Floating Forum #3: Outside Talks and Events

So I went to Kate Borenstein performance at Villanova, and to be honest I'm still not sure whether I have positive or negative feelings towards it. The best description of it would be Laryssa's caricature claim about Bornstein's development of her character, but extreme. While it was a great performance, it's intensity left me shell-shocked in a way and I'm not sure if it was in a good way. There were extreme's in that there emotional highs and lows but no in between. In Kate Bornstein's autobiographical performance she really delved into her past in a surreal way. I think she was trying to shock/ educate the audience particularly it was Villanova. She definitely pushed me into uncomfortable places, that I am still trying to work out. I feel this was intentional to allude to the experience of exploring one's gender- it's a continuing process asking and re-asking and answering and re-answering questions about your life. 

Well, here I am... another person who forgot to post about the outside events I attended this semester! I actually went to quite a few that "counted," so here are my thoughts on a few which I found particularly relevant and interesting both in relation to class and on a personal level.

I went to see Slippery Slope back in September, which I found both entertaining and useful in thinking about sex work and the porn industry. I actually ended up writing a paper about the movie for my sociology class in which I analyzed it through the lens of symbolic interactionism (a theory which basically emphasizes the importance of meanings that people develop about objects/people/etc. in their lives based on their social interactions/experiences, and that they act based on those meanings... basically, the punchline is that people act toward situations rather than toward systems). I thought a lot about how Gillian, the main character, is so confident in her feminist ideals and ways of making sure her relationship is equal, and yet she finds out that her views (which my professor used the term "functionalism" to describe in her comments on my paper--basically, a simplified view of how people fit into systems and act based on them) are actually quite limited. Through becoming a part of the porn industry herself, she is able to learn about the kinds of circumstances that actually lead people to do that kind of work... both through interacting with the women who work on the movies, and through being put in a similar (though obviously different in many ways) position herself. There were a lot of interesting layers to the movie, such as the role dynamics between Gillian and her husband, the role of Michaela (the female producer who runs things) as a woman who uses her sexuality as power, and Gillian's sexual awakening. I thought it was great--lots to enjoy and laugh at on a surface level, but plenty of depth as well. Seeing the movie, and thinking about it through writing my paper, informed my thinking about sex work when we got to that part of the class later in the semester. It made me think about how hard it is to judge the moral "rightness" of something like sex work when there are so many different reasons people wind up doing it, and when those involved do not necessarily view it as degrading. Who are we to judge their lives for them, especially without having been in the same place ourselves?

Another event that I attended, which was not mentioned in class, but which I found extremely interesting and significant in my own thinking about gender and sexuality, was one that kjmason already mentioned below: Andrea Gibson's spoken word performance. I've done a lot of thinking over the last couple of years about the interplay between gender/feminism and artistic expression, and I find spoken word poetry to be such an interesting medium for conveying feelings and ideas. There were so many moments in her performance when there was some turn of words that was just so tight and beautiful that the audience could feel it in a way that theory and academic writing just can't quite convey... and in a way that written poetry is capable of creating, but it was really in the hearing it, being in that moment and hearing and feeling the rhythm of the words... that gave the words even more meaning on both an intellectual and visceral level. On the level of content, her work covered so many different issues that people often do not approach, or may not relate in the ways she did... so many of her poems touched on painful experiences of rape, sexual abuse, inequality based on sexual orientation, the country's current war and its effects on veterans, religion, etc. I went to Andrea Gibson's performance before we went to Kate Bornstein's performance, but hearing Kate call herself an "artist in service of activism" rather than an activist has made me think about Andrea Gibson's work in the context of activism as well. Andrea does identify as an activist (the splash page for her website says "andrea gibson::poet::activist"), and I do see her work as activism. She tours frequently, reading her work that integrates the personal and political and which has such a power that it really touches people and raises their awareness about the issues she reads about, potentially inciting them to take action, or even just to have their own realizations about their lives and/or the larger political/social context they are a part of.

I bought two of her albums (Yellowbird and Swarm), and two of my favorite poems are Blue Blanket (http://www.andreagibson.org/poems/poems_blueblanket.html) and Dive (http://www.andreagibson.org/poems/poems_dive.html), though I think all of her work is excellent!

Since I am woefully deficient of forum postings, I figured I might as well talk about one more event: Suzan-Lori Parks' reading. I almost didn't go to this one since I wasn't familiar with her work, and have found over the last couple years that I tend to enjoy readings more when I am familiar with the poet's work, or at least know a bit of his/her biography beforehand... but after my other professor urged us to go, too, I decided to give it a shot anyway. I am so glad I did! As others have mentioned, her "reading" consisted more of her talking about how she got where she did, and offering advice to the audience, all of which I thought was great. A couple of points that particularly stuck with me were her suggestion that we "entertain all of our far out ideas," and her advice that if a person who we greatly respect offers us a piece of advice that jives with what we're feeling, that we should take it... but if it does not jive with what's in us, that we can let their advice go. Basically, she seemed to emphasize having confidence in your own convictions and running with your ideas instead of shooting them down before they have a chance to develop. This really resonated with me, since those are things I have a really hard time doing on a regular basis. I thought that her way of presenting all of this was interesting (with the sound effects, hand gestures, etc.), and it all really stuck with me, as well... when I think of the things she said, I also think of the gestures she made, and that seems to add something to it... makes it stick on a level beyond just cognitive understanding.

Overall, I am glad that we were required to attend events for class, and I found that I ended up going to things just because I wanted to anyway... but I liked being made aware of what was going on, and these outside events definitely added to my experience & thinking in this class and others!

I was putting together my portfolio for class, and I realized that I never actually posted about any of the outside events I went to, so I'm going to do so now. Better late than never, right? 

I went to Sherry Ortner's talk about indie documentaries, I think it was. It was interesting, but it was directly related to gender and sexuality. She mentioned that idependent producers are criticial to indie films, and that most are from the PMC (professor managerial class), unlike the more directors and filmmakers. She said that everyone knows the educational backgrounds of everyone, and indie producers give cultural capital to a film.

Looking back, this sort of reminds me of Felice Picano's conception of education as social class. From what Ortner said, education and class seem very tied together. The indie producers generally have good educations and are from the PMC class, and the cultural capital they give to a film seems related to class as well. Also, Ortner said that the professional managerial class typically supports indie films (the actual people, not just PMC producers). It seems to be a bit of a cycle, PMC producers making films for PMC people to watch. What is particularly interesting is that Ortner said that indie films have an emphasis on destabilizing and disturbing class. I find this interesting because it seems to be people of one (rather privileged) class creating movies for people of their own class, and I think that that might sometimes lead to just further solidifying those classes.

i went to mark doty's poetry reading because i wanted to, not because it was for class. i also didn't exactly realize it was a poetry reading. i actually made that mistake multiple times that day. before dinner i went to a philosophy talk that i thought was on "transcendental consciousness". actually i only gave the flyer a cursory glimpse and thought i saw consciousness and was psyched. it was actually on "transcendental conscience", very different, i just apparently can't read when i'm nerdily stoked about philosophy. then after dinner, i went to what it thought was a talk about aids, not a poetry reading. though my first misguided talk of the day was a dissappointment, mark doty made up for it. his poetry ended up being so much better than just someone talking/reading about aids. i loved his poetry, and i loved listening to him read it. sometimes i'm not a fan of poetry readings because i feel like they fall too much into exactly what you stereotype something called a 'poetry reading' to be- you know, berets, bongos and organic coffee all wrapped up in hipster pants. but this was different. it was about his partner (i use this word with my whole own set of reservations on what the people in a committed but gay relationship are to eachother, partner sounding like a law firm, but i'll spare the rant and just use it for the sake of the story) getting aids, dealing with aids, and then dying of aids, but it was also just about human emotions in general. being gay wasn't the point, sometimes it mattered because people weren't willing to deal with aids in the mostly straight community where they first lived, and sometimes it didn't matter, it was just people caring about other people. i loved it, i got one of his books to read over break when i once again have that illusive creature called 'spare time' and i can't wait.

I know it's the end of the semester, so my comments on my outside talks are delayed, but regardless, I went to see Sherry Ortner talk about flim, watched the screening of Slippery Slope, and went to Kate Bornstein's performance at Villanova.  Sherry Ortner, of course, made an impact on me.  I don't know if anyone else ever feels this, but sometimes when I get to know a person I am baffled that they can really exist in this world just like that.  There have been people around Bryn Mawr that I've felt like that, and Sherry Ortner was like that too.  Her world was so academic and when she spoke, it sounded so academic.  I guess I'm being judgmental, and maybe she had a whole other side to her I didn't see.  But from her talk and her conversation in our class, I felt so disconnected from her.  I never want my life to be so theoretical - spending time writing essays about women and film.  But maybe that's what her passions are - and I shouldn't judge.  I wasn't overly impressed by her talk on film that I went to.  I always imagine speakers as being engaging and so full of ideas that they are excited to speak to an audience.  Sherry Ortner quiet clearly read from a piece of paper.  I'm not a giant fan of public speaking, but I know that reading directly from a paper is a no-no.  It's fine if she is deathly afraid of public speaking, but then I don't think she should volunteer to do it.

Slippery Slope was entertaining.  It's especially interesting to think about in light of the sex work unit we just did.  Is producing a porn movie have the same affect as being a porn star?  Or is it somehow worse because you are enabling a woman's body to be expoited?  I know the point of the film was that porn was just actresses and actors doing a job.  There was a scene when the main character looked at the two main porn actresses and one had a baby and one was (maybe?) reading a book and she realized that they are just people.  I think I would be able to produce a porn movie even less than being in a porn movie.  I know it's a woman's right to chose what her work is, but I would feel as if I was perpuating the cycle of abuse to a woman's body by producing a film that could potentially do just that.  The film was interesting though, because it did portray a porn movie in a way that isn't bad, or disgusting, or perverted, like porn is usually seen as.

Then, of course, there was Kate Bornstein.  I realize, looking back at the semester in this class, that I learned a lot.  I didn't agree with a lot of what we did, I didn't like a few of the speakers I saw, and a lot of the time I was frustrated.  But I did learn about a whole different world that I didn't know existed, and whether I chose to participate in it or not in the future, at least I saw it and learned a little about it.  I wasn't a giant fan of Kate Bornstein's performance, just like I wasn't a giant fan of her book.  But thinking about it, her life goal isn't to please everyone.  In fact, it probably isn't to please anybody at all.  She is just being whatever she is, and writing about what she thinks the world needs to hear.  And even though I don't like it, I think I've come to respect that she does it.  Because it does help people.  And I probably shouldn't have been so openly cynical about it.  (I apologize to any I might have offended).

So, there it is - the three talks I went to and a little post-class summary of how I feel.

 Last night I attended Julia Alvarez' performance and talk at BMC.  The first part of this much anticipated event consisted of listening to some of Alvarez' poems set to music.  To be completely honest I really disliked this part of the performance.  While the music itself was pleasant to listen to I wasn't too fond of the lyrical portion of the performance.  When reading poetry I like to openly question the poet's interpretation of his/her work.  In doing so I am free to interpret the work from various perspectives.  However, when I heard Alvarez' poetry set to music it was clear to me that only one perspective was being presented.

On another note, I truly enjoyed having the opportunity to hear Alvarez give a reading of some of her favorite poems.  Of all the poems that she read I was really intrigued by Alvarez' series of poems that focused on "the household arts."  It was interesting to see how household chores were such a significant part of Alvarez' childhood.  By discussing the importance of knowing how to perform certain household tasks (i.e. ironing, folding laundry etc.) Alvarez was in a way granting homemakers a sense of agency.  It became clear to me that Alvarez truly values housework as a medium for expressing love for one's family.  Overall, I was particularly inspired by the manner in which Alvarez incorporated memories from her past (her childhood in the Domincan Republic and her life as an "all American girl" in the U.S.) into her literary works.  Alvarez' recollection of her past was portrayed in such a touching and beautiful way that I look forward to actually reading some of work over break! 

Like ebock and alice I did have not responded to "Slippery Slope."

So I really liked the film on my own without any deeper thought put into it. I would recommend it to a friend and would definitely see it again. It was funny, somewhat meaningful, and the story moved along at a good pace. For those who did not see it, I'll give a quick summary.

The film was about a feminist who is trying to quickly raise money to get herself and her new very feminist film to the Cannes Festival, to which it has been accepted. She is a married woman, and she and her husband live about as close to an equal marriage as is possible. They have a housework time clock where each member clocks his/her hours of chores, and by the end of the week the hours should be equal. They also tries in all areas of their life not to gender stereotype, and function in a harmonious yet semi-complicated manner. While her husband is hoping to start trying for a baby (as both their parents encourage), she is busy at work as a film maker and activist. However, when she gets the call informing her that she is invited to the Cannes film festival, she goes to get the film reel, and finds out that it will be a large sum of money. She tries in vain many different avenues to attain the money she needs (asks her parents, tries to get a new job, considers being a participant in paid experiments), but ultimately ends up meeting up with an old friend who gives her a lead. An old actor friend tells her he's involved in the porn industry, and that she should take a look at the work being done. The film ends up really taking a slippery slope into a humorous story of misunderstandings, attitude adjustment, and ultimately determination. 

  So the movie is obviously a comedy and I definitely appreciated the humorous events. However, what I found to be the most interesting in the story was the equal marriage. On the one hand I thought it got a little ridiculous. A time clock for household chores? Sex life turning into a debate instead of a pleasure? Political correctness all the time? I don't think I could live that way. But on the other hand, the idea was well executed and gave a good image of how such an arrangement would work. There would be no underlying resentments, no arguments about everyday things like chores, and no inequality. It almost sounds utopic. I would argue, though, that a true marriage based on love should be able to do these things without all the knitty gritty. I think a balance can be worked out without having perfect inequality. Maybe we should bend the gender rules, or even break them, but I think maybe sometimes a certain person may be more suited to certain things, and this shouldn't be a problem. Either way, I found the idea intriguing and I thought it was well executed in the film.

Overall I would recommend this movie, it's really funny!

i apologise for posting this so late but imy computer was spazzing and well now i can.

the one thing about kate borenstein that really struck me was when she said 'do whatever it takes, to make this life worth living... just, dont be mean to anyone' - basically, she said that we should/could do anything at all to find a reason to stay alive. be it self harm, be it escaping be it anything, if it gives us reason to stay alive, its worth it.

and this made me think - what would make my life worth living? and, is it worth it to keep searching, pushing, struggling to find that one thing?

i love that kate is so comfortable with  the fact that she is constantly reinventing herself, because, lets be honest, all of us are. we might not be defining and redefining our gender and sexuality but we're all changing. every day. and with that change in thought, opinion or emotion, we're constantly reinventing ourselves. and that change is growth, it doesnt need to be positive or negative. theres no need to hide it or mask it. we can still be who we are whilst we change. there can be solidity and unity of character expressed through fluctualtion and fragmentation.

i liked the fact taht the talk was at villanova. it was comfortable despite that. the only time my mind woke up and realised that we werent at bryn mawr was when she asked how any people in the audience were gender variant and only a few hands went up. i think that this wasnt because they werent gender variant people in the audience but maybe because not as many people were comfortable in their gender/sexuality. i thanked bryn mawr a little at this moment, because it made me appreciate the openess and comfort that is readily available at bmc.

all in all, i really enjoyed her talk. i think there were times when she tried too hard to get a message across/to connect with the audience and that at these times her message got dissolved in her effort. however, the rest of her performance was empowering and striking enough that it could afford to lose that tiny bit.

I also realized I hadn't done a posting for the Lynda Barry talk so... here we go!

Her idea of "deep play" is very interesting to me -- the concept of tapping into the creative resources that are unique to each person.

I work with Mary DiLullo, the filmmaker that was working with Lynda to record her experiences leading her writing workshops in different settings: here at Haverford, in ESL classes in Philadelphia, and in detention centers/prisons in Philadelphia.

I was commenting to Mary after she was telling me about how the classes went in the prisons and in the ESL class that it seems like Lynda taps into something that exists for everyone and really breaks down so many different types of barriers... She said the energy that Lynda had unleashed at all three workshops was incredible despite language barriers, socio/cultural barriers, etc.

I'm hoping we can revisit this when we get to What It Is... Maybe part of making a change for the better for the world is getting everyone to find a way to tap into that "state of deep play".... If we stop feeling so stifled and find small ways to keep our creative juices flowing maybe that could change the ways that we work/talk/communicate with one another...

this feels fitting at this point: Madonna "Express Yourself." I love Madonna.

www.youtube.com/watch

 GASP: gender anarchist and sex positivism

straight homosexual

queer heterosexual

these were just some of the terms/ideas that kate bornstein threw out in her conversation today at bryn mawr. terms that are not used very widely, yet are innovative and different and real. i was so pleased i was able to see her both at bryn mawr and at villanova. it was interesting to really see her in am honest, straight forward relaxed setting versus her staged performance at villanova. she has so many ideas and lookouts on life, death, sex, and anything really. so much of what she said (like that the term "ally" was bullshit or gay marriage is not the right political fight) seemed so crazy but as she explained it, made so much sense. and her performance! what an actor. really. it wasn't a one person show, she embodied so many different characters, from different versions of herself from different phases of her life to her mother or a friend. she told it how it was and didn't hide any bit of herself from her audience. getting into graphic details of her surgery wasn't meant to scare anyone, it was meant to be honest. she knows not everyone will understand her, she knows it's not "the norm" to not define oneself as a man or as a woman. it was interesting in the setting itself too, at villanova. at one point she asked that if there was anyone in the audience who was gay, a lesbian, or bi to raise there hand... at first no hand went up and i'm pretty sure it was not because everyone in the audience was a straight heterosexual. then she added "and ally" and finally it was acceptable to raise a hand. it was just interesting to me to see people feel so uncomfortable to express themselves in that kind of environment. i mean students of the bi-co are not going to be living at bryn mawr and haverford their whole lives, there's a real world out there. a world where people aren't as open about telling people who they really are, a world where people will try to put you down and bully you, a world where even the slightest difference can make one an outlaw. but there she was, being completely frank about who she was and what she did to get there. and i was amazed.

 Kate Bornstein was amazing. She was honest and shocking and fascinating...I couldn't have asked for a better excuse to get out of my room and stop writing my essay. What's burning in my mind right now was the moment when Kate spoke about learning to talk like a woman; it was almost jolting for me, I can't quite describe how I felt. All of the sudden there was this woman speaking with this really deep, masculine voice and even though I knew the entire time that she was born Albert Bornstein, it kind of put things in perspective for me. I kept waiting for Kate to return to the feminine voice, and when she was using a different voice following the direction of the voice instructor, I couldn't tell if that was how she sounded before or not. It was a really interested experience, trying to meddle with these feelings because I realize I don't have much real-world experience with transgendered people. I was nervous and I didn't know how exactly to react, but by the end of the show I felt totally at ease. I wish I had been able to go to the lunch with her earlier in the day as well, to sort of close the distance between Kate and myself.

Oh, and I definitely plan on using my get out of hell free card.

-Despite its shocking reproductive health policies, Costa Rica is very politically and socially progressive. The country itself is ranked 3^rd in terms of having the highest gender equity in the world.  

            From a political standpoint, Cuba has very recently developed an international reputation for being a very progressive and tolerant nation due to its ongoing sexual transformation. Unlike its rivals (mainly the U.S.A and Europe), Cuba has acquired a more “civil” approach to domestic politics. As a result, Cuba is in the process of making a new name for itself in the global arena. Furthermore, according to Frances Negron-Muntaner, Mariela Castro is being prepared to take on more influential leadership roles in Cuba’s government in the near future. This could potentially lead to Cuba receiving even more positive international recognition.   

After reading most of What It Is I decided that it would be a good idea to attend Lynda Barry’s talk on campus...and boy was I overwhelmed (in a good way) by Barry’s personality! For the next 90 minutes I was entertained by Barry’s awkward yet hysterical performance. Besides learning some new jokes Lynda Barry was successful in teaching me a thing or two about writing. As a writer, Lynda argued that motion is key. By this she meant to say that it is important to keep our hands moving while writing. According to Barry, in order to prevent writer’s block we have to make the difficult decision of trading in our MacBooks for old-fashioned pen and paper. Writing with these simple tools will not only keep our hands in motion but it will provide us with a visual writing experience. Seeing words as images on a paper will undoubtedly inspire us to write more and more. With that said, I think I will take Lynda’s advice and write my next paper with good ol’ pen and paper.   

/exchange/node/5295

pictures =)

yesterday i went to listen to suzan lori parks, and although what she spoke about wasn't connected directly to gensex, it was intriguing and a lot of fun.

my favorite quote of the evening was 'aint no body gonna turn me around' - from which i (obviously) immediately picked up 'body' and related it to gensex. -- in the sense that there would be no 'body' that would serve as a limitation.

i am lame. i know.

another interesting thing she said right at the begining was that 'writing was her revision of the real' which brought me back to our discussions on literature and language and how that helps shape us and our thoughts. and i must say that even though it does shape us, doesnt it also give us a space for expression? are we shaped through that expression? a little i would assume. maybe its a balancing act.

what i loved about suzan lori was her ability to engage the audience so well. and i think that came from her level of comfort. she seemed to be so comfortable with herself, in her body, on stage, addressing an audience, adding a ridiculous soundtrack to her speechs -- it was so natural. flowing. it made you feel at ease.

she said it was hard being the first at anything - (she was the first african american woman to win a writing award) -- and maybe it was just me but she seemed to say it in an almost mocking way. yes she had won it. yes it was amazing and hard. but was that because she was african american or because she was a woman? pppffft. nope.

i dont know. i liked her. she said a lot of things that ive heard before and a lot of things that were funny and new. but that wasnt it. she was vibrant in a way. alive. and you dont find that very often.

it was inspiring in a soft, comfortable manner.

             This evening I was fortunate enough to attend Suzan-Lori Parks reading in Goodhart Theater. I must say that I am very happy that this course requires us to attend some outside talks/events. If it weren’t for this requirement then I probably would have missed out on this great talk! Overall, I don’t really see how tonight’s talk directly relates to our main theme of gender and sexuality. However, I did find Parks’ performance to be very enlightening and motivational. More importantly, she briefly touched upon the idea of “activism” which I linked back to our ongoing class discussion about incorporating activism into our new syllabus. 

 I copied and pasted this from an email I got today...I imagine some people already know about this, but I thought I'd spread the word. I thought this could fill in some gaps some of us have in trans studies. 

I wanted to let you all know about an event that's happening this coming Tuesday. Monica Roberts is a black trans woman from Kentucky who is the author of the blog Transgriot (http://transgriot.blogspot.com/). Hosted by the Women's Center and the Office of Intercultural Affairs, Monica will be giving a lecture about politics, racism, and queer identity. After her lecture, Monica, the other CDAs and I will be facilitating a discussion about it. 

Where: Thomas 224
When: 4pm, Tuesday 20 Oct. 

So I went to see the movie "Slippery Slope", which is about a pro-feminist/anti-pornography film maker who in order to get the money for her film to make it to a film festival directs a pornography video. On one while the title of the movie is meant to convey the slippery slope of what happens with the saying the "the ends justify the means". After viewing the film I found it to mean something else. For me the title alluded to the main character before in the beginning of the film. She, holding fast to her convictions about pornography, found it hard to believe that it could be another thing other than a tool for the perpetuating male dominance. In many ways this hindered her growth in other areas of her life. I think the title serves also as a warning to the audience that being caught in your own ideas about how the world should be becomes a "slipper slope" to close-mindedness, which hinders the ability of critical dialogue to happen. This is an important lesson, I think, for this course in particular as there are many disciplines being represented in one conversation. Moreover, this is important lesson when thinking about re-vamping the ivory tower. Often, caught in our own theories and discipline's language for figuring out the world, we do not think about how truly inter-connected it all is and neglect to have interdisciplinary conversations.