Lately on YouTube a video by Dan Brown has sparked a lot of discussion. His video An Open Letter to Educators can be seen here. Also one of my favourite responses can be seen here.

Now this video and subsequent responses have got me thinking about a lot of things about the Academy today. To me the Academy should be focusing on teaching critical thought, constantly questioning norm, pushing boundaries to create new knowlege, not just consuming pre-made knowledge wholesale.

I feel like, especially at my own university, that the focus of the upper admin is to make as much money as they can. They no longer care about the quality of scholar they turn out, they care only about the bottom line. This means cutting jobs, having less tenured professors, having larger classes and tutorials, all in search of the almighty dollar.

This is especially apparent within the Humanities. Programs are being cut left right and centre. It is hard enough to get into classes that are needed and once you are in them they are often too large to be run effectively.

It has also extended into the library system. There is a large push for e-material over paper material. Jobs are being cut and retirement packages offered over and over again. More space is being allocated as “study areas” and less and less space is being allocated for books.

The worst part about the whole thing? Is that the university isn’t allowing the students to know what is on the agenda. They only release information to the student body once the mechanism has been set in motion and cannot be stopped.

With this in mind I have an urgent announcement for all McMaster Students. It has been recommended that Innis Library be closed.

This would mean that all of the Innis collection would be moved to Mills and there would be even fewer service points for all students. Business students would have to go to second floor Mills for research help from librarians who may or may not have experience in the area of business research. This would mean that the Research Help at Mills would be used by at least 3 extremely diverse faculties.

Even more people would be going to Mills for reserve material. This would lead to longer lines and less time for the student assistants to help each patron.

As both a student and employee of McMaster University I find it disheartening that all that really seems to matter to the upper admin is the bottom line. I feel as though they forget that without students, without employees, there would be no University, just empty buildings.

The bottom line isn’t the be all and end all Mr George and associates. Nor is the quantity of students who can be pushed through the system on a diet of memorized facts.

The quality of education is what matters. And your budget cuts will only hinder our growth as learners in the future.

As I was meandering around the internets… as I’ve been known to do and I stumbled across an article entitled “Is It Possible to Avoid the Princess Phase“. It caught my eye so I read it. Basically it’s this mom who is afraid that if she “[introduces her] kids to traditional Disney fare like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White and Beauty and the Beast would be a surefire way to turn them into tiara-wearing maniacs”. These girls aren’t even three yet! She goes on to compliment Dora… apparently this mom hasn’t seen Dora’s new look (also included in that link: Strawberry Shortcake and Rainbow Brights new looks). She also details her own childhood fascination for princesses and that she didn’t end up worse off for it. But yet she doesn’t want that for her girls.

For me, she goes too far.

I consider myself an ardent feminist, but for the record I loved (and still love) the traditional Disney films and I was never a “tiara-wearing maniac”.

The worst I ever did was watch the VHS of Cinderella so many times I wore out the tape (Even now I can remember all the songs).

For me those stories weren’t about waiting for your prince to rescue you … they were about hope that no matter what the situation things could change, that magic does exist. And yeah the magic bit is kind of naive (and I’m now a bit of a romantic) but as a child it’s fun to use your imagination.

I also wholly believe that if you talk to your child about the movies they watch it is helpful. Little kids understand more than they are given credit for.

I think I’m going to watch Cinderella now… just because I can. Just as soon as I finish Sleeping Beauty.

The book follows the life of the wife and son of a famous jazz trumpeter Joss Moody after his death. He has a secret though, a secret that not even his own son is aware of. Joss Moody was born Josephine Moore.

I know that there are people who aren’t accepting of queer and trans gender people but I felt like there was little critique of that. It was just kind of accepted as the way things were. Those who did accept that Joss was who he was are presented in a way that they are some how separate from society at large but that their words can be used against them to continue the anti-acceptance diatribe that is present through out most of the book.

I found it hard to like any of the characters. I wanted to like Joss but there wasn’t really enough about who he was for me to feel an affinity towards him. Millie seemed bland and consumed by her husband’s death, which, though understandable, made it hard to connect with her as well, as she did not seem to express her feelings short of living in her own little world. The son and the reporter were infuriating individuals, even though the son is slightly redeemed at the end.

Also, the whole use of pronouns through out the book really got on my nerves. Maybe it’s just me but there is something so disrespectful about using ‘she’ for someone presenting as male, especially after their death. Or assuming that someone is trans because it gets them off or that they were just hiding.

As I always learned it sex is between the legs and gender is between the ears and the two don’t have to “match” in the way society thinks they should. In fact I believe that gender is not a static thing but is in fact fluid and can change.

Valenti writes in a way that I like, sarcastic humour and viewing issues from both sides. Let’s start with a visualization: A world were women are not judged because of whether they have sex or not but whether or not they are good people. Sounds pretty good to me. Though the “Virginity Movement” (to use Valenti’s term) wouldn’t have it that way. They believe in retro gender roles. Surprisingly they don’t really want to get rid of the hypersexualized culture, or rather they could not exist without it. Our culture gives women one of two places, virgins or whores. No inbetween, no grey area, just black and white based on sex. Sounds like fun doesn’t it?

She spends a good amount of time talking about abstinence-only education. Did you know that over 80% of Abstinence-only programs contain lies (all her stats are for the United States).

The strangest thing is that though her book focuses on the United States and seemingly ‘radicle’ right wingers I can see the things that she talks about. I grew up in a WASPy little town and to this day I am still startled when I find out that some of my friends aren’t virgins (though after the initial shock it doesn’t matter). And I didn’t even go through the indoctrination that some people go through, just through my interactions with culture. Even my sister, who goes to a Catholic High School, receives an abstinence-only education. This means that she has no working knowledge of birth control, or even avoiding STIs, should she ever need it. Can’t say for certain if they lie, though.

Women need to be judged on moral character, not on sexual character.

The website is about what Mother’s Day began as. Somewhat surprisingly it was not invented by Hallmark. It was, in fact, Mothers Day, the realization of a dream of a woman named Anna Jarvis. She and her mother both worked for peace and were social activists.

The inspiration for a national Mother’s Day came from a West Virginian woman and mother of eleven who suffered through the loss of eight of her children. In 1858 at only 26, Ann Marie Reeves Jarvis organized women in her area into Mothers Day Work Clubs to improve the health and sanitation conditions in her county. During the American Civil War, she was adamant her clubs stay neutral, and they courageously nursed soldiers from both sides. When the war ended, she arranged the first Mothers Friendship Day in 1868 to reconcile friends and families torn apart by the bitter conflict, and the holiday was celebrated on several occasions after.

One writer, Julie Ward Howe, wrote a Mothers’ Day Proclamation in 1870. It called on mothers around the world to work for peace:

Arise then… women of this day!
Arise all women who have hearts!
***
And up from the bosom of a devastated Earth
A voice goes up with our own.
It says “Disarm! Disarm!”

Mothers’ Day was recognized as a national US holiday in 1914. Canada, Mexico and 48 states had been celebrating it since 1909. Shortly after becoming a national holiday the apostrophe was moved and it became Mother’s Day, a celebration of individual mothers. Individual mothers who needed flowers, and cards, and jewelry, and as many other gifts as one could think of.

According to the National Retail Federation Mother’s Day is a $15 billion industry in the US alone.

Perhaps it is time for us to take back this day. To put that apostrophe back where it belongs and instead of buying something for our mothers make something, or donate to somewhere, or volunteer. 

We can take back this day from Hallmark and work for peace.

I recently had a discussion like this one about queer theory. A prof here believes that difficult problems need difficult language and thus his class is reading the more complex, abstract and at times confusing theorists. It is my personal belief that though this kind of theory should exist and that at times new language, not necessarily difficult language, is needed as this type of theorizing encounters new problems not previously address. I do not believe however that this should be the only type of theorizing that is privileged as such. I think that because feminism (and queer theory for that matter) deal with issues that affect the general population it should be accessible to everyone regardless of literacy of education. Granted not all theorizing can be accessible to everyone everywhere, but as Ahmed points out, things like poetry and children’s stories could be, and in my opinion should be, included in the umbrella of theory.

I also think that critical theory should be taken into account when studying the criticized theory. For example, Ahmed sites that black feminists have criticized white feminism. I believe it is important when studying white feminism one must understand the criticisms of that approach. I believe that because the lives and experiences of women are fluid so too must be the theory that attempts to explain it, hence my agreement with Ahmed’s term ‘theorizing’ as opposed to ‘theory’. To truly understand a theory I think that one must understand the difficulties with that theory as well.

Is it possible that what is considered feminist theory differs from place to place, or even person to person? For me I feel that what some may call ‘queer theory’ could fit under the umbrella of feminist theory because queer theorizing has a direct effect on my life. Though I could understand how some women could see that post-colonial theorizing or theorizing on race could also be put under the umbrella of feminist theorizing, who actually gets to say what belongs there?

I think one of the things that Ahmed only briefly mentions is a discussion of the politics of publishing, especially in the academy. One possible reason for the privileging of complex theory maybe that those in the academy, especially those who give tenure and are in administrative positions, feel that anything that is not complex do not belong in the academy. Considering that many administrators in the academy are male is it possible that feminist with in the academy are being guided into only producing those theories which will be acceptable to the university administrators?

Also third wave feminism has seen much more self publishing, especially via the internet. Should these blogs and zines be considered important to feminist theory? Also these could be an example about how feminism is fluid as even 15 years ago we didn’t have the resources we do now to self publish and communicate our personal ideas to so many people around the world. As well there are many movements which do not have formal academic theory behind them. Some of these movements, especially grass-root movements have many people taking part. Aren’t these movements producing theory? Shouldn’t everyone be able to take part in a movement whether or not they are formally educated?

Also should theorizing be called feminist if the theorizer does not identify his/herself as feminist? Also if a theorizer calls his/herself a feminist does that automatically mean that all of his/her theorizing is feminist?

*Sigh*

So many questions and not so many answers…..

As some of you may know one of my friends and I started what we call NeckTie Tuesday. Basically the premise is that on Tuesdays you wear a necktie to question the gendered (and classed) representation of it.

Necktie Tuesday was started because of a coincidence. Both my friend and I decided to wear a tie on the same day. So then we decided that through ties and looking awesome we could start a feminist revolution. Of course we were really only expecting a total of 7 people to join. To our surprise we have over 30 members on our Facebook group. Not many but it’s a start.

The thing that I noticed about my friend and I is that we tend to be much more confident while wearing ties. Like having that thing around our neck makes us a little more likely to say what we are thinking. It actually gives me so much confidence that I have been wearing them to my exams.

So this raised the question. Why? Why does it give us this confidence? What about that piece of fabric is powerful?

For me ties have always been a gendered thing. Only men wore ties. Women were to wear dresses (much to my mother’s dislike I refuse to do that anymore). When I think about ties I generally end up thinking about powerful, rich, white men who get to do or say whatever they want to. So to me by putting on a tie it’s like I get to indulge in a little bit of the power and confidence not normally afforded to me.

Maybe it just ends up gendering the tie even more.

But in the end I think that even when I take off the tie, even if I’m not noticed as much I still get to say what I want to and sometimes I am even heard.

I thought that this article would be very interesting. My answer to the question “Men or Women?” was automatically women. I thought it might be talking about abortion of female babies, feminicide in export processing zones like those in Northern Mexico, or maybe even violence against women in general.

I was wrong. When I clicked the link up came a video from Fox News discussing how males are the disappearing “gender”.

I put gender in quotes because sex and gender are different things. The easiest way to describe the difference is that sex is between the legs and gender is between the ears.

The titles at the bottom said things like:

Common Chemicals Feminizing Entire Male Gender

Study: Male Humans and Animals Vanishing due to chemical exposure

Then there was a selection of pictures entitled: Male Gender in Danger?

Not sure If you can see it but yes all of them are 'wearing' lipstick

As pointed out all of the pictures are wearing lipstick. Because what is the first thing feminized males do run to the local Shoppers Drugmart and purchase lipstick, especially when they are ferocious wild animals prior to said feminization.

At one point you can hear the other news anchors in the room laughing. The woman who is reporting this tells them that it isn’t funny. The laughing man say “No it’s not funny and you’re a woman. For the men in the room it’s really not funny.” As in “How could you possibly understand? You’re just a woman”.

The study in question found male deer with deformed sex organs, alligators with low testosterone and hermaphrodite polar bears.

But the biggest question was not about what we could do to reduce chemical usage for the good of the environment? This question is asked at the end but not for the good of the environment but to stave off the long term effects on males.

The biggest question was

Drumroll please………

Should men be worried?

The answer:

Male reproduction is very resilient.

Thank you once again for reminding us of that.

She was a piece of work. Her skills when it came to me telling her I was cutting was to tell me to “stop it” like it was just that simple. I often questioned her ablity to be a doctor (not because she was female.

The thing that I disliked most about her was the fact that she used to have a sign in her office basically saying in a round about way that she did not support abortion.

I was just informed by my younger sister today that this doctor now has a more direct sign which tells people not to ask her about abortion or viagara or cialis if you are an unmarried man.

To me not even giving information about a legal procedure should be illegal. I respect the fact that she does not wish to carry out the procedure but she should be legally bound to give *all* available options to a patient whether they conflict with her sensibilities or not.

It is doctors like her that lead to women being so desprite that they will do *anything* to get rid of a baby.

And the whole no erection help for the unmarried thing… I’m pretty sure that they are big boys now and they can make their own decisions. Who is she to dictate who can or cannot have sex?

Now this probably wouldn’t matter as much except that because of the shortage of doctors here the only way for anyone to switch doctors is by moving. That means if you are a pregnant woman or an unmarried man you are stuck with this woman imposing her morals on you.

This just really bugs me and I wish that there was something that I could do about it…..

Forbes.com recently put out their evaluation of countries and their policies for women. 

The Global Gender Gap Report measures the size of the gender gap—the disparity in opportunities available for men and women—for 130 countries in four critical areas: economic participation and opportunity, health and survival, educational attainment, and political empowerment. A country’s rank is based on the overall score, which is expressed in a percent. The score represents how much of the gender gap the country has been able to close. A score of 100 per cent would represent perfect equality. The majority of the data come from various non-government organizations, such as the International Labor Organization, United Nations Development Program and the World Health Organization. – From Yahoo!

Norway was ranked number one for women with a score of 82%.  Finland, Sweden, Iceland and New Zealand ranked 2nd through 5th.

Where is Canada? you may ask. Surely we ranked in the top 25? No. The top 30? No. We earned 31st place. Disgraceful. We got 71%. We even ranked behind the United States who came in 27th.

Our ranking was hurt by poor educational attainment and by low political empowerment. I mean look at our House of Commons right now. Not many female faces there.  

And the Ivory Tower? Still mostly an Old Boys Club.

Education here actually widens the pay gap between women and men. Women with post secondary education earned 75% of what their male peers did. By 2005 it had dropped to 68%. (From the Canadian Labour Congress)

And yet we stand by and watch as the government takes away funding, as it seeks to oppress us. Something must be done. Something can be done. We must make our voices heard from the streets of small towns to the offices of the Prime Minister. We are citizens. Laws need teeth. We should no longer fear demanding our rights from employers. We should have protection, not even special protection, just the protection provided to every citizen by our government.

Stand up. Make yourself be heard. You are not alone.