I am not very good at patience. I never have been, and I am trying hard to learn how to be patient, but I am not very good at it at all. I am a creature of impulse. Most of my purchases are made that way, most of my decisions get made on a snap, and I live with whatever consequences may occur from those decisions. I like the information age. I like being able to watch TV series on DVD, so I don't have to wait for the next weekly installment. I prefer to buy books in sets for that self same reason. So it goes without saying that I struggle with waiting. What am I waiting for, you may ask? I am waiting for the government to let me know whether or not I have a job. I have been involved in the process now for almost two years. I still do not have a job. I have had a couple of successful interviews (though the total amount of that success is yet to be seen) but I still have no idea if I am going to have a job or not. Apparently they have asked all the right questions, requested all the right information, and I should be on a short list for hiring. Yet, there is still no word forthcoming. The last of the interviews was over a month ago, at this point. I wrote another exam last week, for which I should hear about an interview sometime in the immediate future, though the word immediate, in conjunction with government is somewhat of a misnomer.
What this lack of patience has meant is that ultimately I am stalling. I keep hoping everyday for word to come, and this word would lift me out of the PhD program that I am not yet settled into, but as each day passes and I do not hear from my prospective employers, it means I actually have to get my ass in gear and do the school-work I have been so deftly avoiding. It is much more difficult because my heart is nowhere near as involved in this process as it should be. I am without drive and spark... and that makes getting motivated extremely difficult. It also means that I am much less creative than I should be. Perhaps, though, this is a good thing when it comes to academia. I have to write a paper, for which I have two weeks to get a proposal together, with an annotated bibliography. I have no idea what to write on, as this course is somewhat outside of my area of expertise. In that same two weeks, I have to finish grading the mountain of exams I have in front of me, research and present my part of a 3 hour group presentation, and get the house ready for a very special guest! Add to that a fairly full social calendar between now and then, and the sickness that has not yet gone away, but is being at least manageable with the right medications.
I know that all I really have to do is be patient. To just wait it out, and eventually my file will land on some managers desk, and I should receive that phone call that I have been ever so anxiously awaiting. And I know that all I really have to do is sit down and start doing all this work that lies in front of me, and yet I find it harder and harder every day to make it happen. I have spurts of activity,where I get what I need to get accomplished done, but the very next day, when I am supposed to pick up where I left off, I find I am almost physically unable to make it happen... it takes supreme effort... why isn't patience like the card game? I am good at that.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Hillary, Gender, and Other Assundry Tales
Do you remember what it was that brought Hilary back into the race when she first started to falter? It was because she performed as a "woman." She showed her emotions, on whatever show she was on, she let the weariness of the road show, she let her voice break and she showed emotion. These are traits that we most often identify as feminine. So by performing as people expect her gender to be, she was able to lift herself back into the limelight. Do you remember, four years ago, when Howard Dean lost his front-runner position? It happened for a variety of reasons, but the one that is most commonly pointed to is when he broke with his gender role and performed with emotion, letting out that uncharacteristic and "unmanly" yelp at a rally. It is an interesting contrast. Hillary gains momentum (that she has since lost) because she showed herself to be more feminine than she had previously portrayed, and Dean lost momentum because he showed himself as less masculine than people expected him to be.
The relegation of emotions to the feminine, and stoicism to the masculine has a long and strong history that dates back as far as our histories go but it really came to the forefront with the division of spheres into public and private during the Enlightenment era. Anything that was seen as illogical was relegated to the feminine and therefore, private sphere. Emotions were something women not only felt, but allowed to show. Religion was not rational, not scientific, so it too was pushed into the realm of the private (and later became an odd form of empowerment for many Western women - the Social Gospel, the Suffragette movement, etc). Men were supposed to put forth a rational, logical position, that of government, and head of business (not to mention the household), while women were not expected to behave in a logical and rational manner.
Why is it, that these social norms still exist? Some would argue and say that things have changed, that they are better now... yet in that very statement is a qualifier... things are better now. This does not say that things are fixed, that there is equality of position, understanding, gender, expectations, etc; it only says that things are ultimately different than what they were. (I am speaking specifically from a Western perspective here, there are many places where, indeed, things are not better now). So why is it, that people are more comfortable relating to a woman who performs her gender in accordance with these Enlightenment philosophies? Why is it that people malign a man who performs outside of his "acceptable" gender role?
Hillary's strongest support, after her allowing her emotions to show, came from female voters. Before that, it was said that women could not relate to Hillary, they felt alienated because she was not typically feminine. Now, to be a woman, that high in political life, means playing the male game. It means taking away sexuality and emotions and becoming, in essence... manly. In becoming this disengendered female, other females stop being able to relate, and a woman like Hillary becomes seen as unfeeling, mechanical, and unfeminine. So, once a break in that veneer comes through, women suddenly see Hillary as human, and men see her as typical, and have an easier time voting for her.
On the flip side, Howard Dean let out what was seen as a "girlish" yelp, and was ostracized by both male and female voters because he acted outside of acceptable patterns for what masculine is supposed to be. Suddenly, a masculine male slips form being the stoic person, whose only emotion allowed is anger, to being a man who is too feminine, and therefore not a good representative in terms of power.
That is the ultimate key here. Power. Men are supposed to be powerful, after all, we have carefully constructed our societies around this concept. Women are supposed to be weak, and men powerful. This comes from more than physiology, it comes from knowledge, and Foucault was right, knowledge is, in and of itself, power. Who has the knowledge, often holds the power, and who has the power often holds the knowledge. This discourse of power has been carefully woven around conceptual normative ideals, ones in which the male is in the privileged position. That is, he holds the position of power only as long as he is performing within the acceptable constraints of what is deemed to be appropriately masculine. When he steps outside of that performance, he is no longer deemed worthy.
Don't believe me? Why then is the word fag considered an insult? Or pansy? or any other derogatory phrase you can think of for people who act outside of conventional ways? How about women who strive for power? Ruthless, or heartless, or bitches, or mechanical, or unfeeling; why are these the words that get used? Why did Hillary suddenly surge back in those early primaries
while Dean lost out so spectacularly in their own respective campaigns? I know there are other factors, but these are certainly worth considering.
The relegation of emotions to the feminine, and stoicism to the masculine has a long and strong history that dates back as far as our histories go but it really came to the forefront with the division of spheres into public and private during the Enlightenment era. Anything that was seen as illogical was relegated to the feminine and therefore, private sphere. Emotions were something women not only felt, but allowed to show. Religion was not rational, not scientific, so it too was pushed into the realm of the private (and later became an odd form of empowerment for many Western women - the Social Gospel, the Suffragette movement, etc). Men were supposed to put forth a rational, logical position, that of government, and head of business (not to mention the household), while women were not expected to behave in a logical and rational manner.
Why is it, that these social norms still exist? Some would argue and say that things have changed, that they are better now... yet in that very statement is a qualifier... things are better now. This does not say that things are fixed, that there is equality of position, understanding, gender, expectations, etc; it only says that things are ultimately different than what they were. (I am speaking specifically from a Western perspective here, there are many places where, indeed, things are not better now). So why is it, that people are more comfortable relating to a woman who performs her gender in accordance with these Enlightenment philosophies? Why is it that people malign a man who performs outside of his "acceptable" gender role?
Hillary's strongest support, after her allowing her emotions to show, came from female voters. Before that, it was said that women could not relate to Hillary, they felt alienated because she was not typically feminine. Now, to be a woman, that high in political life, means playing the male game. It means taking away sexuality and emotions and becoming, in essence... manly. In becoming this disengendered female, other females stop being able to relate, and a woman like Hillary becomes seen as unfeeling, mechanical, and unfeminine. So, once a break in that veneer comes through, women suddenly see Hillary as human, and men see her as typical, and have an easier time voting for her.
On the flip side, Howard Dean let out what was seen as a "girlish" yelp, and was ostracized by both male and female voters because he acted outside of acceptable patterns for what masculine is supposed to be. Suddenly, a masculine male slips form being the stoic person, whose only emotion allowed is anger, to being a man who is too feminine, and therefore not a good representative in terms of power.
That is the ultimate key here. Power. Men are supposed to be powerful, after all, we have carefully constructed our societies around this concept. Women are supposed to be weak, and men powerful. This comes from more than physiology, it comes from knowledge, and Foucault was right, knowledge is, in and of itself, power. Who has the knowledge, often holds the power, and who has the power often holds the knowledge. This discourse of power has been carefully woven around conceptual normative ideals, ones in which the male is in the privileged position. That is, he holds the position of power only as long as he is performing within the acceptable constraints of what is deemed to be appropriately masculine. When he steps outside of that performance, he is no longer deemed worthy.
Don't believe me? Why then is the word fag considered an insult? Or pansy? or any other derogatory phrase you can think of for people who act outside of conventional ways? How about women who strive for power? Ruthless, or heartless, or bitches, or mechanical, or unfeeling; why are these the words that get used? Why did Hillary suddenly surge back in those early primaries
while Dean lost out so spectacularly in their own respective campaigns? I know there are other factors, but these are certainly worth considering.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Writing
There is a philosopher/academic/commentary writer by the name of Slavoj Žižek who drives me absolutely crazy because he seems to write in stream of consciousness, though I have been told that this is not the case. However, I believe it is true. I believe this because he seems to make leaps within paragraphs, that don't have any apparent connection. And yet, in his writing (which is brilliant and ridiculous at the same time) he manages to build and build and build until he reaches an apex of thought, and then he simply moves on. This often leaves the reader hanging with a wtf? expression on their face, but it always leaves you wanting more, even if you find his manner objectionable (which it certainly is). If I could find the text, I would give you an example on how he articulates, but it is buried in the closet with many other binders and skeletons right now. The point, however, is not to examine Žižek, but that I will probably be emulating him often here on this page, or rather attempting to emulate him, because of the breaks I have had in my ability to write. So, in order to make effective use of this here blogger, I am going to just write. I may jump around a fair bit, I may be focused and articulate, I may be babbling and incoherent, though I will endeavor not to do the latter but at the very least, I will be writing.
I once read a Stephen King book entitled On Writing: a Memoir of the Craft, which was surprisingly good. The first half of the book was an autobiography, explaining his own trials and tribulations with writing, and the second was a blue-collar writing guide. In it, though I have no idea in which half of the book, he stated that the best way to write was to simply do it. To try and write a minimum of 1000 words a day. I have no idea if I will manage to do that here, as I have writing to do for school, and life is busier now than I can ever remember it being - though I am sure that is simply a misremembering on my part - but I will do what I can to make sure I write something every day, or nearly every day.
There is a trend in advertising these days, to make an add seem like its creators had just dropped five or six hits of acid. I am sure you know the ads I mean - take the Wendy's ads with the men wearing the gender-bending Wendy's pigtail wigs as an example. Ads that you are left wondering just who in the hell thought this campaign was a good idea. (They don't air on CBC however, so I don't see them often during the day - the demographic for CBC Newsworld means that ads are for the Sleep Comfort Bed, Tax Lawyers, the no-slip sit-down tubs hocked by Ed McMann, and various other "old people" ads) At night, however, these ads permeate the airspace in between the dramas that I so love to watch. These ads are insidious in my opinion, they seep into our sub-consciousness and stick there, taking up valuable brain space. This makes them obviously a good ad campaign in some ways, and yet, in others it makes them poor, because even though I remember the ad, I have no inclination in that memory to avail myself of the goods being marketed. This would make it a bad ad campaign. These ads make me a little crazy, because I know how much they cost to make, they make me a little crazy because they suck, they make me a little crazy because they attach themselves to my brain in ways that are not immediately evident, and they make me a little crazy because they are not effective in their marketing schemes, making them completely useless in their purpose. Now, I suppose, as the old adage goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity, and I suppose the marketing experts are seeing enough of a turn around on their investments to keep making these horrendous ads , but it is a pollution of the airwaves.
Another ad campaign that is making me crazy is the Swiffer "I am breaking up with my mop and broom" campaign. Even worse is the courtroom scene where the accused is the defendant's old cleaning utensils - where they end the commercial with a statement that says "justice is served." What justice? How is there any justice in this situation? They are talking about an old broom. How can there be any sort of justice for or towards an inanimate object? This leads to a questioning of the nature of justice itself, as an abstract. Is there actually any such thing as justice to begin with? Beyond a judicial order, ruling or law, what is justice? It is a category of thought that has many roots, but today's concept is based on an enlightenment value, a universal concept of there being some sort of equal footing for all, where no one is above the law.... except we all know this is not true. Take a look at Paris Hilton's jail times if you don't believe me. It is interesting that so lofty a concept has been reduced to being nothing more than a commercial to endorse a cleaning product. Perhaps this is actually a very valuable social commentary. Justice actually means nothing more than a Swiffer ad in today's collective mentality.
Perhaps, I too am just as insidious. I have provided links for information, in a way, supporting the very ads I am critiquing.
I once read a Stephen King book entitled On Writing: a Memoir of the Craft, which was surprisingly good. The first half of the book was an autobiography, explaining his own trials and tribulations with writing, and the second was a blue-collar writing guide. In it, though I have no idea in which half of the book, he stated that the best way to write was to simply do it. To try and write a minimum of 1000 words a day. I have no idea if I will manage to do that here, as I have writing to do for school, and life is busier now than I can ever remember it being - though I am sure that is simply a misremembering on my part - but I will do what I can to make sure I write something every day, or nearly every day.
There is a trend in advertising these days, to make an add seem like its creators had just dropped five or six hits of acid. I am sure you know the ads I mean - take the Wendy's ads with the men wearing the gender-bending Wendy's pigtail wigs as an example. Ads that you are left wondering just who in the hell thought this campaign was a good idea. (They don't air on CBC however, so I don't see them often during the day - the demographic for CBC Newsworld means that ads are for the Sleep Comfort Bed, Tax Lawyers, the no-slip sit-down tubs hocked by Ed McMann, and various other "old people" ads) At night, however, these ads permeate the airspace in between the dramas that I so love to watch. These ads are insidious in my opinion, they seep into our sub-consciousness and stick there, taking up valuable brain space. This makes them obviously a good ad campaign in some ways, and yet, in others it makes them poor, because even though I remember the ad, I have no inclination in that memory to avail myself of the goods being marketed. This would make it a bad ad campaign. These ads make me a little crazy, because I know how much they cost to make, they make me a little crazy because they suck, they make me a little crazy because they attach themselves to my brain in ways that are not immediately evident, and they make me a little crazy because they are not effective in their marketing schemes, making them completely useless in their purpose. Now, I suppose, as the old adage goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity, and I suppose the marketing experts are seeing enough of a turn around on their investments to keep making these horrendous ads , but it is a pollution of the airwaves.
Another ad campaign that is making me crazy is the Swiffer "I am breaking up with my mop and broom" campaign. Even worse is the courtroom scene where the accused is the defendant's old cleaning utensils - where they end the commercial with a statement that says "justice is served." What justice? How is there any justice in this situation? They are talking about an old broom. How can there be any sort of justice for or towards an inanimate object? This leads to a questioning of the nature of justice itself, as an abstract. Is there actually any such thing as justice to begin with? Beyond a judicial order, ruling or law, what is justice? It is a category of thought that has many roots, but today's concept is based on an enlightenment value, a universal concept of there being some sort of equal footing for all, where no one is above the law.... except we all know this is not true. Take a look at Paris Hilton's jail times if you don't believe me. It is interesting that so lofty a concept has been reduced to being nothing more than a commercial to endorse a cleaning product. Perhaps this is actually a very valuable social commentary. Justice actually means nothing more than a Swiffer ad in today's collective mentality.
Perhaps, I too am just as insidious. I have provided links for information, in a way, supporting the very ads I am critiquing.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Reincarnation
Another new beginning, a place for my thoughts and rants and and bits and pieces of me that I am having trouble expressing currently. Within these pages you will find some school work, some political debate, some outright emotional rants, some anger, some love, some pain, some happiness, some fiction, some poetry, some darkness, and with any luck, a whole lotta light. The title comes from my studies, my history and from my person.
What you need to know... rapidly approaching 40, happily married, straight male who appreciates all genders and sexualities and locations of desire, as long as it is consensual. Student and hopeful federal employee. Transplanted from a seriously addictive homeland to a colder and warmer atmosphere.
Political Leanings involve a majorly small L liberal approach, and some big L policies tied to some NDP ideals, which leave me with no one to vote for, in many cases. My religious affiliation falls into the realms of possible pagan, possible agnostic, possible Daoist, possibly United.
I feel, I hurt, I love, I live, I breathe, I exist and I am more than the sum of my parts...
What you need to know... rapidly approaching 40, happily married, straight male who appreciates all genders and sexualities and locations of desire, as long as it is consensual. Student and hopeful federal employee. Transplanted from a seriously addictive homeland to a colder and warmer atmosphere.
Political Leanings involve a majorly small L liberal approach, and some big L policies tied to some NDP ideals, which leave me with no one to vote for, in many cases. My religious affiliation falls into the realms of possible pagan, possible agnostic, possible Daoist, possibly United.
I feel, I hurt, I love, I live, I breathe, I exist and I am more than the sum of my parts...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)