Talking about class is wierd. Paper 10, was equally as odd. My paper focused less on the interviews I had and more on the workshop and the resulting conversation I had with one of my dorm mates afterwards. The whole was kind of awkward, but the more you talk about something, the less awkward it becomes. Which leads me to believe that maybe, sometimes, it is the awkward things that need to be talked about more than anything else. 

Talking about class is wierd. Paper 10, was equally as odd. My paper focused less on the interviews I had and more on the workshop and the resulting conversation I had with one of my dorm mates afterwards. The whole was kind of awkward, but the more you talk about something, the less awkward it becomes. Which leads me to believe that maybe, sometimes, it is the awkward things that need to be talked about more than anything else. 

Hey, I was just wondering if anyone else finished Little Bee. Looking at the syllabus, I seriously doubt we will be able to dedicate all the time needed to the novel. So I thought here was a good space to start. I both hated and loved Little Bee. I loved it for the simple fact that it was a great book, with compelling characters, and a subtle but important political message. Yet, I hated the book for the same reasons, it was so sad, so deep and profound, I feel like a weight has been added to my mind. I finished the book wondering if I was suppose to feel hopeful or desolate. Even though I finished it some days ago, I am still not sure if Little Bee, is a gritty story that offers hope or a hopeful story that has its gritty moments. Also, the time in which we read the book impacted me greatly. Thanksgiving, to me has always been a holiday where America is at its least petty. We have so much to be grateful for, and Little Bee has reminded me of that fact. I wish I could keep all the feelings I have for this book and apply to my daily life, in the hopes that I could remember to be thankful. 

On another note, how does everyone feel on Little Bee becoming a movie, with Nicole Kidman playing Sarah?!?

I really enjoyed the readings for last week’s class. While reading the excerpts of Paul Farmer’s Pathologies of Power, I was intrigued by his call to arms of sorts. He reminds us that we live in an “increasingly interconnected world” and implores us to “remember that what happens to poor people is never divorced from the actions of the powerful” (158). As I read this passage, I found myself thinking about the implications of such a union between “the poor” and “the powerful.”  I agree with Farmer’s suggestion that the economic and social structures that exist within countries and between them often institutionalize inequality, but I find myself feeling overwhelmed by the significance of this connection. As residents of a first world country and participants in its democracy and economy, what are our responsibilities to poverty stricken people of other nations and our own? How do we effectively target structures, instead of merely attempting to treat the symptoms caused by these structures? Farmer suggests that we begin by  “think[ing] locally and globally and act[ing] in response to both levels of analysis,” but somehow this left me feeling more overwhelmed… Farmer is wise to suggest that structures should be a principal target in the quest to eradicate poverty and the health inequities that accompany it. He implicates his readers in the preservation of such structures, but the excerpt ends just short of him suggesting tangible ways for us to help shift these structures.

In reading Little Bee, I came across two phrases I realized I wasn't aware of: detached and semi-detached, specifically in relation to houses.

Detached? I thought. As opposed to what? Connected?

As opposed to: rowhomes, apartments, mobile homes.

I am privileged enough to think that my kind of housing is the default (detached house), whereas everyone else's is some sort of variation on my norm. I live in a house, what do you mean what kind of house?

So I started thinking of these terms in the realm of gender.

Detached [single-unit housing]

Semi-detached [dwellings]

Attached [multi-unit housing]

Movable [dwellings]

When trying to categorize them further, my first thought was that "detached" would be equivalent to gender deviant and/or genderfuck and/or genderqueer (detached from binary). But then if "detached" was the norm, then detached in terms of gender would mean cis-man or cis-woman. But then again, detached is the norm based on my perception, and my class.

So intersect Gender and Class  with these terms, and this is what I came up with:

Haverford's home page features an interview with Rich Espey, who teaches middle school science at the Park School in Baltimore, and recently received the GLSEN Educator of the Year award.  (Rich, who is a gay man and an accomplished playwright, did his senior thesis research in my lab.)  Rich was honored for his work in developing the program, "Putting Gay in a Positive Context," with other teachers at his K-12 school.  They created a superb website of gay resources for teachers, which are organized by age of students, subject, advocacy, and support for teachers. I hope you will check it out!

Careers in Public Health: Career Exploration Day
Wednesday, Jan 11, 2012 in Washington, DC 

In reviewing the course notes for this past week, I was struck by the first image of the Haitian pregnant women lined up. A few years ago I read a book called Half the Sky. Half the Sky is a book written by a couple that were journalists for the New York Times (I think. I'm really pretty sure, but regardless, that doesn't affect this post). This couple travelled to many poorer countries, such as Thailand, Haiti, and Africa. They would talk to hundreds on women in these countries. They heard horrible stories of torture, second-class citizenship, and stories of triumph and success. The book is tremendously well written and very readable. So how does this relate to the picture? With basic sex education and some women’s rights laws put in place, these statistics and images wouldn’t exist. Of course that is not so easily accomplished. But I do think that all of you should read this book. I could not put it down. I am not naïve enough to think that we can fix all of these problems in the near future, but I do think that educating ourselves about issues that don’t get as much press in the newspaper can only help. To truly be a citizen of the world, you need to know what is happening in all corners of the world. 

Toward an Ethics of Cohabitation

Sharon Ullman's "devastating" introduction:
the claim that "academics don't live in the real world" is a false rhetorical strategy designed to restrain their power
Butler works in "the best part of the Jewish ethical tradition: to insist on the relation to the non-Jew"
intellectuals are under a political obligation
Butler rejected a "courage" prize in Berlin, saying, "I distance myself from racism"
from her Occupy speech: "If hope is an impossible demand, then we demand the impossible"
she demonstrates the direct relation between political action and analysis
learning and intellect are devalued in the public square, and cruelty is celebrated
there are those who are "rightly afraid" of thinkers, like Butler, who inspire activism:
she helps to repair the world

Butler: "it will change my thinking and my writing that I have been here"
an ethics that heeds the fragility of life" = we accompany one another
the last two lectures explored "bodies in alliance," with-and-against Hannah Arendt,
in an attempt to enact-and-exemplify alternative forms of living together
various forms of cohabitation are central to the most vexed problems of our time
start in register of ethics, w/ political implications
1) on global obligations, near and far:
what about our capacity to respond to suffering @ a distance?
what is our ethical obligation to those we never choose, in languages we don't understand?