In my last post, I explored the question of fragility. Behind my exploration was a reposing of the question of response and responsibility: how can we respond to the histories that leave some bodie…
Sarah Ahmed has weighed in on the trigger warning conversation. Thank goodness.
This widely circulating figure of the too-easily-hurt student thus has a longer history, one that might also relate back to the figure of the feminist killjoy: the hurt of some gets in the way of the happiness of others.
…The insistence on one’s right to use certain kinds of materials can become a scathing indifference to how these materials affect others. Neither of these students was asking for the removal of these materials from the classroom. But perhaps their expression of hurt is already heard as censoring. And that’s what is at stake here: how hurt is heard as wrong (you are wrong to be hurt) and as an imposition. An imposition here is what is treated as alien (out of place) and, in the academic context, it is something that would get in the way of our freedom, of our freedom to show what we do, to do what we show. No wonder those who ask us to change how we introduce certain materials (as potentially causing harm) have become killjoys: those who get in the way. Hurt itself becomes framed as censoring: as requiring the removal of some offending thing (iiii). But actually the killjoy here is asking for more not less: asking for us to complicate the materials; to situate the materials; to consider how materials can create ripples in how they move us; matter as motion; matter as deviation.
Of course we cannot always anticipate how things affect somebody, but that does not mean we cannot learn about how things are affective by how others are affected. I might be thrown by how you are thrown.
[ We need to remember that trigger warnings are a form of making spaces accessible. This is an accessibility issue. Trigger warnings are not for halting conversations or dialogues — we do not appreciate professors (and others with various degrees of power or authority within the academy) who dismiss content warnings and trigger warnings using the same logics that have been used to delegitimate the very fields in which they teach, and which they claim to represent — race & ethnicity studies, gender studies, feminist studies, queer studies, crip studies — for decades.
There is no simple answer, nor a ‘correct’ perspective, but unless we properly frame the issue as one of accessibility, we will only be causing hurt and harm. ]
reblogged for later reading. Though yes, accessibility is the thing.
And how hard is it to land even a minimum-wage job? This year, the Ivy League college admissions acceptance rate was 8.9%. Last year, when Walmart opened its first store in Washington, D.C., there were more than 23,000 applications for 600 jobs, which resulted in an acceptance rate of 2.6%, making the big box store about twice as selective as Harvard and five times as choosy as Cornell. Telling unemployed people to get off their couches (or out of the cars they live in or the shelters where they sleep) and get a job makes as much sense as telling them to go study at Harvard.
I detest the masculine point of view. I am bored by his heroism, virtue, and honour. I think the best these men can do is not talk about themselves anymore.
Photo by Anna Rackard.
‘Farmers’ is an exploration of contemporary rural identity in Ireland. Specifically it examines the role of women in farming and their invisibility within the family farm.
Studies show that despite the process of modernisation rural farming identity is still based on a traditional, patriarchal construct - the visible representation of the family farm is usually of the male farmer who owns the land, is subject to taxation and entitled to social security. Most rural women have no legal or professional status unless they are farm owners. A report published by the NDP Gender Equality Unit in 2002 showed that two-thirds of men owned their farms through inheritance, compared with one twelfth of women.
Despite the level of input a woman (usually a wife) put in on a farm she would more often be classified as ‘farmer’s wife’ instead of ‘farmer’. The women in ‘Farmers’ are not meant to be archetypes, it is not a survey of all women farmers, but it is a sample of some of the people who fall into that category
In Psychosomatic: Feminism and the Neurological Body (2004), Wilson argues that key evolutionary concepts like coadaptation and organic affinity may in fact hold immense value for contemporary feminist and queer thinking. In her review of Psychosomatic and other recent books in Feminist Studies, Myra J. Hird calls Wilson’s book “engagement with science at its best,” going on to praise the book’s central tenet that “soma and psyche do not correspond to different ‘realities’ of the body.” In a review in symplokē, Elizabeth Green Musselman also lauds Wilson’s approach: Western feminism has a history of ambivalence about how to handle its culture’s entrenched commitment to mind-body dualism…
In her fascinating and innovative book, Elizabeth A. Wilson cuts through this Gordian knot [soma/psyche] with a scalpel edge. Wilsons turns her critical eye specifically on the conversation—or rather, lack thereof—between neuroscience and psychoanalysis. Neuroscientists, she says, have committed themselves to a nervous system without a psyche, while psychoanalysts (feminist and otherwise) have committed themselves to a non-biologized psyche.
(via UCLA Center for the Study of Women: Life (Un)Ltd Speaker: Elizabeth A. Wilson)
Lorelei Mayer as Rachel Carson Rachel Carson was an American marine biologist & conservationist whose writings advanced the global environment movement. #IsisProjectSA
Sofia Mireles and Rosie the Riveter Rose the Riveter- US cultural icon representing American women who worked in factories during WWII. Symbol of feminism & women’s economic power. #IsisProjectSA