synapticjava: (slut!)
( Jan. 30th, 2006 12:40 pm)
Yeah, that's right, I said it. I just finished my Foucault paper - in a little over an hour, thank you very much. And, aside from the conclusion, which I think is a little dumpy, it's actually a fairly descent paper. I'm posting it here mostly for me, but feel free to read it (it's a little over 3 pages long, double paced). It's about the repression of sexuality, and the ramifications of it.

Those Dirty Victorians, by B.Hendrix )
What!? Foucault states that power and sex are intertwined, which I have to agree with. But his theories on power are mind-bending, and as far as I can see, WRONG. He states that, "...the father in the family is not the 'representative' of the sovereign or the state; and the latter are not projections of the father on a different scale. The family does not duplicate society, just as society does not imitate the family."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't societies, just like families, built with an innate hierarchy of power? One person, or group of persons, holds all of the power (even though Foucault's idea of power is much more tangible than what we think of it as), theoretically, and with that power directs the lives, activities, and structure of those "beneath" them?

Um...did I just challenge theory? I think I did.

oh no! i'm becoming one of them!
synapticjava: (evol)
( Jan. 22nd, 2006 01:08 pm)
You know, once you actually get into it, it's not so bad afterall. It's a little slow-going, but this idea that "repression" is actually a catalyst for the opposite is fascinating to me. I only have one more part - about 60 pages left. I've been taking periodic breaks to absorb the material. I feel all scholarly, though, trudging through this thing. It does use one of my pet peeves though. In academic or "intelligent" institutions, people for whatever feel the need for using extremely "intelligent" words to describe an idea, and usually a whole host of such words. What bothers me is when they do this, even though the idea can be summed up using a)laymen's vocabulary, or b)using a relatively small amount of words. I hate that people have to "show off" to make themselves feel smart.

Which is almost ironic, because in four seperate passages now, Foucault has attacked society for being so "verbose" when it comes to sexuality. Funny.

Needless to say, I'm getting much use out of my dictionary.
It's because I'm reading The History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault. I'm on page 8, and I have to read to page 130 by tomorrow evening. I've been reading for over an hour. This is seriously difficult stuff, theory aside. I feel like a short-bus rider trying to get through it. If you're unfamiliar with Foucault or queer/sexuality theory at all, I offer you a quote that I had to reread 12 times before I could piece together it's meaning:

"The affirmation of a sexuality that has never been more rigorously subjugated than during the age of the hypocritical, bustling, and responsible bourgeoisie is coupled with the gradiliquence of a discourse purporting to reveal the truth about sex, modify its economy within reality, subvert the law that governs it, and change its future."

Can someone IM me some Red Bull? I have a feeling it's going to be a long night.
synapticjava: (2secs)
( Jan. 15th, 2006 11:39 pm)
So, for the class I actually like, Queer Theory, we're reading a book by Riki Wilchins called Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer. It's a fascinating read, and a quick one too. I've almost finished it in just a couple short hours.

Anyway, the chapter on Gay Rights really got me to thinking. She explains how issues with gender is entwined with both Gay rights as well as feminism. Feminists in the beginning didn't want women calling themselves feminists if they were too masculine looking and acting, because they feared it would set the movement back. Which, in a way, is true. Conservatives of that era (and still today, really) weren't ready to accept that some women just are "butch" acting and prefer mens clothes, jobs, etc. So feminist groups in the early days ostracized butch or lesbian women for fear of that. By the same token, I see this in the gay community time and time again. Hell, even until recently I was the same way: the community shuns or disaproves of men who are fags - or, too effeminate, as well as lesbians who are dykes - too butch. Because at the time being, we're trying to impose upon the conservatives that "we're just like you" even at the cost of ostracizing a good part of our community - which includes transpeople and crossdressers. Is it really worth it? I mean, if we're throwing half of the cargo off the train - does it really matter where we're going or if we get there at all?

Something I'll be thinking about from now on, that's for sure.


synapticjava: (Default)


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags