Reply to comment

My first Critical Feminist Studies class was definitely interesting. That's the word I'm using since I can't quite put my finger on the right adjective. The very first thing we did, was respond to an image which we later learned was a piece in Judy Chicago's exhibit, The Dinner Party. I have to say, the role reversal was a little uncomfortable for me at first. The first day, most teachers go right into their syllabus leading you through that first class. Having us respond to the image, in a sense put the ball in our, the students, court. It at least made me feel put on the spot, but not in a bad way. It just made me realize something about myself. Though, I will be the first to engage in a conversation about what is wrong in classrooms, I learned yesterday that I had settled into the role of complacent student quite comfortably.

This leads me to the Pot Luck exercise we did. Some of the metaphors, including mine, placed the students in a passive role. In my metaphor, I took away the students ability to add to the curriculum and bring their own knowledge to the table. Sponges are good for soaking liquid up, but maybe, as students, we shouldn't just be ingesting what is given us as sponges might. We should be questioning, and contributing without feeling self concious.  Looking at the metaphors, I like the ocean metaphor best. Someone commented on how, like in the ocean, a strong class relies on strong symbiotic relationships. If there is a weak link in the ocean's ecosystem, it would shift and maybe collapse whole. Our classroom experience is going to be what we make of it. Students and professor, working together, is what in my eyes makes all the difference. 

Three Guineas:

I'm finding Guineas really very rich. It's taking me a while to read just because there's so much content. I don't want to miss anything. One particular passage really left an imprint. Woolf talks of the 1919 Act which unbarred women from working.  As she says, "the door of the private house was thrown open," (Woolf 16). I can't believe that with this act centuries of superiority complexes dissipated, but it seems that the very possibility that a woman might earn her own living meant more symbolically than I can understand. Being able to earn her own living released the shackles so to say. Women no longer had to rely on their families to financially support them. The right to work gave them the freedom to relent, disagree, and criticize. "In short, she need not acquiesce;..." (Woolf 17).

At first, I thought that in this case $ was synonymous with freedom. Now, I believe it's not the money itself, but the ability to have a choice, and to do what you will with this choice as you see fit. This led me to think about the importance of education and what it means to be a student at an all women's college. Here, I am making my claim in the world. I am equipping myself with the tools I need so that I won't need to rely on someone else. I am "throwing open the doors of the private house" for myself.