professional - but why? Because somewhere in our culture that was the standard that was set. An unwritten rule.

Also, the Rosie the Riveter sign, brought up by someone also, was the beginning of change for women. Of course we wanted to show that we can be just as tough as men, because they were getting praise for being tough, so shouldn't we? Now more and more females are in the workforce than before, some women making even more than men. Despite this being true, I see thousands of commercials on TV of a mother in a middle class home doing all the housework. It's always a woman in a commercial for vaccums, cooking, Ziploc bags, Febreeze, etc... Why is this still the case to show women at home and not men? It is more common and acceptable now for men to be at home and take care of the house while the woman works, but since it is not "mainstream" yet adverstisers fail to show that on TV.

I also found it interesting that Marx categorized women as a different class - that is absurd to me. I don't even know how anyone could support that. I also thought it was funny that someone mentioned the pregnant man. I watched that Oprah episode and looked it up online, and the thing is is that the person is a female, just that she is undergoing a sex change - which is a whole other topic of discussion.

ChittyChittyBangBang Cixous & Butler

These readings really played off of each other and were nice to analyze together. Cixous and Butler both examined the social constructions of sex, gender, and desire. Both readings were very compelling and gave insight on man and woman's perceptions of themselves and each other. Both authors focus on the nature of femininity and Butler focuses more on the politics of feminism.
Cixous's reading was really interesting. I was really intrigued by her definitions of "bisexuality". "Bisexuality - that is to say the location within oneself of the presence of both sexes, evident and insistent in different ways according to the individual, the nonexclusion of difference or of a sex, and starting with this 'permission' one gives oneself, the multiplication of the effects of desire's inscription on every part of the body and the other body" (159). I always viewed bisexual as purely sex driven. I never imagined that it could also stand for women connecting with both sexes on more than just a sexual level. Men on the other hand do not have the same mentality.
In Cixous's reading she brings up the main fear men as a culture have: femininity. "But at the same time, man has been given the grotesque and unenviable fate of being reduced to a single idol and clay balls. And terrified of homosexuality, as Freud and his followers remark. Why does man fear being a woman? Why this refusal (Ablehnug) of femininity?" (159). Men typically become homophobic in order to establish themselves as masculine. Men are so afraid to be seen as passive or feminine in our culture. Why is like this? Why do the media type any feminine qualities in a man as "gay"? Why is it bad for men to have these types of qualities anyways?
Why can women have masculine traits and appreciate both types of sexes and men cannot? Why is there this double standard of acceptance? Our social constructions have made society think this way and it saddens me.
The quotes at the beginning of Butler’s article were striking to me. "Strictly speaking, 'women' cannot be said to exist", "Woman does not have a sex"... The word woman carries so many meanings. This reminds me Derrida and how at the root of every word there is only difference. I suppose women want to be equal to men and by being differentiated by the word, women, has lowered us in society. "There is a great deal of material that not only questions the viability of 'the subject' as the ultimate candidate for representation or, indeed, liberation, but there is very little agreement after all on what is it that constitutes, or ought to constitute, the category of women" (192). Words carry a great deal of power and feminists are working towards regulating gender relations.
Both of these authors have very stimulating views on representations of femininity. I think the biggest task at hand is equating men and women so that both sexes can have qualities of both-appreciate both femininity and masculinity.

romulus Irigaray

"Women is never anything more than the scene of more or less rival exchange between two men, even when they are competing for the possession of mother-earth?
Sex is the primary factor of categorization in which our society organizes itself. "Adam and Eve" is propaganda complied to control the populace. The narrative is supported by religious authority, whose influence has dominated western civilization for thousands of years. The text is untouchable because it is from above, people have to believe it.The text is a snapshot into the subjection of women by men at the time. Women were an afterthought not even made by god. The story established male superiority over women.
The 2 class system is still in place today. Irigaray speaks confusingly about female sexuality. Women are sexual beings who are being pleasured actively or passively at all times. I would assume that women are in control of their own pleasure. Penetration by a man is seen as a violation that disrupts the tranquility of virginity. Women are thus objects of men.
Sexuality is a powerful tool in which people can use to attain certain resources. Sex is everywhere, and people have the option to pursue as much or as little of it as possible. I believe that women can use their sexuality to their advantage. It's hard for me to comprehend ever treating any female as inferior. Homosexuality, and bisexuality disrupt the patriarchal system.
There are recognizable inequalities between men and women, especially with male privellege in place, however popular culture can change that. Adam and Eve was a snapshot of ancient beliefs, if one was taken of today it would be of Hillary Clinton as potentially the first female President of the United States of America.

Bella Cixous

Helene Cixous wrote, “…that is not a provocation, it means the woman admits there is an other. In her becoming woman, she has not erased the bisexuality latent in the girl as in the boy. Femininity and bisexuality go together, in a combination that varies according to the individual..” (Cixous 16). This quote had me thinking very hard. Had there been a time when I had no questioned the nature of my sexuality? Had there been a time when I had not known I had both a connection with men and women? I am not by any means what society has termed bisexual, in the sense that my sexual desires is strictly for the male sex, but perhaps, I am bisexual according to the definition provided by Helene Cixous. As a woman, I have always known that I connect deeper with women than I do with men. Granted, I have never been in a serious relationship, so perhaps that will change once I find a life-mate. Cixous’ theories about the nature of women and femininity and bisexuality truly provoked me to think about my behavior in society, the way I interact with my sex and the opposite, and they way I view my sexuality. She later wrote, “I am speaking here of femininity as keeping alive the other that is confided to her, that visits her, that she can love as other” (Cixous 160). Women are able to be both masculine and feminine; we are fluid, free to move within our bodies, minds, and spirits. We have a no borders between the two halves of ourselves, the masculine and feminine. She asks the question, “why do men fear being a woman?” (Cixous 159) , and how they refuse to come into contact with the Other within their own body. I found this article extremely provoking on the nature of sexuality and gender, and am very curious as to what will be said in our discussion tomorrow. I think a common idea is that men are socially trained to be masculine, to avoid and distrust anything that is feminine within them. Perhaps it is not so much social as it is biological, but the again, who’s to say?

BubbaNub : Cixous & Butler

   I found these two readings to tie together nicely in their search for the foundation of our societies hegemonic readings towards sex, gender, and desire.  Cixous' methods remind me of our first theorist De Saussure as it begins with a series of oppositional readings.  "Thought has always worked as opposition" reinforces Saussure's theory that in our language exists only differences (157).  Seeing as we cannot divide our thought from sound, we are only aware of subjects in relation to what they are not.  So when we couple the words man and woman, we have already set in motion a relation defined by opposites.  Then we attempt to relate the differences by saying man is masculine and woman is weak.  From there the basic infrastructure of what has become ingrained in our society today takes root, at least according to Cixous.

     Butler is a bit more hesitant in examining the root of the problem.  "The political assumption that there must be a universal basis for feminism, one which must be found in an identity assumed to exist cross-culturally, often accompanies the notion that the oppression of women has some singular form discernible in the universal or hegemonic structure of patriarchy or masculine domination" (193).  Although, she does not necessarily agree that there exists one such universal structure, she does go back to Cixous by observing the potential connotations and problems of the word 'women'.  Clearly the word carries with it numerous meanings and varying hegemonic readings developed over time, but Cixous asks is it a word that can be reclaimed or one that feminists should (and currently) steer clear of?  More importantly, is language itself capable of defining binary couples as equally opposite?

WouldntULike2Know Irigaray

"A woman's evolution, however radical it might seek to be, would not suffice ten to liberate woman's desire.  Neither political theory nor political practice have yet resolved nor sufficiently taken into account this historical problem, although Marxism has announced its importance.  But women are not, strictly speaking, a class and their dispersion in several classes makes their political struggle complex and their demands sometimes contradictory." (Irigaray 258).

The obvious issue of gender dominance as well as class dominance creates an difficult situation for those unfortunate souls belonging to the subordinate class, gender, not to mention race.  In the context of gender ideologies and hegemonic roles within them, gender limits women regardless of their merit in virtually every aspect of their lives.  

Within the corporate world, women are not taken very seriously because of the societal importance placed on their devotion to their family lives.  Women must sacrifice spending time with her family (or even choose not to have a family at all) if they wish to make strides in their careers.  If she tries to balance work and family, she is seen as not serious enough and is less likely to advance within her company.  Men, however, are more likely to excel in the business world if they are married with children because that means that they probably have a wife at home tending to the home, meaning that he can focus more on his job.   At home, women give up some of the power because, if they are not working, they are not gaining any income making them dependent on the husband.   Finally, in the bedroom, because of this loss of power brought on by societal constraints, she is, yet again, powerless.  Her thoughts and desires are not important because, socially she is less important too.  Women even contribute to our own self subordination because we buy into what we know to be false.  We adamantly believe that we are better suited to raise children and keep the home, thus, limiting our opportunities in life.  

Fixing this problem is no easy task.  Because men (what Marx could label as a class) control society, their objective is to reproduce status quo.  Secondly, the class difference among all women truly limits them from uniting as a whole to make a change.  The first step towards gaining footing in a society that sees you as nothing more than a baby maker and a "hole-envelope" (254), would be to reestablish the division of labor and broaden the strict definitions of gender and the summation of its parts.  

How to do this-- I have no idea.  However, strides are being made in that direction.  Oprah recently had The Pregnant Man on her show.  Google it.  You will be shocked. 

Bumble: Giroux // ACTIVE OR PASSIVE?

Education…
What is the purpose? My entire life I was told that going to school was about thinking critically, making informed decisions, and have evidence to be able to back up your point. Until going into the CMC major, honestly, I have not felt that those who preached actually followed through in teaching. My parents were the ones who taught me to think critically and meticulously. Even so, I sometimes do not feel the need to question my parents when they tell me something. This is because of the ideology of "older is wider..." NOT ALWAYS true, although many times it is!

Most of the students who you would talk to are so threatened by bad grades in as Althusser would say is an oppressive state apparatus, that they are not concerned with truly learning and challenging what we learn, but rather, just listening and following directions. They say to challenge what we hear, but many teachers will punish if this happens. I believe it is important to challenge always, not in an oppressive or negative way, but rather a quizzical way. When someone tells me something, I like to ask why they think that and where they heard that from. Much information that we hear is spoken without points to back it up, and so that is why it is important to ask the questions.

Also, people fear asking questions because of how they might appear in class.

One class which I took, really opened my eyes to the notion of our right to question and ponder information flung at us from all directions. My frontiers to physics class, was taught by president Duncan, and the most important thing he taught us was never to accept anything at face value. What we are taught growing up is that science is a hard truth that is testing and therefore must be correct. He made us challenge this conventional knowledge and look at how these scientific conclusions were made. You have to be even more critical about science given to you, because many of us are not experts in it, and tend to take the science as a given truth. Nothing can ever be proven true, you can only prove something else to be false. Theories are what make up our lives, not facts.

Rollins College does not excel in students challenging authority, think about how few protesters there are. But, for the most part I believe it has to do with the ideology of GRADES. While this article suggests to not have a clear cut curriculum, I thrive on structure and some sort of path, predetermined.

This article also remindined me of the class when we discusses opposing ideologies like active and passive. Both are seen as positive and both can be seen as negative. Particularly in the genre of education.

Bumble: Luce Irigaray

Females…sex….gender, this article proves what has been pointed out by every single theorist, there are hidden ideologies behind everything.

According to Marx, our lives are defined by the rule class, which this article points out is the male species.

Females are thrown into certain behavioral patterns, and act with certain emotions because of all of these external factors affecting our consciousness.

It is ironic that femininity is defined through a male lens, where everything in society is run by this ideology. It is only natural that we perceive ourselves in a certain way. Many things make sense if you look at the hierarchy of gender roles.

This article was very graphically descriptive, but only made the points stronger that women are defined by men.

There was a theorist who wrote something very interesting. Thomas Fitzgerald defined masculinity by a term called oppositional gender. Basically, it is acceptable (and normal according to this article) for women to possess or want to possess male qualities. Feminism is described as women who live in envy of the penis. However, men are distinctly defined as “NOT feminine.” Again, this feeds into the notion of the negative ideologies attached to being female. Feminism according to this definition is conflated with bad, or not a sociological norm.

Women’s right are interesting because essentially, it is the right to do what men do, which by it self is degrading and suppressing rights. It is a very unique and interesting cycle.

Women in the submissive sense, are simply (as the article says) somewhat like slaves to men. But, on the other hand are conforming to men.

Double Edge Sword?

Even the famous: WE CAN DO IT: female rights poster, implies that we can be as physically tough and strong as Men:

sawsaw Giroux

After reading this essay by Henry A. Giroux, I feel that I have gained a new understanding of the concept of postmodernism. The way Giroux breaks up the nine points into different ideas regarding postmodernism made it easy to comprehend. I found the first point, "education must be understood as producing not only knowledge but also political subjects" to be correct. The point he makes about linking public education to the imperatives of a critical democracy is something that our education system lacks greatly. Students are not taught about democracies and the importance of being a critic in our school systems. We need to try and link the practices of critical democracy and public education. The eighth point Giroux makes about: "Critical pedagogy needs to develop a theory of teachers as transformed intellectuals who occupy specifiable political and social locations" (387). He later goes on to say that a critical pedagogy needs to ascertain more carefully what the role of teachers might be as cultural workers engaged in the production of ideologies and social practices. (387) Giroux is encouraging teachers to undertake social criticism as a public intellect who addresses social and political issues in the world around them. I feel that this point is very true and accurate. It is the job of teaching professionals to be a critic of the world around them. To discuss political and social issues and to teach students to analyze the world around them.

sawsaw Irigaray

I found the read, "The Sex Which is Not One," by Luce Irigaray to be very inappropriate and vulgar. He goes into great detail about the women's body and gives more information then needed. I was very uncomfortable reading this essay because I feel that it exposed too much of the human body and shined light on things I feel are private. By exposing the women in this essay, Irigaray feels that he is defending the oppression of women's desires and pleasures and trying to show to the world that women are being taken advantage. Although, I do agree with sticking up for women's feeling and emotions and would never want women to be oppressed, I feel that the method Irigaray uses only further exploits women. By using detailed imagery and sexual language women's most private and intimate feelings are being revealed. Irigaray's main point is shown in the last sentence of the essay: "But, if their goal is to reverse the existing order even if that were possible-history would simply repeat itself and return to phallocratism, where neither women's sex. their imaginary, nor their language can exist" (258). This sentence is saying that women will never reach the point where they are free to be themselves and have liberty to express their feelings and desires. I do feel that it is important for women to be their true selves and to be free to express their feelings I feel that what Irigaray is trying to expose is private and should be kept secret. He wants women to be open with their sexuality and be able forward with their desires and yearnings. By doing this, women will only further be adhering to the desires of men. If women become free and open with themselves and their sexuality it will further entice men's sexual desires. I think that what Irigaray is defending should be sacred and something that should be kept private.

July 4-17-08

Like I mentioned in my previous blog, authority figures have the ability to start and stop whatever, whenever. Foucault’s quote represents this notion perfectly: “Everyone locked up in his cage, everyone at his window, answering to his name and showing himself when asked.” The word “everyone” stands for the populace within the United States, while the word “his” represents all Repressive Apparatuses. For example, the government set laws that society has to abide by, but it has become so rehearsed that society can’t distinguish between their individual rights and the rights forced by the government. When a police officer stops a man for no apparent reason or uses his suit to gain respect in wrongful ways often creates controversy among society and higher forces, but it’s dangerous to question authority, especially when they have the right to stabilize you.

This leads me into Foucault’s second quote, “Inspection functions ceaselessly.” Society functions as a mechanical device that is preprogrammed to act in a certain way. When authority figures bust in houses, pull over cars, harass people, or stage a crime, they don’t get arrested like the people caught in these stages do; instead they are brought into court and dragged out into they are clear of all charges or it eventually gets buried under other reports. We have to let authority figures take their course when claiming to benefit out environment, but it’s a time when they go to far.

July--> Foucault

Foucault introduces readers into the state of political force. There was an interesting quote that he discussed in the reading, which is “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance.” The class discussion that came about really struck a nerve because it reminded me about our campus. The quote basically means that our society likes to be watched. I believe that surveillance is needed for security reasons, but not when one’s privacy is invaded. Back to Rollins, in the apartment complex there has been vandalism occurring on a weekly base, but authority figures are not handling the situation in a sincere manner. Students who are affected by others insecurity believe that cameras are needed to overcome this dilemma. Surveillance is needed on a college campus, especially when campus security isn’t patrolling the building every hour. The political force in this situation is the president or the one who has the hold on cameras being installed within the apartment complex. The president holds everyone accountable for the vandalism that occurs on each floor. For example, if there are exit signs, holes in the walls, or minor damages made to the third floor, then all of the residents that live on that floor split the final bill and it is put on the student’s school account. “Cameras Cameras We Want Cameras”! This is the constant chant spoken by Rollins’ students who are victims of their peer’s behavior. Authority figures have the power to make rules, but only when it’s convenient for them. Rumors have arisen: “Authority figures don’t feel there is a need for cameras because students are afraid of getting caught doing multiple things or they don’t want to be held accountable for their guest’s actions. These are not valid reasons for not installing the cameras. As one can see, I agree with Foucault’s quote because I’ve been affected by it!

kMO 4/17

In today's world image is everything. From everything as simple as a young girl feeling pressure from the media to be a size 0 to an entire corporation's marketing tactics, image is VITAL. In class we discussed facebook and it's impact on society. Interestingly, today it is harder to find someone who doesn't have facebook as opposed to someone who does. Frighteningly, this explosion of private information being exposed to the public has happened in less than 2 years...

Sometimes when I read articles in which describe the effect websites such as myspace and facebook are having on the community I realize I don't want to be a part of the trend. The thought of any information (especially pictures) being permanently accessible on the internet is terrifying...What most people don't think about is the future. Do I really want my children to have unlimited access to pictures taken of me from college parties? Or do I really want a potential workplace to have pre-conceived notions about who I am and the lifestyle I live?

The idea of the Panopticon is one I have constantly thought about...The idea that one acts a certain way while under the surveillance of others in comparison to how they act while alone is a very fascinating topic...If you apply "organizations" such as religion and the government to this concept a whole new world of ideas is born. It is important to note the way we respond to the laws of the government in comparison to those of any "higher power." We know for sure that if we murder someone we will spend our lives in jail under the United States law, whereas we do not know for sure what will happen under the laws of a "higher power." In my opinion people feel they can get away with more when they feel they are not under strict ruling...

kaymac 4.17.08

I love how some of my classes always happen to overlap at the exact same time. In art history we're studying Romanticism and the concept of The Other came up in class when we looked at this extremely exoticized piece by Delacroix called Death of Sardanapolus. Based on a romanticized poem by Byron, the picture illustrates the story of Sardanapolus, an Assyrian king who, when he realized that he could not defend himself when he heard that his enemies were coming to attack him, killed and burn all of his possessions, including himself, his concubines, and horses, so that his enemies would not own his possessions. Despite the obvious materialistic message in this painting, it also correctly portrays Orientalism and the image of The Other. It's showing this foreign king as a savage, amoral, and materialistic, willing to kill women and horses for his own ego. This painting also exoticizes concepts like death and murder through the women and the setting they are in. Also, the women, despite the exotic setting they are in, are definitely not foreign with their pasty-white skin. However, because they are naked and in this exotic setting, they themselves become The Other as well.



I think the quote from bell hooks that completely illustrates this concept and that we received from class is:

“When race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relationships with the Other.” (367)

Going back to the women, you have Assyrian men murdering extremely pale and very naked women. Even in this gruesome act, these "exotic" women still offer sex appeal with their pale skin, hefty figures, and submissive body positions and they are still offered as a commodity.

sawsaw 4/20

I found Thursday's class discussion of bell hooks ideas to be very interesting. I had never really taken the time to consider what it would be like to be considered “exotic”. Being born in the US I never consider my self to be an “exotic woman” because everyone around me looks just like me. It was only until I traveled to Europe two summers ago that I realized what it felt like to be considered “Different” or “Exotic”. When I was in Norway, I went to the a farmer’s market in the middle of the small town. Everyone I came encounter with immediately knew I was American. They knew by the way I looked, how I talked and by what I was wearing. It was a very interesting feeling being considered “exotic” and being looked at in a different way.

The quote that stood out to me the most from bell hooks is: “Within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white cultures” (366). This quote really made me think how important “exotic” people are to the mainstream hegemonic culture. They liven up and add excitement to out society. I know that when I was in Norway people were constantly coming up to me to talk to me or look at me because I was so different. I made their small town more exciting. Just like people from other cultures or with different skin types make our society more interesting. I am going to Germany and Poland this summer on a missions trip and am excited to see how different and ”exotic” I will be to them!

Starfish 04/17

The panopticon is a very interesting concept to me, because I agree with Foucault when he says that we are all slaves to the panopticon. We do things and act certain ways because we believe that someone is watching us. There is this higher power that controls our every move. For some reason the first thing I thought about was the idea of religion. In all different types of religion, there is a higher being/beings or God/Gods who are always watching you. There are rules of how to live your life and punishments for those who do not do what they are supposed to. Religion works as its own panopticon. People who are religious cannot see this higher power, but they believe it to be there and powerful. They believe they are constantly under surveillance. I also wonder if we can be our own panopticons. I thought about my personal conscience. I would never steal or do something wrong because of the law, which is a panopticon, and because of how it would make me feel. It would not settle well with my conscience. Therefore, am I watching and surveying myself? Am I my own panopticon?

Another thing in class that I found interesting was Foucault’s quote, “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance.” (101) At first, I could not comprehend the appeal of being watched. I didn’t agree that we are a society of surveillance. Then, the minute when Dr. Casey put up facebook on the screen, it clicked. Why are we, myself being included, obsessed with facebook? I put pictures up on my profile, I update my status, and I change my profile picture frequently. The only answer I can come up with is I want to share these things with other people. I want to let them know what I am doing and I want them to see my pictures of my weekend. Thinking about it some more, I cannot understand WHY! This actually is a bit frightening but I figure I am not the only one who does not understand why they love facebook so much.

bumble: post class 4/17

It is such a bizarre phenomenon that we love to put ourselves out in the public sphere, yet at the same time cringe when people want to look out our profiled in public. It is strange that we love to watch, and love to be watched… but only if we do not know about it!

At work, every key stroke is recorded, every thing is watched. Even more importantly though, once something is written and sent out in e-mails… it is forever there. For a country that is so image conscious, there is surprisingly little analysis of how we present ourselves on sites like facebook.

It is amazing how under surveillance we are. I had applied for an internship last summer, and when I went in for an interview, every single person in the office knew who I was because my facebook picture had circulated around the office! I could not believe it. In one way it was great because it had exposed me, and put me out there, which could be one of the reasons that I got the job, but if I was not meticulous in how I presented myself, it could have backfired

The idea of the Panopticon, is completely interrelated with Marx’s ideas of ideology and hierarchy of power. We have a conception of class hierarchy because of these ideologies we have placed in our culture. Automatically, these affect how we fear the greater powers. Fear is definitely the KEY!

Sgt. Pepper, hooks

In Bell Hooks's essay, "Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance," the author discusses the way we are trained to see other people. He focuses specifically on the way white males are trained to see Black and minority females. Hegemony does seem to be suggesting an end to racism as many advertisements and media today features women of minority. However, as the sources are more carefully examined, one will find that racism is being promoted now more than ever. "They [white boys] believe their desire for contact repreesents a progressive change in white attitudes toward non-whites" (hooks 369). A common theme that promotes it is portraying colored women as exotic, animalistic, and as a thrill. By portraying them in this way, it is suggesting they are less than human. Rather than deserving the same respect society tells men to use with white females (which is still a struggle), the same respect is not even a suggestion for minority females. One clear example of this Virginia Slims ad I found online (see above this post). While it's a little dated, it provides a perfect example of the dehumanization of women. In this ad for cigarettes, a female of color is clearly being shown as animalistic. She wears a leopard print outfit. Also, her head is pointed down and her body language suggests her submissive status. But if that doesn't do it for you, her dehumanization could not be more clear in the ad's text, which reads: "Tame and Timid? That Goes Against My Instincts." This text is obviously referring to the qualities of an animal, thus it is saying she is an animal. She is less than human, and it is OK for men (and women) to treat her that way. Hooks ends his essay with a notion that fear is getting in the way of any kind of reform. With hegemony drilling these thoughts of racism into people's heads, it is not just promoting racism, but it is promoting fear to challenge it.

Elizabeth Daigh - Hooks

In Hooks article, the first sentence "within current debates about race and difference, mass culture is the contemporary location that both publicly declares and perpetuates the idea that there is pleasure to be found in the acknowledgment of racial different" really stood out to me.While reading this essay I immediately thought of fashion. I think that everywhere in fashion designers are using "the other" race to make them different or more exotic from the other. I really like what Cuckoo says about America's Next Top Model, as "the other" is very prevalent in the show. On the runway designers are always using black people to make the clothes appear a different way and show them in a different light. It changes the appeal and make the clothes seem as though they are different- it makes them more appealing. At the same, I also think that high fashion magazines will use African setting with white women to advertise. In a controversial Vogue spread it was telling how "cultured" Keira Knightly was. The picture of her with Masaai Tribes in Tanzania and she was modeling with them but at the same time she was wearing a 3,000 dollar dress. Another picture was of her with an elephant which had a Louis Vuiton cashmere blanket thrown over its back. To me, this seemed crazy. The idea that wealthy America's could/ would go into an extremely impoverished country and take pictures with them with all of this high class very expensive stuff. I think the quote "when race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relations with the Other" can be applied to what I am trying to say. In the sense that Vogue used rural Tanzania as its "playground" for visual pleasure. This spread raised controversy because people thought it was crazy to go into their tribe and put all this money in front of their eye and see how we have so much technology - and I agreed. I agreed until I read an interview with my favorite photography, Peter Beard, (who has done lots of fashion Photography in Africa) and he looked at it differently. The tribes are not upset at all more so they are happy to offer their art, their land, and culture as we are embracing it by taking pictures and wanting to show it off to America society and showing it in high fashion magazines. The tribes also have no idea what an L and V all over a blanket mean. Its not like they are thinking "Oh My God how could they bring all this designer clothing in here". Peter Beard thinks of using their tribe as further embracing the art of fashion, photography, and other cultures.

Cuckoo hooks

When reading Belle Hooks, Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance, I started to think about the show Americas Next Top Model. They are always using ‘ethnicity…. to liven up the dull dish” rather their show. The models are often placed in situation where they have to mimic another culture in their photo shoot, and then are judge on how well they embodied what they were taught. People find pleasure…. in the acknowledgement and enjoyment of racial difference” (366). The judges are often talking about how certain models have something exotic about them and that it sells. During one of the challenges the girls learned about the aboriginal Australian Culture way of story telling through dance and body art. Later the girls have to incorporate what they learned into their photo shoot. Here are some examples…

This is only one of many examples through out the show that have used different cultures to sell an image. Hooks writes, “The world of fashion has also come to understand that selling products is heightened by the exploration of Otherness” and these image confirm this. (371)

When I was younger there was this billboard that had these two hands shaking, one was black and one was white. While reading this article and thinking about how media use the Other to sell products this image kept coming back to me. This image has always been a popular way to show difference. If these image were of two hands of the same race it would not be powerful, but because of the contrast of the two it stands out more. Hooks talks about the Tweeds catalogue and how they choose the model they use for the images based on contrast. Having a dark-skinned model used while in Egypt would not work because of the “play on contrast”.