Critical Feminist Studies 2013

Bell Hook's book, Feminism is for Everyone is one of the best books I've read so far. She attempts to give the readers more then one perspective on a topic and applies this thinking to many important topics around feminism. This novel may be another example of "feminism unbound." Hook's attempts to permanently question what is feminism past gender and sex? She broadens the definition of who exactly feminism is protecting and focuses on eliminating the patriarchy instead of focusing on small unrealistic goals. This book has inspired the topic for my next web-event that will be analyzing parenting through a "feminism unbound lens." I would be questioning how parenting would be  if it was"unbound."

Something that is on my mind since our discussion in class (as well as with the Butler reading) is the nature of mourning. Mourning is not an act that is set to accomplish anything, but rather a kind of reflection and attempt at closure for the sake of oneself. In a way, mourning is more centered on those who mourn rather than the person or object that is being mourned. We mourn, not because of the death or departure of who/what we mourn, but because we have lost something that can no longer provide for us. People never truly mourn for the sake other people or objects. People mourn for the sake of themselves.

I thought Tuesday’s discussion about whether or not a person has a right to know what I am thinking in the classroom was very interesting.  Personally, I do not think that anyone has right to my thoughts.  There certainly is a requirement to speak for participation reasons but is a requirement the same as a right?  My first Serendip web event focused on silence in the classroom and a possible strategy to overcome that silence but one of the essays I read for this web event talked about the vulnerability to silence. 

           (Here is the reference made in my web event) 

           In the essay, "The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People's Children,” Lisa Deplit claims that speaking in class should make us “vulnerable enough to allow the world to turn upside down in order to allow the realities of other to edge themselves into our consciousness” (297). 

Re-reading my web event with this new context of a right to hear thoughts made me wonder if anyone has a right to my vulnerability.  It may not be the intention but it can be a consequence.  Forced speech could become forced vulnerability.  This may or may not be the thought process of the people who maintain their right to silence but I thought it was an interesting connection. 

I'm really intrigued by the points Butler makes in this chapter. The train of grief -> vulnerability -> dehumanization really caught my interest, and while Butler relates it to intersectional cuases and the view of Third World women's stuggles and efforts, I personally thought of the 'Save Second Base' campaign. While of a completely different scale, it shows a different angle of the same -  women are put at risk until a third party takes advantage of their situation. They are degraded to the means to an end, in Afghanistan as a 'liberation movement' to put US troops in the Middle East, and on United States soil as a pair of breasts meant to be saved for the enjoyment of others and to sell pick and white trinkets with ribbons. The failure of such movements can be seen through Angelina Jolie's double mastectomy - faced with such a high chance of breast cancer, she removesthe cause and is chided for not thinking of her appearence. Butler is right: Americans have been desensitized to death. Death happens; it is normal and unavoidable and can only be put off so often, and is put off minds because of its unpleasantness. But to imply the importance of a segment of tissue over a human life demonstrates another failure in our culture.

[cancer survivor and BoingBoing editor Xeni Jardin reporting on 'Pinktober']

After the class on Thursday I’ve been trying to understand "feminism unbound" and applying it to my everyday life. From my understanding “feminism unbound” views feminism without it being attached to a goal. I tried to watch this movie through a "feminism unbound" lens and realized that it may be an example of "feminism unbound." Daddy Day Care is one of my favorite childhood movies. The little children making a mess and the friendly competition between the head of the private school and Eddy Murphy always amused me. The idea of child caring is usually the job of the mother. She stays home, takes care of the children and makes sure the house is kept tidy. In this movie the roles are reversed and men are taking on the role of being nurturing and taking care of the children. They are criticized for this and called losers repeatedly throughout the movie.  Their combatting the stereotype that men should only be the "bread winners." They’re also taking away that anxiety about men being harmful to children. The main character Eddie Murphy is now the caregiver while his wife, a lawyer, is working and paying for the bills. Usually in society today this couple would be criticized. The woman in this situation would be judged for allowing her husband to not go out and get a "real job." Or she'll be judged for not playing her role as the nurturing loving parent.

The idea of tying feminism and revolution together definitely intrigues me, especially considering Brown's parallels to the fall of socialism in eastern Europe. One idea that stuck with me was in the final paragraph, where Brown, stating revolution as a 'paradigm of transformation', tries to imagine what movements would come about with the abolishment of revolution (which, paradoxically, seems a revolution in itself). While I cannot envision a revolution in the connotated sense, with fighting and barricades, I do wonder how else one might achieve certain end goals. Brown also states earlier that feminism, unlike some political and economic based revolutions, has little effect on the means of production in society, implying that such an act would hardly disrupt the status quo after the initial uproar. However, because of the cultural nature, I'm not sure anything but force powered by occasional legistlature would be able to establish a permanent change - the Czech Velvet Revolution was a successful example of a quiet transition, but it was also primarily political, and I struggle to imagine the same being true of feminism on a large scale. I would, however, love to see examples of non-revolutionary cultural shifts that would be able to support the idea of a similarly-structured new feminist wave.

I was really struck in class over the idea of one's right to another's inner thoughts. The constrast between a right to knowledge and a right to silence particularly caught me - at one point does one's privacy begin to supercede on what could be accomplished should they speak up? I almost felt myself turn to this side before the comparison to wire tapping complicated matters further. On the one hand, the practice is done with the intent of criminal investigation. On the other, it constitutes a MASSIVE invasion of privacy, bearing so much personal information that could be wholly irrelevant and yet must still be sifted through (I keep thinking of The Lives of Others, a film about an East German home bugged by the Stasi and one man's struggles with the responsibility because he grows so attached to his target). When put in a crime context, I feel as though those pertinent have a right to speak regarding any part they may have taken in this crime, but we also have safeguards in place (for example, Miranda rights) to allow these people to protect themselves, as well as to avoid further incriminating those tried for the wrong crime. Put in this context, I do feel like while there is an obligation to speak out against injustice, there is an ever present right to silence, lest we fall into a French style of guilty until proven innocent that forces one to speak.