Why do I always have to be so fucking stubborn? Why can’t I ever let a rational needs-based analysis focused on my longterm goals win out over my arrogance and opinions?
Why am I at a serious risk of failing a course that is based on incredably straight forward and simple material?
Fucking hell.
5 comments August 14th, 2006
I feel like there is a contract implied between a student and her teacher. The teacher will do their best to communicate information to the students and to facilitate their learning, and the students will attend class and do their best to engage with the material the teacher is putting in front of them.
For this reason I often feel very guilty when I’m not on time for class, or when I don’t pay attention during lecture. But I resent when I know that my tardiness or boredom result from what I consider to be a breech of contract on the part of the lecturer…
When I am paying up to $500 for a class I feel like part of what I am paying for is an interesting, if not captivating lecturer–any less is a breech of contract. Considering I pay money for the text book above and beyond that which I pay for the course I feel like I should be exposed to material in lecture that I could not simply have gotten from the textbook at home by myself–not exposing me to such material is a breech of contract. Finally I feel as though I should not be treated like a highschool student. There should not be more than 5 minutes (tops!) dedicated to talking to me about preparing for tests or essay writing. To spend time on this is a breech of contract: You teach me the material–I’ll worry about the test.
I’ve had two really incredable professers who taught well and gave fair tests. Two. $500 a course. …ridiculous.
Add comment July 12th, 2006
“If a society puts half its children in dresses and skirts but warns them not to move in ways that reveal their underpants, while putting the other half in jeans and overalls and encouraging them to climb trees and play ball and other oudoor games: if later, during adolescence, the half that has worn trousers is exhorted to “eat like a growing boy,” while the half in skirts is warned to watch its weight and not get fat; if the half in jeans trots around in sneakers or boots, while the half in skirts totters about on spike heels, then these two groups of people will be biologically as well as socially differant. Their muscles will be different, as will their reflexes, posture, arms, legs and feet, hand-eye coordination, spatial perception, and so on…there is no way to sort out the biological and social components that produce these differences, therefore no way to sort nature from nurture”
-Ruth Hubbard (1990) The Politics of Women’s Biology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 115-116
2 comments May 29th, 2006
I want to write about how feminists are perpetuating patriarchy. I want to write about how by pushing for gender equality they themselves are actually quenching women. I want to write about how when they argue that women have been opressed by being kept out of managerial and high-paying jobs they are falling victim to the idea that those jobs are actually the good ones. I want to write about how feminists are being dooped by the patriarchal-capitalist system even as they try to fight it.
I want to explain all these ideas because I think it will help women, and because I think it will help our (very sick) society.
But I don’t now how yet.
p.s. Today a raindrop fell directly on to the tip of my nose, and it made me smile.
2 comments May 17th, 2006
Today in my class on gender roles the instructor talked to us about a double standard when it comes to attractiveness and aging: while women are percieved as less attractive as they age, men are actually perceived as more attractive.
This was being put forth as a terrible injustice. And I just had to raise my hand.
“Doesn’t it make sense from a biological perspective?” Women gradually become less fertile before the point of menopause when they become completely unable to reproduce, and their physical appearance can be a pretty good indicator (although certianly not a perfect one!) of where in that process they are. Men on the other hand do not stop being able to reproduce. Infact as men age it is more likely that they will be successful and established and able to both provide for and protect a family–biologically speaking that sounds pretty attractive.
Ya, my feminist professor didn’t like that one bit. She responded by acknowledging that yes from a “biological” (and as she said it, the word dripped with disgust) perspective it makes sense, but in this course we will not restrict ourselves to a biological perspective. We will look at the biological, the sociological, the cultural. “Because,” she added “that makes biological sense, but it doesn’t explain the sociological side. What about the people that can’t reproduce at all?” she said in a way that was clearly supposed to make my heart bleed, make me retract my insensitive statement.
My problem with her defense, of course, wasn’t that she wanted to look at the topic from varying angles: I’m all over that. It’s that instead of integrating them she was pitting them against each other. Precisely what is fascinating about the biological perspective is that it does help to explain the sociology behind what we find attractive. She tried to discredit my point by saying that it placed value on reproduction: but that’s something we do naturally. We are animals, that were designed to reproduce–and that is going to have very powerful implications on how we behave and percieve others. Does that really mean that people who can’t reproduce are of less value? Of course not! Humans are incredably complicated animals with countless overlapping value systems. It does mean, however, that biologically speaking they are of less reproductive value, and considering that physical attraction is related to sexuality is related to sex is related to reproduction–it would make sense that they be less physically attractive.
All of this was discussed toward the middle of a lecture which was entirely focused on revealing evil stereotypes for the terrible damnable things that they are–which was another thing I found funny in and of itself.
She put a picture of Paris Hilton (looking sensual in a light summer dress with sultry eyes directed to the camera, blonde hair cascading down her back) up next to a female tennis player mid-swing with a look of determination and sweat on her forhead. Her point was that we attribute more feminity to Paris Hilton. Her point was that in doing so we see the tennis player as more masculine. Was she right? At a first glance: sure. And that’s exactly what stereotypes are for, quick assessments so that we can move forward without overanalyzing ever step we take. Once we were sitting there thinking about it, I had to admit that I figure Miss Tenis was probably like alot of athletic girls and when it comes time to dress up for the athletic banquet she’s bloody gorgeous. Once we were thinking about it. But again, you go to the biology of it and Paris when that shot was taken was thinking about being that girl–she was thinking about being sexy. Miss Tennis, was trying to make a shot. Picking up Paris while she’s wearing a slinky little dress in heals, probably easier than coming onto Miss Tennis in the middle of a tournament. i.e. How relevant is Miss Tennis’ feminity while she is playing tennis–really?
Stereotypes aren’t evil. They are dangerous if you live by them. But to get by day-to-day they are necessary.
Picture a pretty girl walking alone in a park at night who notices a man in the shadows. Now, if upon noticing him her heart skips a beat and she starts moving a little faster toward home with her eyes glancing around too see if there is anyone else there is she being sexist and making an unfair value judgement on his character? No. She is just doing what she can do when there is no other information available. Making an assumption because it’s all she’s got. Of course not every guy is a potential rapist. Not even close. But… well for example I saw an episode of C.S.I. the other day where a petite blonde dressed up in a mermaid costume (she’s been performing at a child’s birthday party) was raped and murdered while she was walking home through a park. My initial thought? What girl walks home through a park late at night dressed in anyway provocatively? That’s just stupid. Stereotypically speaking it’s a bad idea.
Now for a quick announcement from MasterCard: Living by assumptions and making laws of stereotypes is very stupid. Trying to live without assumptions and stereotypes is even stupider.
(yes I said stupider).
2 comments May 16th, 2006
This post is two things:
1. a prelude to my summer course
2. me getting something off my chest.
I was asked the other day by a very good male friend if I had “let” a new guy in my life “do me”. My heart sank immediately. And then the next day, as the thought settled in I thought “You know what? Screw you.”
I don’t “let” anyone do anything to my body. I make choices with people to do things we both want to do and both have every intention of enjoying.
“Who are you to word it to make me the victim?” I thought. “To imply that I’d be the one to have given in?”
My body is mine, and I am proud of the fact that more often than not I do exactly what I want to do with it. I like, need and want sex as much as the next guy– I don’t put up with it, or let guys have it–what is that even supposed to mean?
I am so sick of the idea that women are the inherant victims in sexual relationships. I am tired of having close girlfriends of mine that feel guilty and sinful for using their bodies exactly as they were designed to be used. I am tired of the notion that it is up to females to be chaste: that it’s o.k. for guys to push and girls are thought to be the ones to give in or not. Fuck that. Everybody makes their own decisions.
This summer I will be taking a psychology course on sex roles and behaviour; and I am very excited about it. I am particularly interested because of the views I already hold on the differant sex and gender roles. I acknowledge that the desire for chaste women is an international, multicultural thing–and that studies have shown that women more likely to be in committed relationships tend to be regarded as more attractive. From a biological perspective it makes sense. Women play the discriminatory role in mate selection. Women will carry the children. And yet in today’s day and age–with the contraception that is available this is one of the few areas where as far as I’m concerned we’re stronger for stepping away from what may be the natural biology.
Promescuity, no. Just control over, ownership of, and pride in our own bodies: my one concession to feminists.
4 comments May 13th, 2006
Rooted through some journals and resurrected some poetry this morning…as well as posting some papers from the spring term. So if you’re bored and feel like wandering through someone’s writing–enjoy!
Poems:
Depression
Goodbye
Poker
Sweet Lies
Thin Ice
Too Late
We were Silent
–no dates on the poetry in order to facilitate some level of anominity when it comes to the people involved 
Papers:
Computation and Mental Illness
–using computation as an analogy for understanding the various levels of mind and the implications this holds for the treatment of mental illness
Evolution in Song
–a look into religion as an evolutionary tool, particularly the role that song plays in uniting church communities
Add comment May 12th, 2006
I’m sorry who’s finally done exams?! What what??…that would be me! (to all of you going “you’re only done now?” and scoffing at my joy, I would like to point out that I got two weeks between classes and exams in Ireland)
….That’s right folks. I’m finally finished the second year of my undergraduate degree. And how many glorious days until class begins again you might ask? …um. *coughcough* 6, technically speaking.
But I love it.
Add comment May 10th, 2006
I stumbled across one of the most interesting thing I’ve read on the statistics of drug-use and drug-abuse among adolescents in a long time (for those who don’t know me very well: keep in mind that this is an area of intense interest for me and I seek out information about it often).
“…it has been shown– and this is of vital importance, from the perspective of policy and prevention –that adolescents who never experiment with drugs (not even marajuana) tend to be as maladjusted as (although somewhat differantly from) actual drug abusers; that is, significantly more maladjusted than occasional users.”
I’m interested to hear comments on this…is it surprising/obvious/unbelievable?
6 comments April 9th, 2006
I have something scary to report:
Since the 1960s the birthrate among the Conservative right in America is four times that of liberals (read: since birth control became readily available).
Interesting right? No?
Then look at it this way: Statistically that more than accounts for the rise in popular support for the Conservative Right in the States.
That’s right folks. People aren’t converting. It’s just that the liberals aren’t having as many kids.
Now you’re thinking, ‘holy shit’, right?
Now imagine this over another two generations…
yea.
I’m gonna go think about something else now.
6 comments March 29th, 2006
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Sep | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |