Once again this week, I find myself inspired by Kobieta. (I hope you don’t think I’m picking on you since I often comment on your thoughts, I just find that you inspire me to think further about the questions that you raise.)

In class, Kobieta asked why is the truth important?  I think many of us can look at the issue of truth and find that there are many truths, not one, and that they are dependent on how we interpret a situation.  Certainly our memories seem true, but after listening to the radio lab, we learned that we reinvent our memories each time they are recalled, so maybe they are not true.  And since we all have different perspectives, we see different truths in the same experience (i.e. we all hear the same words in class but may not agree on how to interpret them, what they mean or what the implication is.)  So if 100% truth doesn’t exist, then how could it be important? 

I think what’s important about the truth is its potential.  The truth allows us to make predictions and provides us with certain expectations about outcomes.  The truth is defined as something that has a basis as a fact or belief that is commonly accepted, so if everyone is on the same page (i.e. we have common agreement on the truth) then we can make decisions based on predictable facts.  Even if we can’t agree on the truth either within ourselves or with others, I think it’s important to strive for it in order to make better sense of our world and how we choose to interact with it. 

Going through My Gender Workbook has made me think a lot more about what gender is and what it isn't.  I still find myself thinking in a fairly conservative way, that there are "men" and "women," but I actually am starting to think about why I think that way and if those assumptions true and what they mean.  It's very hard for me to understand what a "non-gender" would be.  It's also confusing how Bornstein talks about rejecting gender, but at the same time talks about her (hir?) own gender and how we can all find our own gender/expressions - so...is there gender or not?  Or are there many genders that are personal to each individual?  I also have trouble understanding whether Bornstein believes that our gender identities are fluid (as she seemed to in the beginning of the book), or if we have a TRUE identity which is hidden by our own performance of socialy-constructed gender.  Does Bornstein argue that we have an essential self at all, or that everything about us is dynamic?  I guess the message of the book is getting through to me...somewhat.  

     After skimming  through “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”,  a group of glossy picture pages assembled at the middle of the book caught my eye. These are pictures of HL’s family and where she was raised etc.  arranged in a chronological order. I asked myself why all these images had to be in the middle of the book and not in different sections(for the sake of the chronology established by the author). I believe this assortment of pictures in “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” could’ve been better organized so that it could be a more efficient “break(s)” in the reading. As a reader I would’ve preferred to know a little bit about the life of Henrietta the woman during her lifetime before reading about Henrietta's cells. (Glossy pages 1-3) and implement the remaining glossy pages at the end of the section the author makes reference to that particular event (s) instead of putting them all in an additional  “Where are they now?” section (about her family) which would only apply to glossy pages 7-8.

I must admit that I enjoy having pictures interrupt my reading for the purpose of enriching my experience. 

My group did a presentation on children's and young adult literature in Ghana, in which I specifically focused on what was being read. It is interesting to be reflecting on my presentation on children's and young adult literature in Ghana now that I have actually visited Ghana. Before I left for Ghana, I had the opportunity to Skype with Kathy Knowles, a Canadian writer who has started libraries throughout Ghana. She spoke of how most Ghanaians don't read for pleasure because it's seen as a mostly academic endeavor and how almost all literature is written in English, usually a third language particularly for those who live in rural areas.

I want to write my post in response to our class focusing on Olga Broumas' poem "Cinderella". Reading this poem highlighted the various perspectives that always exist and how it is valuable to approach texts and situations in open and respectful ways. Reading the poem with the title "Cinderella" immediately sets up the reader to draw connections to the fairytale that many of us are familiar with already; titles have the power to change the way the text is considered before the reader even engages with it. This poem could be read without the tittle and it is possible that the reader would not associate the text with a Cinderella story. In our group, we discussed how key words like "slipper of glass" and "ashes" give hints to a connection, but also could be read as separate from the aspects of Cinderella we already know. Even changing "glass slipper" to "slipper of glass" changes what readers imagine when they read the poem. The idea of reading Broumas' poem without the title gives a chance to start drawing connections from a blank slate that allows for the generation of unrestricted ideas.

When dchin and epeck read us And Tango Makes Three on Thursday, I mentioned a webevent, created by a student in the core course in gender studies last semester, which might interest you all: it's about Making Sense of the "Gay Penguin" Controversy, and it questions the wisdom of "anthropomorphising animals to contribute to a conversation about human" behavior.

If you are interested in thinking some more about (and creating new) texts to teach children about gender variance, you might find inspiration in a couple of other projects created for that class; see, for example,
Mommies, Daddies, Families,
A Rainbow of Sex Difference,
The Stories We Tell Ourselves and
A Handbook for the Boy Scouts of America....

Today I learned a lot about how culture works.  In the morning, a student observed that a question that had emerged during our class's processing of our trip was doing work in the culture of our group.  This insight suggests that questions can be instances of cultural work/production, and as such are embedded in a particular context and time . . . the student suggested that we did not need to regard this question as transcontextual: rather, that its being posed could be usefully understood as in-time cultural work that we could let be without the letting be constitute ignoring or neglect.  So interesting!

In the afternoon I got to attend the panel discussion with Derrick Ashong and Soulfege, sponsored by Ghanaian Music/Global Entrepeneurship.  Derrick Ashong spoke about their group's interest in breaking the music industry paradigm.  He explained that for humans, the fulfillment of expectations, even with unwelcome outcomes, is deeply satisfying.  So, if mother says stay away from that young man, and that young man does indeed prove inconstant, mother is gratified even though the outcome is not welcome.  This is a powerful illustration of how culture works.  Ashong and Soulfege are trying to change culture, or recreate it, by establishing new expectations for contemporary Afropolitcal music.