So I've totally failed at blogging so far this term, but I'm going to just pin that on people wanting to see me all the time because I was gone for months, and on my classes just diving right in to the heavy reading. But now it's really time for me to step it up. I can't have a neglected blog.
I could go on for a few paragraphs here about all my classes and what's what, but there are really only two classes at this point really worth talking about, so I'm gonna just kind of skip over Shakespeare and History, Sexuality and Power. That last one has the potential to be really awesome, when we get a little more into it, but right now it's stuck in the pretty good range. As for Shakespeare, there are a lot of little useless assignments and that's gonna drive me crazy.
Japanese, on the other hand, is actually somewhat noteworthy. Okay, really it's only noteworthy because I'm owning it, but still - I walked into class the first day and realised about halfway through that I understood everything Fujiwara-sensei was saying without having to think about or translate any of it. I'm able to just follow the Japanese lecture like I would a course conducted in English. It's beautiful.
But, putting all that aside, the course I'm really getting into is Literature and Sexuality. Because this class? Is amazing. Frann (the professor) is just badass. She's blunt and a little bit outrageous and more than a little radical. Basically, it's queer theory through the lens of text. Right now, actually, it's just queer theory because we're reading essays by people like Adrienne Rich and Eve Sedgwick.
And, oh, did Rich offend and bother the women in the class who strongly identify as heterosexual. They did not like "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" at all. The interpretation from three of the women was that it was an attack on female/male relationships in general - that Rich was saying that all relationships women have with men are inherently false. They took it very personally, which is interesting in itself because it begs the question of what they're so afraid of. Why did this essay from almost thirty years ago freak them out so much? I didn't ask because I try to pick my battles more carefully than that.
I actually interpreted the piece very differently and my issues with it are over Rich's desexualised treatment of lesbians. Because she does treat female bonds that way - it's all emotional and psychological, sex is a male thing. Frann actually said something about it that amused me enough to jot down:
"She does have this view that lesbians are all pink and cuddly and soft, and gay men are shallow and always going out to have sex with underage boys... and no. Lesbians are also all about the sex."
I am so glad I picked this class. The Joyce seminar just wouldn't have been as fun.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Classes and Such
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 コメント:
That was a really interesting article. (I googled it.) I feel like she's talking about lesbianism as separate from sexuality part of it. I feel like she's sort of including any strong bond with a woman into her 'continuum' - 'cause it is true that no matter how marrried you are, you'll probably still have your deepest relationship with female friends. That's why they have Sex In The City.
Of course she's not dismissing all girl/guy relationships...I feel like she's just saying that lots of girls would be a lot dykier if they were allowed.
It brings up the question of gay dudes, though. Does she talk about that somewhere else? But when you think about it, gay dudes would be no one without their fag hags. I mean, who do they often cry to when they have a problem? Moms or girlfriends. That's why I think she's not just talking about sexual relationships. Like, she knows they're there, that's just not her POINT in this essay.
From the article, it would seem like any relationship a woman had with a man would kind of a have a mother-son dynamic (kinda Freudy). Which makes sense, when you think about how your dad always gets to lay abed and be pampered when he's sick. Also, statistics show that WAY more divorced men remarry than do women, even though women supposedly fall into utter despair if they haven't married/remarried by forty. It happened with my family - my mom's perfectly happy single, with her close friends, but my dad couldn't stand being alone all these years.
I love how she mentions The Awakening. I HATED that book, and until I read that little aside I'd always thought of the suicide as a rebellion against Victorian bullshit - but it does have the Tristan aspect now that she mentions it. Now it's easier to hate.
Anyway. Didn't mean to write a novel - it was just a cool article. Glad your classes are going well.
All about the sex,
Ashalyn
Yeah, Rich doesn't seem to ever spend a lot of time talking about gay dudes. Actually, she seems to have a pretty low opinion of them, so that might be why. But I definitely agree that girls would be dykier if they weren't brainwashed into thinking that their lives will be perfect as soon as they find their prince charming or whatever.
And I'd totally forgotten about The Awakening until there was that mention of it in the article. I hated that book. Still hate it, as it turns out.
Nothing wrong with a long comment! It's nice to hear that people other than me enjoyed that article.
Post a Comment