Lesbian Wiccans Save America
Finally, a columnist who speaks my language.
Morford
Saturday, May 31, 2003
Thursday, May 29, 2003
The Garden Weasel
While reading a friend's blog, I came across a post titled, "Garden Weasel." The title stirred a memory I'd long forgotten. Almost two decades ago, a commercial for a lawn cultivation too aptly named The Garden Weasel played during every televised Chicago Cubs baseball game. I'd see the commercial and think to myself, "If I were into gardening, which I'm not, I'd have a Garden Weasel." How weird is that? At the time, my fanaticism for the Chicago Cubs was at its peak. I watched almost every game, knew the batting average and ERA of every player, and dreamed of taking Harry Caray's place in the broadcast booth. My passion for the Chicago Cubs and baseball play-by-play eventually led to a career as a Communication Studies academic. I entered my freshmen year of college as a Speech Communication major with an emphasis in broadcasting. My experiences with the broadcasting industry, however, quickly led to disillusionment and I switched my emphasis to rhetoric. From the Chicago Cubs to broadcasting to rhetorical theorist--what an interesting career path. Today, amidst the rigors of academic writing, paper grading, and lecturing, I still want a Garden Weasel. Oh, and I still cringe at the thought of gardening. Give me a good book any day.
While reading a friend's blog, I came across a post titled, "Garden Weasel." The title stirred a memory I'd long forgotten. Almost two decades ago, a commercial for a lawn cultivation too aptly named The Garden Weasel played during every televised Chicago Cubs baseball game. I'd see the commercial and think to myself, "If I were into gardening, which I'm not, I'd have a Garden Weasel." How weird is that? At the time, my fanaticism for the Chicago Cubs was at its peak. I watched almost every game, knew the batting average and ERA of every player, and dreamed of taking Harry Caray's place in the broadcast booth. My passion for the Chicago Cubs and baseball play-by-play eventually led to a career as a Communication Studies academic. I entered my freshmen year of college as a Speech Communication major with an emphasis in broadcasting. My experiences with the broadcasting industry, however, quickly led to disillusionment and I switched my emphasis to rhetoric. From the Chicago Cubs to broadcasting to rhetorical theorist--what an interesting career path. Today, amidst the rigors of academic writing, paper grading, and lecturing, I still want a Garden Weasel. Oh, and I still cringe at the thought of gardening. Give me a good book any day.
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
"Artificial Black Hole Escapes Laboratory, Eats Chicago!"
According to this piece, scientists will soon be able to manufacture miniature black holes. My brain can barely wrap itself around the notion of a black hole, let alone the technology needed to create one.
According to this piece, scientists will soon be able to manufacture miniature black holes. My brain can barely wrap itself around the notion of a black hole, let alone the technology needed to create one.
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
Monday, May 26, 2003
Freedom, the First Amendement, and Baseball
One more piece of required reading for the day.
A Chill Wind . . .
One more piece of required reading for the day.
A Chill Wind . . .
America's Most Prominent Leftist
Michael Moore is one of my favorite political activists/entertainers. If you've ever seen him in person, you can't deny the passion behind his criticisms of the U.S. political system. As much as I like his political agenda, his work is not above criticism. Moore frequently resorts to hyperbole, liberal interpretations of narrative sequences, and sensationalism to drive his points home. Kevin Mattson, a writer for Dissent Magazine, presents what I feel is a fair and accurate critique of Moore's efforts.
Political Criticism in an Age of Entertainment
While I agree with much of Mattson's critique, one section deserve's the attention of my critical eye. In the following paragraph, a paragraph focused on Moore's Bowling for Columbine, Mattson questions the cause-effect link between U.S. military action in Sudan and the actions of the Columbine shooters. Mattson writes:
As reviewers have pointed out, the logic of Bowling for Columbine often fails. One example, not yet noted, symbolizes a central problem in Moore's work. In trying to explain why Columbine happened, Moore floats the idea that Bill Clinton ordered a bombing in Sudan around the time of Columbine. He moves backward to show the violence endemic to American foreign policy, cutting and splicing together decontextualized images of America in Iran (1950s), Vietnam (1960s), Central America (1980s), and the Middle East (1990s). Clearly Moore was using this imagery to build up a sense of America as an inherently violent world power-arguing that America's violence is being turned against itself. If I followed his logic, he was also suggesting a specific link between American foreign policy and the Columbine killings. I admit to no knowledge of these particular students, but I find it hard to imagine they followed news about American action abroad, and I'm even surer they knew little about American intervention in Iran during the 1950s or even where Iran was. What I was left with were the decontextualized images Moore flung together in the hope that they would add up to a provocative point. But all I really had were decontextualized images.
I think Mattson missed the point of Moore's argument. Rather than trying to make a direct link between Columbine and U.S. foreign policy decisions, Moore suggests a broader cultural problem. If I follow Moore's logic, and I think I follow it a great deal better than Mr. Mattson, he's trying to illustrate one of the great contradictions in our society. As a people, we generally agree that violence is NOT an effective means of settling disputes. Many of our laws enforce this tacit agreement. Conversely, our federal government, the ultimate arbiter and enforcer of our laws regarding violence, employs violence as a means of solving problems. In other words, Moore isn't arguing that a military operation in Sudan spurred the Columbine shooters into action. Rather, his argument is that we live in a culture of violence. Mattson needs to widen his critical lens. Taken as a whole, Bowling for Columbine also identifies sensational journalism, the NRA, corporate commercialism, the welfare state, the TV and film industries, and racism as contributors to a U.S. culture of violence. If we choose to live in a society which supports U.S. foreign policy through "Might makes right," floods our living rooms with violent television images, and protects the rights of parents who use corporal punishment as a form of discipline, how can we not expect a certain percentage of people act violently?
Back to the specific sequence of images--Moore argues that our government's past military operations run contrary to the social contract by which the rest of society lives. The military operations are not used to draw a direct cause and effect relationship, but to suggest a broader cultural view of violence. Put in syllogistic form, the argument looks like this:
People who live in a violent culture may be subjected to violent acts.
U.S. students live in a violent culture.
Therefore, U.S. students may be subjected to violent acts.
Michael Moore is one of my favorite political activists/entertainers. If you've ever seen him in person, you can't deny the passion behind his criticisms of the U.S. political system. As much as I like his political agenda, his work is not above criticism. Moore frequently resorts to hyperbole, liberal interpretations of narrative sequences, and sensationalism to drive his points home. Kevin Mattson, a writer for Dissent Magazine, presents what I feel is a fair and accurate critique of Moore's efforts.
Political Criticism in an Age of Entertainment
While I agree with much of Mattson's critique, one section deserve's the attention of my critical eye. In the following paragraph, a paragraph focused on Moore's Bowling for Columbine, Mattson questions the cause-effect link between U.S. military action in Sudan and the actions of the Columbine shooters. Mattson writes:
As reviewers have pointed out, the logic of Bowling for Columbine often fails. One example, not yet noted, symbolizes a central problem in Moore's work. In trying to explain why Columbine happened, Moore floats the idea that Bill Clinton ordered a bombing in Sudan around the time of Columbine. He moves backward to show the violence endemic to American foreign policy, cutting and splicing together decontextualized images of America in Iran (1950s), Vietnam (1960s), Central America (1980s), and the Middle East (1990s). Clearly Moore was using this imagery to build up a sense of America as an inherently violent world power-arguing that America's violence is being turned against itself. If I followed his logic, he was also suggesting a specific link between American foreign policy and the Columbine killings. I admit to no knowledge of these particular students, but I find it hard to imagine they followed news about American action abroad, and I'm even surer they knew little about American intervention in Iran during the 1950s or even where Iran was. What I was left with were the decontextualized images Moore flung together in the hope that they would add up to a provocative point. But all I really had were decontextualized images.
I think Mattson missed the point of Moore's argument. Rather than trying to make a direct link between Columbine and U.S. foreign policy decisions, Moore suggests a broader cultural problem. If I follow Moore's logic, and I think I follow it a great deal better than Mr. Mattson, he's trying to illustrate one of the great contradictions in our society. As a people, we generally agree that violence is NOT an effective means of settling disputes. Many of our laws enforce this tacit agreement. Conversely, our federal government, the ultimate arbiter and enforcer of our laws regarding violence, employs violence as a means of solving problems. In other words, Moore isn't arguing that a military operation in Sudan spurred the Columbine shooters into action. Rather, his argument is that we live in a culture of violence. Mattson needs to widen his critical lens. Taken as a whole, Bowling for Columbine also identifies sensational journalism, the NRA, corporate commercialism, the welfare state, the TV and film industries, and racism as contributors to a U.S. culture of violence. If we choose to live in a society which supports U.S. foreign policy through "Might makes right," floods our living rooms with violent television images, and protects the rights of parents who use corporal punishment as a form of discipline, how can we not expect a certain percentage of people act violently?
Back to the specific sequence of images--Moore argues that our government's past military operations run contrary to the social contract by which the rest of society lives. The military operations are not used to draw a direct cause and effect relationship, but to suggest a broader cultural view of violence. Put in syllogistic form, the argument looks like this:
People who live in a violent culture may be subjected to violent acts.
U.S. students live in a violent culture.
Therefore, U.S. students may be subjected to violent acts.
Presidential Stagecraft
Yet another article concerning the Bush administration's deft use of visual images.
Stagecraft
The article poses some interesting questions. First, why wasn't there a larger outcry after the May 12 bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia? Second, why is the U.S. public allowing itself to be misled by visual images? Why aren't we asking questions about the policies being endorsed? Third, why aren't we seeing more images of a post-war Iraq? Why aren't we receiving the same intense coverage we received during the war? Could it be that the situation isn't quite what the Bush administration had hoped for?
Yet another article concerning the Bush administration's deft use of visual images.
Stagecraft
The article poses some interesting questions. First, why wasn't there a larger outcry after the May 12 bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia? Second, why is the U.S. public allowing itself to be misled by visual images? Why aren't we asking questions about the policies being endorsed? Third, why aren't we seeing more images of a post-war Iraq? Why aren't we receiving the same intense coverage we received during the war? Could it be that the situation isn't quite what the Bush administration had hoped for?
Sunday, May 25, 2003
Here We Go Again
According to CNN, the Bush administration is discussing possible efforts to destabilize Iran. Can anyone honestly say they didn't see this coming?
According to CNN, the Bush administration is discussing possible efforts to destabilize Iran. Can anyone honestly say they didn't see this coming?
Saturday, May 24, 2003
Dixie Sluts
As the patriots of the American public decried the inflammatory remarks of the Dixie Chicks, Kellog Brown & Root (a subsidiary of Halliburton) managed to land a secret, no-bid contract to administer Iraqi oil operations. Why pay attention to adminstration cronyism when we can boycott the Dixie Chicks?
Let me also make note of the way in which the Dixie Chicks were criticized. Instead of addressing the remarks made by Natalie Maines, critics resorted to name calling: Dixie sluts and whores were two of the most scathing. Question: how does an indictment of Presidential policy even remotely relate to sexual promiscuity (sluts & whores)? Answer: it doesn't.
As the patriots of the American public decried the inflammatory remarks of the Dixie Chicks, Kellog Brown & Root (a subsidiary of Halliburton) managed to land a secret, no-bid contract to administer Iraqi oil operations. Why pay attention to adminstration cronyism when we can boycott the Dixie Chicks?
Let me also make note of the way in which the Dixie Chicks were criticized. Instead of addressing the remarks made by Natalie Maines, critics resorted to name calling: Dixie sluts and whores were two of the most scathing. Question: how does an indictment of Presidential policy even remotely relate to sexual promiscuity (sluts & whores)? Answer: it doesn't.
Collateral Damage
And people wonder why I opposed military action in Iraq? For several thousand Iraqi civilians, "liberation" has taken on new meaning. While the members of the Bush administration may be the official leaders of my country, I will oppose their neo-conservative ideologies, beliefs, and attitudes at every opportunity. Bush supporters will no doubt call me anti-American, unpatriotic, and even Communist, as they already have. If that's the price of expressing a view grounded in spiritual principles opposed to the use of violence as a means of settling any dispute, then I'll gladly take the heat.
And people wonder why I opposed military action in Iraq? For several thousand Iraqi civilians, "liberation" has taken on new meaning. While the members of the Bush administration may be the official leaders of my country, I will oppose their neo-conservative ideologies, beliefs, and attitudes at every opportunity. Bush supporters will no doubt call me anti-American, unpatriotic, and even Communist, as they already have. If that's the price of expressing a view grounded in spiritual principles opposed to the use of violence as a means of settling any dispute, then I'll gladly take the heat.
Thursday, May 22, 2003
Thank God we're hot chicks with superpowers
Several years ago, I received one those "Get to Know You" email questionnaires. You know the type. These questionnaires typically ask for an assortment of sundry information: favorite food, hometown, and the like. This email, however, possessed a unique question: Who is your perfect woman or man? Without a second thought, I picked Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
For seven years, I devoted one hour a week to the exploits of Buffy, Giles, Willow, and Xander. Tuesday night, Buffy and the Scooby gang staked their last vampire, beheaded their last demon, and averted their last apocalypse. The Hellmouth, at least the one in Sunnydale, is forever closed. When I tell people I'm a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, they frequently shake their head, laugh outright, or offer a dismissive eye roll. Have these people ever watched the show? Quite honestly, Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been one of the few well-written television programs over the last seven years. How many other programs manage such an intricate weave of humor, horror, and drama? I suspect the people who criticize Buffy the Vampire Slayer are the same folks who laugh hysterically at Dude, Where's My Car? Complex humor, like that presented in Buffy, is always a difficult sell.
With the series drawing to a close, a number of excellent articles have appeared on-line.
Lord of the Nerds
We Could Be Heroes
Xander and the Vampire Slayer
For the more academic minded, numerous articles are archived at The On-line International Journal of Buffy Studies.
Several years ago, I received one those "Get to Know You" email questionnaires. You know the type. These questionnaires typically ask for an assortment of sundry information: favorite food, hometown, and the like. This email, however, possessed a unique question: Who is your perfect woman or man? Without a second thought, I picked Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
For seven years, I devoted one hour a week to the exploits of Buffy, Giles, Willow, and Xander. Tuesday night, Buffy and the Scooby gang staked their last vampire, beheaded their last demon, and averted their last apocalypse. The Hellmouth, at least the one in Sunnydale, is forever closed. When I tell people I'm a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, they frequently shake their head, laugh outright, or offer a dismissive eye roll. Have these people ever watched the show? Quite honestly, Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been one of the few well-written television programs over the last seven years. How many other programs manage such an intricate weave of humor, horror, and drama? I suspect the people who criticize Buffy the Vampire Slayer are the same folks who laugh hysterically at Dude, Where's My Car? Complex humor, like that presented in Buffy, is always a difficult sell.
With the series drawing to a close, a number of excellent articles have appeared on-line.
Lord of the Nerds
We Could Be Heroes
Xander and the Vampire Slayer
For the more academic minded, numerous articles are archived at The On-line International Journal of Buffy Studies.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
Farenheit 911
If you're a fan of Michael Moore, you'll want to read this piece on his next documentary, Farenheit 911. Looks like Moore is cooking up an inflammatory documentary.
If you're a fan of Michael Moore, you'll want to read this piece on his next documentary, Farenheit 911. Looks like Moore is cooking up an inflammatory documentary.
Quirkiest Coloradoan
Is there any doubt that Hunter S. Thompson, the strung-out Aspen author and recluse, is the quirkiest Coloradoan? His drugged-out adventures and paranoia are legendary. According to Aspen legend, Thompson once become so frustrated with his writing that he pulled out a gun and shot a typewriter. The victim of Thompson's rage, the typewriter, hangs on the wall of the Aspen Hard Rock Cafe. I've seen it! Wether he really shot the typewriter as a result of writer's block is anybody's guess.
Can you believe the guy is still writing? One particular quote caught my eye:
Reviewers have despairingly characterised Thompson's persona as a coked-out prophet in the Book of Revelation, a hillbilly bookworm on speed, a psycho-path with an arsenal of high-powered weapons, a paranoid gun junkie, a womaniser, a drunk and worse. While all these descriptions are provable in various degrees, the truth is far weirder: most of the time Hunter Thompson is a strangely modest man, a serious thinker, a great wit, a superb satirist and a sports fan. He is 60-something, and he grew up, as I did, at a time when the greatest American writers were remote and powerful figures.
I tried to read Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas several years ago and it did nothing for me. Different strokes, eh?
Is there any doubt that Hunter S. Thompson, the strung-out Aspen author and recluse, is the quirkiest Coloradoan? His drugged-out adventures and paranoia are legendary. According to Aspen legend, Thompson once become so frustrated with his writing that he pulled out a gun and shot a typewriter. The victim of Thompson's rage, the typewriter, hangs on the wall of the Aspen Hard Rock Cafe. I've seen it! Wether he really shot the typewriter as a result of writer's block is anybody's guess.
Can you believe the guy is still writing? One particular quote caught my eye:
Reviewers have despairingly characterised Thompson's persona as a coked-out prophet in the Book of Revelation, a hillbilly bookworm on speed, a psycho-path with an arsenal of high-powered weapons, a paranoid gun junkie, a womaniser, a drunk and worse. While all these descriptions are provable in various degrees, the truth is far weirder: most of the time Hunter Thompson is a strangely modest man, a serious thinker, a great wit, a superb satirist and a sports fan. He is 60-something, and he grew up, as I did, at a time when the greatest American writers were remote and powerful figures.
I tried to read Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas several years ago and it did nothing for me. Different strokes, eh?
Sunday, May 18, 2003
Constructing a Presidential Image
Speaking of style over substance, why has the media taken a sudden interest in the President's image?
Stagecraft
Speaking of style over substance, why has the media taken a sudden interest in the President's image?
Stagecraft
Friday, May 16, 2003
The Spectacle: Style Over Substance
As a science fiction geek, I loved the The Matrix. Like the second Star Wars trilogy, however, it sounds more and more like The Matrix Reloaded has committed the cardinal sin of postmodern film-making: style over substance. One of the defining elements of postmodern media is the spectacle. In essence, the image becomes more important than the plot, dialogue, and character development. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I like a good summer blockbuster as much as the next geek. Given the deep philosophical content of the The Matrix, I guess I was hoping for more. When I see The Matrix Reloaded, I'll leave my expectations in the lobby.
As a science fiction geek, I loved the The Matrix. Like the second Star Wars trilogy, however, it sounds more and more like The Matrix Reloaded has committed the cardinal sin of postmodern film-making: style over substance. One of the defining elements of postmodern media is the spectacle. In essence, the image becomes more important than the plot, dialogue, and character development. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I like a good summer blockbuster as much as the next geek. Given the deep philosophical content of the The Matrix, I guess I was hoping for more. When I see The Matrix Reloaded, I'll leave my expectations in the lobby.
Media Manipulation 101
Today must be Don't Trust the Media Day or something. While going through my morning news-reading ritual, I stumbled across a couple articles detailing the way in which media images are manipulated. Does it come as a huge surprise that President Bush's appearances are staged? How can a President reach "ordinary people" when everyone who attends a public appearance is probably part of the economic elite? Have everyone sitting behind the President take off their ties.
Of greater concern than audience members instructed to remove ties is a piece appearing on the BBC News website. According to a correspondent for the BBC, the U.S. military staged the dramatic special forces rescue of POW Jessica Lynch. A similar story appears in the Guardian. It would appear, my fellow Americans, that we've been played. Why stage such a dramatic rescue? We need war heroes, damnit! What better way to simultaneously raise the ire and patriotic spirit of the U.S. people! Not only do we see our brave boys engaged in (insert your favorite action hero)-like heroics, but we have a damsel in distress. It's no wonder Jessica Lynch has amnesia. She probably wants to forget the way in which she was used by her own employer, the military. Buck up, Jessica! A movie deal is surely in the works.
Today must be Don't Trust the Media Day or something. While going through my morning news-reading ritual, I stumbled across a couple articles detailing the way in which media images are manipulated. Does it come as a huge surprise that President Bush's appearances are staged? How can a President reach "ordinary people" when everyone who attends a public appearance is probably part of the economic elite? Have everyone sitting behind the President take off their ties.
Of greater concern than audience members instructed to remove ties is a piece appearing on the BBC News website. According to a correspondent for the BBC, the U.S. military staged the dramatic special forces rescue of POW Jessica Lynch. A similar story appears in the Guardian. It would appear, my fellow Americans, that we've been played. Why stage such a dramatic rescue? We need war heroes, damnit! What better way to simultaneously raise the ire and patriotic spirit of the U.S. people! Not only do we see our brave boys engaged in (insert your favorite action hero)-like heroics, but we have a damsel in distress. It's no wonder Jessica Lynch has amnesia. She probably wants to forget the way in which she was used by her own employer, the military. Buck up, Jessica! A movie deal is surely in the works.
Sunday, May 11, 2003
"They have the right to be lost."
Thank you, Paster Beeler, for giving me the permission to stumble about blindly on my own spiritual path. How a public school can justify a religion-based field trip is beyond me. Oh, wait! The school doesn't "promote, endorse, or prohibit" the students from attending the religious revival. Privately-contracted school buses (the regular bus drivers are paid by a private institution) ferry students back and forth to the revival, teachers act as chaperones (voluntarily), and the school board claims the school doesn't sponsor the event? Give me a break. If it quacks like a duck, has webbed feet liked a duck, and walks like a duck, it's usually a duck.
The worst part of the entire affair is the young woman being persecuted for her religious beliefs. Why do some people feel the need to "educate" those of us who are "lost" (in this case, lost means non-Christian)? Please, just let us do our own thing. You know what's really funny? I don't feel lost at all. In fact, I've never been more sure of my spiritual path. Once again, Pastor Beeler, thanks for giving me permission to do my own thing.
Thank you, Paster Beeler, for giving me the permission to stumble about blindly on my own spiritual path. How a public school can justify a religion-based field trip is beyond me. Oh, wait! The school doesn't "promote, endorse, or prohibit" the students from attending the religious revival. Privately-contracted school buses (the regular bus drivers are paid by a private institution) ferry students back and forth to the revival, teachers act as chaperones (voluntarily), and the school board claims the school doesn't sponsor the event? Give me a break. If it quacks like a duck, has webbed feet liked a duck, and walks like a duck, it's usually a duck.
The worst part of the entire affair is the young woman being persecuted for her religious beliefs. Why do some people feel the need to "educate" those of us who are "lost" (in this case, lost means non-Christian)? Please, just let us do our own thing. You know what's really funny? I don't feel lost at all. In fact, I've never been more sure of my spiritual path. Once again, Pastor Beeler, thanks for giving me permission to do my own thing.
Saturday, May 10, 2003
Monday, May 05, 2003
Teaching Bonus
We all know about the lousy pay given to teachers of all levels. There are moments, however, when I receive a teaching bonus. I read through seventy-five Women and Communication journals this weekend. As a whole, reading journals is preferable to slogging through poorly written papers. I'll have seventy-five papers sitting on my desk by tomorrow afternoon. Journaling, at least in my class, is a three-part exercise. First, students log daily observations regarding gendered communication. This part of the process generates awareness of the issues we're studying in class (in theory, at least). Second, students write responses to the reading assignments for the class. They can agree, disagree, or express ambivilance toward the material we read. All I ask is that they back up their position. At the most fundamental of levels, I'm looking for a minimal level of engagement. Finally, I ask students to generate weekly class concept essays. In a class concept essay, a student picks a theory or idea from class and shows how it applies to their own life. Through journaling I move my students through a process of awareness, engagement, and application. Pretty nifty, eh?
As I neared the never-ending pile of journals, I stumbled across the following entry. The entry is reproduced as originally written.
I guess as my last journal entry I want to do something a little different. I would like to say thank you to the women along the way for everything that they have done to allow me to be in the position that I am today. Without women who were courageous enough to take a stand against the status quo, we would still be in the position that placed us in the home only. The home is a beautiful place and those women who have done a tremendous job at bringing families into this world should be praised as well for the contributions to society. This class has opened my eyes in more ways than I thought possible. There is a lot to continue fighting for. Women have seen a tremendous amount of growth and more is still possible. I have grown into a woman who demands respect as a women from others. I have become an observant woman of the society that surrounds me. I have faith in the things that women are capable of and I am inspired by the things that women before me have done. The beauty of the pieces that we read touched my heart and offered new insight into the ways that other people think. The conversations allowed people within class to voice their beliefs and inquire about the things that were unclear. I have enjoyed this class more than any other before it because it was so unique in what it had to offer women in particular. It has been an inspiration and the lessons I have learned will always be part of my heart, thankfully.
Messages like this one make up for the crummy pay.
We all know about the lousy pay given to teachers of all levels. There are moments, however, when I receive a teaching bonus. I read through seventy-five Women and Communication journals this weekend. As a whole, reading journals is preferable to slogging through poorly written papers. I'll have seventy-five papers sitting on my desk by tomorrow afternoon. Journaling, at least in my class, is a three-part exercise. First, students log daily observations regarding gendered communication. This part of the process generates awareness of the issues we're studying in class (in theory, at least). Second, students write responses to the reading assignments for the class. They can agree, disagree, or express ambivilance toward the material we read. All I ask is that they back up their position. At the most fundamental of levels, I'm looking for a minimal level of engagement. Finally, I ask students to generate weekly class concept essays. In a class concept essay, a student picks a theory or idea from class and shows how it applies to their own life. Through journaling I move my students through a process of awareness, engagement, and application. Pretty nifty, eh?
As I neared the never-ending pile of journals, I stumbled across the following entry. The entry is reproduced as originally written.
I guess as my last journal entry I want to do something a little different. I would like to say thank you to the women along the way for everything that they have done to allow me to be in the position that I am today. Without women who were courageous enough to take a stand against the status quo, we would still be in the position that placed us in the home only. The home is a beautiful place and those women who have done a tremendous job at bringing families into this world should be praised as well for the contributions to society. This class has opened my eyes in more ways than I thought possible. There is a lot to continue fighting for. Women have seen a tremendous amount of growth and more is still possible. I have grown into a woman who demands respect as a women from others. I have become an observant woman of the society that surrounds me. I have faith in the things that women are capable of and I am inspired by the things that women before me have done. The beauty of the pieces that we read touched my heart and offered new insight into the ways that other people think. The conversations allowed people within class to voice their beliefs and inquire about the things that were unclear. I have enjoyed this class more than any other before it because it was so unique in what it had to offer women in particular. It has been an inspiration and the lessons I have learned will always be part of my heart, thankfully.
Messages like this one make up for the crummy pay.
Thursday, May 01, 2003
Tired
One of the courses I'm teaching this semester is Women and Communication. Throughout the semester we examine the gendered inequities entrenched in our society. While there are numerous joys that come from teaching this class, there is one major frustration. I am SO tired of hearing people say, "Gendered inequities? What? Men and women are totally equal." Oh, really? Take a look at what one of my students wrote recently in her journal.
Tonight I went to the liquor store and immediately got whistled and hollered at about five times. I was dressed in jeans, a tank top, and flip-flops. So it definitely wasn't anything that should have drawn attention. When men do this it makes me feel just like a piece of ass. It sucks. Maybe I will just start wearing sweats everyday!
Equality my ass. As my student's experience points out, women are still treated as sexual objects. How often are men subjected to this kind of objectification? Not very often.
One of the courses I'm teaching this semester is Women and Communication. Throughout the semester we examine the gendered inequities entrenched in our society. While there are numerous joys that come from teaching this class, there is one major frustration. I am SO tired of hearing people say, "Gendered inequities? What? Men and women are totally equal." Oh, really? Take a look at what one of my students wrote recently in her journal.
Tonight I went to the liquor store and immediately got whistled and hollered at about five times. I was dressed in jeans, a tank top, and flip-flops. So it definitely wasn't anything that should have drawn attention. When men do this it makes me feel just like a piece of ass. It sucks. Maybe I will just start wearing sweats everyday!
Equality my ass. As my student's experience points out, women are still treated as sexual objects. How often are men subjected to this kind of objectification? Not very often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)