notes:

1. "Women" as the subject of Feminism

Judith Butler claims, in this first chapter, that the fact that Feminism needs to define "women", as the subject that it will then represent, is consistent with the current judicial structures and forces the theory into a conformist, exclusionary movement. I agree, that by trying to differentiate "women", Feminism further distances itself from its own goal of equality. It is consistent with my thesis, that claims that Feminism is an exclusionary, self-defeating and reactionary mechanism.

At the end of the chapter, she quickly drops two suggestions, without going into any detail, which makes me believe this chapter to simply be a critic. First, she suggests "a radical rethinking of the ontological constructions of identity" in order to "formulate representational politics" and which "might revive feminism". Such a course of thought can generate another decade of philosophy, but would inevitably result in the same sex/nature/gender/culture problematic. Second, she offers to free feminist theory from the necessity of defining it's subject altogether. While it is very pleasing that this suggestion is, indeed, defying the judicial representation's narrow brackets, we quickly come to the conclusion that it is infeasible. Not because current structures cannot be broken or modified, but because the word itself -"Feminism"- is gendered.

2. The Compulsory order of Sex/Gender/Desire & 3. Gender: The circular ruins of Contemporary debate

Already in Ch 2, Mrs. Butler uses the "chicken and egg" concept and circular arguments (perhaps to prove a point. What comes first, gender or sex? Is one or the other or both culturally defined? How are they constructed, where do they come from?

In my opinion, there is no particular reason for both of these terms to exist, other than to CREATE those circular debates. There is are anatomical differences between the two major, but not exclusive categories: male and female. Everything else is Identity. There is no reason to further characterize Identity as "Gender Identity", "Class Identity". What needs to be understood, is that gender is nothing more than self-perception, identity and that sex is nothing more than a "situation". Both of these, from a "historical present" perspective, can be modified at will.

On this subject, I agree with Simone De Beauvoir's sentence: "One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman." But rather than BECOMING, one simply IMAGINES ITSELF TO BE.

It seems that with the analysis of gender and sex, we are further complicating our discourse and the same problem as the one described in Ch 1 occurs: That is we are forced, yet again, to formulate and reformulate all the binary terms we use. What we should really ask ourselves is why we determine sex at birth in the first place, and restrict the use of male/female only to discourses where these characteristics are necessary. Instead of concentrating on where is gender/sex useful and necessary, we should eliminate this patriarchal binary mode of self-determination, as much as possible, from our culture. It is hard to imagine today a world where "person" is used instead of "man/woman" and where everyone is free to pick and choose from a whole array of identity characteristics, currently associated with masculinity and femininity, but that world is possible. Since culture and upbringing has a tremendous effect on person's identity - the end result of minimizing exposure to sex-terms and gender-terms will be the escape of the sex-identity from the binary system and self-eradication the gender concept.

Notes:

No longer can one dare to say patriarchy, racism, domination does not exist, and no one can claim that it is not doing harm to the society, in particular, to all those that do not match its definition of the Supreme Being. But in addition to doing harm directly to all these, it is also lowering the overall level of satisfaction of the society, just like “lemons” lower the overall level of utility to the market in economics. By giving “weaker” groups inferior rewards – we create societal inefficiency, therefore capping our speed of knowledge. In other words, the faster the society finds a way that rewards its citizens based on their merit in all areas, a fair method of selection, the greater will be the pace of our progress as species.

Men, with their self-proclaimed need to compete and conquer, be worshiped, obeyed have been, inadvertently, creating an unhealthy and unrealistic role model for their children. This caused the problem to spiral and peak in the recent revival of the individualism. By “men”, I do realize that I am generalizing. In fact, the meaning is limited to those men, who had the power over history in the past, willingly promoting the dogma that benefited them most throughout time. If they were to consider the species interests – I cannot imagine a scenario in which they would want to slow down their own evolution through elimination of opportunities for survival and development to all personae non gratae, notably women and people of color, as well as animals and the environment.

Men often claim that the animal patterns of survival of the fittest have selected men to be stronger, smarter, but also more brutal, violent. Women, on the other hand, needed to be nurturing and therefore weaker, obedient. But in reply, I note that we no longer pretend to be animals, we pretend to be a separate cast of life. So why exactly are we still using animal patterns to explain human interaction with the world? We have developed contraception, genetic manipulation, in vitro insemination and on the path to develop a spermatozoid from an egg. The times have changed. The faster men realize that their success and achievements lie in an honest, open, undivided humanity, the more happy years of existence it is bound to have.

But that also goes for the victims of discrimination, as by holding grudges and stirring hate they are using the master’s tools, while trying to dismantle the master’s house. Women and minorities need to realize, that by creating affirmative actions they create reverse discrimination, therefore increasing the total discrimination levels. Here I do not speak of structures that monitor that equality is maintained in salary levels, individual rights ect. Here, by Affirmative Actions, I mean those that push on for more rights for a certain group, regardless of what the equality levels should be, because they are claiming damages for past harm. We cannot afford to discriminate another 100 years in the opposite direction because we are hurt now and were hurt in the past.


Roadblocks on the path to equality/examples:
• Writing “white people” in minuscule letters, but “Black people”, as though compensating for something. (see “Across the Kitchen Table: A Sister-to-Sister dialogue” Barbara & Beverly Smith, see Doris Davenport ) Black/white binary continuum further erodes the path to the goal of equality.
• Use of words for victims of abuse – “battered women”
• The use of the word “man” in professional titles or even in the word “human”
• The religious dogma, militarism
• Definitions and interpretations of “work”, “housework” and societal remuneration systems. Lillian S. Robinson, L. Lissjutkina
• The fact that the most important feminist book – Simone De Beauvoir’s “Second Sex” was translated by a man-zoologist, commissioned by another man. The content has been manipulated throughout the world.
• The word “Feminism” itself and the current structure of “Women’s Studies”. These words are on the second extreme of the binary continuum. They discriminate against men, who would otherwise support the cause. Also, the word has historically picked up a white-supremacist, radical taint. The word does not (no longer does?) correspond to the definition; therefore it is time to redefine the movement.

Interesting Quotes:
• “Divide and conquer, in our world, must become define and empower” by Audre Lorde
• “To say “the body” lifts me away from what has given me a primary perspective. To say “my body” reduces the temptation to grandiose assertions” Adrienne Rich
• “There is no liberation that only knows how to say “I”, there is no collective movement that speaks for each of us all the way through” Adrienne Rich
• “He says, I’m making a living. She says, I’m making life” Lillian S Robinson

· “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” Audre Lorde

По телевизору показывали короткие фильмы.
Среди них была замечательная картина про жёлтую птичку. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462067/

И тут я подумала, насколько мне нравится коротний фильм и насколько досадно редко его показывают. Или сериалы или фильмы полноценной длины Голливуда... А короткий фильм - где-то вдали. Жаль, он ведь обычно возбуждаерт так много чувств, не успевая надоесть.

Собираю материал на своё сочинение... обдумываю

Notes:

Language is important to our exponential development as humans. Research has found that culture, not the genes or the biology, is responsible for existence of language. It is also true that culture and language co-exist and cross-promote each other. I would have to disagree with A.L. Kroeber, though, as I believe culture started building up after the birth of society, not the birth of language. Ancient drawings had the value of words, transcending knowledge through generations.

Words are the most important component of language, also has huge impact on culture. Our relationships with the other sex develop heavily based on the language and body language used in the communication. This also accounts for the fact that different cultures and languages have ended up having different levels and patterns of domination and patriarchy. Recognizing and eliminating patriarchal, racist and otherwise discriminatory lexicon and gesturing from use, not by banning, but rather by educating people on topics of conscious selection and critical analysis, should be the first step of withdrawing the tools from the master. Following this train of thought, we should also critically review material we currently teach to children for gender stereotyping content and possible male biases in recording history.

Other Issues: How can we achieve the end of war for supremacy by creating a women’s supremacist movement now associated with Feminism? Why should we strive to promote Affirmative Action, also a movement seeking to “establish equality” by discriminating? Why should we allow religion to preach superior status to their followers over another religion’s?

Food for thought (Material):

Professor Nick Chater, UCL Cognitive, Perceptual and Brain Sciences, says: “Language is uniquely human. But does this uniqueness stem from biology or culture? This question is central to our understanding of what it is to be human, and has fundamental implications for the relationship between genes and culture. Our paper uncovers a paradox at the heart of theories about the evolutionary origin and genetic basis of human language – although we have appear to have a genetic predisposition towards language, human language has evolved far more quickly than our genes could keep up with, suggesting that language is shaped and driven by culture rather than biology.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210614.htm

According to A.L. Kroeber (1923), “Culture, then, began when speech was present; and from then on, the enrichment of either means the further development of the other.”

“The totality of the messages we exchange with one another while speaking a given language constitutes a speech community, that is, the whole society understood from the point of view of speaking (Rossi-Landi 1973:83, Duranti’s translation).” Children learn language as members of a speech community, which lays down “rules” for appropriate use of language (p. 198). As children learn a language, they also learn their culture and develop their cognitive abilities.

It is not just culture that communicates through language, but also language that communicates through cultures. Michael Silverstein proposed that the communicative force of culture works not only in representing aspects of reality, but also in connecting one context with another. The concept of the indexical meaning of signs postulates that “communication is not only the use of symbols that ’stand for’ beliefs, feelings, identities, events, it is also a way of pointing to, presupposing or bringing into the present context beliefs, feelings, identities, events (p. 37).”

According to the linguistic relativity principle, the way in which we think about the world is directly influenced by the language we use to talk about it.

Казалось бы всё хорошо. Только вернулась из Коста Рики, очаровательной страны. Отдохнула и загорела. Но вернулась и впала в то же состояние из которого уехала. А то ещё и в худшей степени.

Писать не получается. Writer's block. Скоро снова начинается универ. Уже немного осталось, но с последующими планами я ещё не определилась. Хотелось бы поучится в Австралии... CA (chartered accountant) - это длинная, нерво-накаляющая песня, к тому же многие были в профессии замечены в ... несчастьи. Конечно не хочется останавливатся на добытом, но всё же спешить с этим тоже опасно. Думаю всять годовой контракт в какой-нибудь фирме и хорошенько подумать. К тому же, мечта моя вовсе не сидеть в запылённом оффисе чихая от бумажной пыли, а быть антрепренёром, т.е. иметь свой бизнес. Но одно другомум вообщем-то, не мешает :)

Просто получается, что нахожусь я в каком-то лимбо, и решения брать пока отказываюсь. Такое чувство, что всё жизнь в спину гнали - а тут ещё надо подумать куда и зачем. Ведь, в итоге, работу хочется иметь интересную и перспективную.

Вот и сижу, жду начала семестра, записалась на информационные сессии, работу пока не ищу, но скоро буду. Но вокруг креативный вакуум. Не хочется ничего, помимо читать книжки. Наверное плавать и лежать на солнце. Возможно, это осадочное. Я скоро соберусь рассказать про Коста Рику, но так и не поняла, можно ли прикрепить фото и как... может кто подскажет?

Креативный вакуум очень мешает. Возможно, я зараженна бездействием моей сожительницы (нет, вы не подумайте, не в том смысле). Просто, возможно находясь в 5ти метровом радиусе от человека который видит солнечный свет только в форме квадратного солнечного зайчика на стене - это грустно. И заразительно. Но вряд ли, это тому причина...

Я вовсе не сижу дома. У меня просто отсутствует воля. Похоже на депрессию, но тоже не то, ибо плакаться о чём либо, кроме того что какой то "нехороший человек, редиска" выкинул на улицу (по чистой ошибке, отсутсвию мозга) в этом году не приходиться. Всё как мне хотелось, я всё лето отдухала и меня ничего особо не напрягает. Кроме, возможно, того, что я не работаю. Но мне это было нужно, чтобы вылечится. А теперь, вокруг вакуум.

Когда я говорю человеку, что я знаю в чём смысл жизни - он недоверчиво смотрит на меня и заносчиво спрашивает: "Ну в чём же?", ожидая что я ему сейчас всё изложу. Но дело в том что скажешь - не поверит же. Так зачем, спрашивается, это надо? Человек дожен до этого дойти сам и для себя. Тогда-то, собственно, человек и становится мудрым. Нет, не просто разумным или даже умным, а именно мудрым. Умным он становится, когда понимает какие вещи в жизни стоит и не стоит пробовать, делать, совершать. Т.е., что всему есть цена.

Порой, мне всё же хочется сформулировать в чём он для меня состоит.
Мой тихий журнал, кажется наилучшим кладезнем.

Способность анализировать, узнавать, познавать и запоминать - один из смыслов жизни.
Знать что было, знать что будет - один из смыслов жизни.
Удивляться, удивлять и быть удивлённым тоже.
И любить и быть любимым...
Чувствовать...
Способность наслаждаться, радоваться...
Возможность что-то создать, что-то изменить...
А сколько их спрашивается надо?

Человеку хватает и одного, чтобы жить. Но куда разумнее иметь больше. Их ведь на самом деле много.
И они разные у разных людей.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14082316&fsrc=rss

Natalia Estemirova, a Chechen human rights campaigner, was kidnapped and murdered...
When will it stop?

Я против смертной казни - в случае если вы хотите наказать, за - если хотите избавится. Мне кажется, что некоторые люди рождаются с такими дефектами (тяга к педофилии, манякальные мечти итд), что вообщем то их стоит удалить. Они скорей всего и сами не против были бы себя удалить, в надежде что существует ребут, но вы же запретили им себя убивать. Позвольте, к каких это пор, человек не имеет право решать жить ему или нет? Это же вопрос настолько же тривиальный, как как ему жить, где и с кем. Конечно, если вы решили бросится под поезд, часов в шесть вечера, на шумной линии метро, то я надеюсь... Я очень сильно надеюсь, что если вам "неповезло" и вы выжили - вас накажут как следует за 2 часа изьятых из жизни каждого человека, ждущего пока вас достанут. Но если человек решил, что жить он больше не хочет, и решил уйти не обременяющим других методом (пожалуйста, не проподайте в горах, ваши родные сойдут с ума) - то, я считаю, скатертью дорога.
Но нет же. Общество забрало у человека возможность выбора - делая попытку самоубийства наказуемой законом и вообщем делом не приветствуемым. Вы слабак, вы ничтожество, вы не имеете право, вас родила мать. При таком раскладе, дать правительству право на которое даже вы не имеете право, было бы, право, неразумно :) Вот такой каламбур!
Смертная казнь, это не выход из ситуации. Человек уже совершивший своё "ужасное дело", должен быть наказан. Просто удалить его было бы негуманно по отношению к тем кому он навредил. Общество, пострадавшее, должно быть возмещенно. По этой, и другим причинам, я предлогаю заставить их работать. Зачем ехать в Китай, когда в тюряге, за тщательным присмотром и проверкой качества можно сделать такие же красивенькие сумочки и строгие пижаки. Тот, кто в тюрьме, должен сам себя содержать, иначе мы остаёмся с криминаломне умеющим работать. Советую построить фабрики в периметре тюрьмы и дать им узкий выбор занятий. И более я никогда не услышу - "А что? тут работу нормальную не дают, там целый день тоска, но о еде заботиться не надо." Тем, кто попал за тяжёлые грехи - будет послан на стройки за городом итд. Они должны будут так возмещать 25 лет, вместо смертной казни. Пользы от этого куда больше. Они должны покрыть не только своё существование, но и выплатить трудом свой долг обществу. Хочет ли невеста убитого жениха, чтобы сумашедшего-убийцу тоже казнили, не имеет в этом случае никокаго значения. Лишь только он сам, должен иметь выбор лишить себя мучений.

Well, Ahmadinejad was re-elected. Except, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8098305.stm

Obviously, the religious "court" undersigns these elections, as they do not want to be stuck with a reformer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8116515.stm

It is the same problem as in Russia, really. The democracy is a sham, except Iran's religion has even more weight. This will inevitably lead to revolution. The government has a choice to step down, or stay and count on the religion and military to defend them (and in Russia's case youth groups as well) .

=================================================================================
Ну вот, Ахмадинежад был переизбран. Правда, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8098305.stm

Конечно же, религиозный "суд" подписывается под результатами. Они не хотят застрять с реформером.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8098305.stm

Та же проблема что с Россией, вообщем-то. Ненастоящая демократия, "дерьмократия" так сказать, только в Иране религия ещё важней. Хочешь - нехочешь, но это приведёт к революции. У правительства будет выбор между бросить власть, либо остаться и надеятся что армия и религия его защитит (в России, так же молодёжь Путина)

Саркози запрещает мусульманским женщинам носить бурку
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6557252.ece

Спрэй для носа оставляет народ без нюха.
http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/7074

Eco-feminism is a strand of the deep ecology perspective. They assert that human is not separate from its environment and has no right to dominate that environment. The environment, being another part of the totality of the ecosystem, which includes us, humans, should not be neglected, if we wish to avoid disaster. In other words, eco-feminists adopt the ideal of sustainable human development and incite radical change in politics. However, unlike simple ecologists, eco-feminists believe the root of the problem is patriarchy, not anthropocentrism. They believe that patriarchy driven progress and industrialization has failed to consider any interests but their own.

 

In their ideology, they link feminism, stating that there should be no domination, based on gender, ethnicity and language within the human category as well. In fact, radical feminists also claim patriarchy responsible for racism, ageism and all other forms of oppression. They perceive current power delegating system as a project to control their “means of production” – in which all lower classes, including women and environment are oppressed. Only if equal moral consideration is given to all the elements involved in the development of this world, will it be fair and sustainable. They lobby a new political system, which gives the whole ecosystem representation of their interests.


(Wow, this Politics class is getting to me :)

“There are different: racism, nationalism, patriarchy, "old boys clubs", the execs cast, the elite, but they are all based on superiority of one group of humans over another. Can't reach harmony through that. I am not religious, but I think Jesus, a great philosopher among a stupid blood thirsty crowd, existed. And when he said that soon there will be no temple of Caesar, but there will be temple of truth and that only then people will live in harmony - because they will no longer try to exercise power over each other - he was onto something.”

 

“It is truly Unfortunate that people are obsessed with superiority. Patriarchy has not learned to incorporate GOOD INTENTIONS and social democracy. Although, alternative social forces make themselves more and more felt in today’s politics. It is sad that humans never stop evaluating and comparing each other, rather than developing what they have.

But humanity has made an important leap during the last 100 years. Which makes me hopeful.

 

If I may make a prediction... Eventually all the countries will be more "Canada like" - in the sense that ethnicities will mix in all the regions and hopefully have equal representation. And one day - having all these barriers, countries, wars - will be completely useless. That day people will see themselves as earthiens. “

 

We are different from other animals, I would say, by quite a leap. But there is no real differences between nations - they are all made quite similarly. Just different cultural spice :)

Patriarchy does not only presents a male domination over women, but is, in fact, the reason for slavery, feudal systems, capitalism, communism, war. They in fact plant a seed of superiority of the human, male and preferably white (in North America, Europe), Jewish (Israel, USA) or of any ethnicity commonly present in that geographical area!
If you study further into politics, you will see that the history of almost entirely the whole world is based on that division and the consequences that mentality had brought into human race.

It is true that things begin by the woman and the man, if any unbalance is introduced into the formula, as to which one is superior over the other – ideology will spread across border, with the stronger dominating the weaker and the animal world installing.

If we truly are a superior race – then why aren’t we behaving on a different scale? Rather than introducing law of the Jungle into the laws of reason, we should see the world in a long term global perspective and realize that each human contribution matters for the overall survival. Then – it is truly when we will see the meaning of each life within the all and will be able to perceive ourselves as superior race.