Learning to Grow, No Time to Waste

My self evaluation for Precarious, Performative, Playful, Potential...Perspectives! 

I came into the class having never taken a gender and sexuality course, but ready to put in the time to hopefully still be a valuable presence in the class. Our first readings, Wilchins and Clare, left me feeling a little overwhelmed I have to admit, especially Wilchins. Clare gave me a story to hold on to, to follow, where as the feminist and gender theory referenced by Wilchins left me bemused and flailing. Was I going to be able to “fit in” to the culture of the class? Would it all be so theory-heavy?

As we moved forward into Price and Rosenblum I began to feel more at easy, enjoying the challenge of Rosenblum to interact, to read what he had to say but also to experience specific senses in the absence of others. Some of the things he talked about were things I knew but he put them in a new way that forced me to think differently and more deeply about how others “see” the world. This was more tangible to me, something I could relate past and present knowledge and experiences to. “Living the Good Lie” inspired my first web-event, leading me into our next act. With more of a focus on biology I felt even more comfortable (as a biology major) and began to see connections with three of my other courses: psychopharmacology, genetics, and organic chemistry. I think it is here that I began to feel more comfortable speaking in class, like I had more to contribute from a perspective more unique in the class. Moving deeper into Act II we read Roughgarden and Judson; unlike some in the class I felt completely talked down to by Judson and felt able to trust Roughgarden, despite the fact that she did a bit of anthropomorphizing. I learned a lot about gender roles, interactions, and sexuality of many different creatures on the earth that I was not aware of and, as Roughgarden pointed out, really aren’t talked about. Will they be soon? Will there be more evidence to support or disprove these observations of animal interactions and sexuality/behavior?

Our readings and discussions after fall break on “The He Hormone” and sex hormones helped me to build on my first web-event to create my second as a response to what we read of Jordan-Young. It also inspired my final web-event, a project that runs off of our discussion and analysis of estradiol and testosterone. I really liked my ideas behind my first two web-events and I found some excellent resources, but looking back I don’t think I really got where I wanted to go with either of them. I presented good information; perhaps I’m feeling this way because there isn’t a lot of definitive data or evidence on what causes the differences between gender and sexual identity, or the similarities. I don’t know if I can even out my finger on what I feel like I missed… perhaps I am just not satisfied because I found limits of what I could explore based on research to date.

I left Act III with Butler’s bodies as a presence (chasing pavements) and “Little Bee” echoing in my head. I suppose I see now how other authors, speakers have made their way into my vocabulary for this course: vulnerability, intra-action, precarity, entanglement (though I find it difficult to admit that even Barad got in here)… I left having not decided yet how I feel about the call to action presented by several authors. I’m not planning on studying law to defend those without a voice, I’m not planning to go abroad to a small village and practice medicine. I do feel called by the voices I encountered here, I just don’t yet know what they’re asking me to do. I think this is why I chose to focus on the relationship between reality and fiction (with regards to “Little Bee”) in my third web-event. I researched the history of the oil conflict in Nigeria and concluded that Cleave did present an accurate picture of life and experiences of people there, and I chose to leave out a “call” for the simple reason that I haven’t deciphered that call yet. So Anne, I supposed that is my response to your comment on my paper- I don’t know yet what my relationship to this new knowledge is. I do know that knowledge is power, and while writing my paper I called my mother to rant for a good 10 minutes about Shell and their acts in Nigeria before telling her I had to go finish my research and hung up. So perhaps I have begun, at least, to uncover my relationship.

Looking back at my contributions on Serendip through weekly posts and comments, I wish that I had taken the initiative earlier to do more commenting. I remember considering it, but having something I wanted to share that didn’t really link well with others’ posts, and so instead of really looking for those connections and entanglements I simply made my own post. After mid-semester evaluations I made more of an effort to comment, but I still think I could have done more. In past courses with Anne I really got into and enjoyed the conversations that got going and I was a little disappointed that I didn’t do more to help us get there.

On day one I think I came in to the course with the attitude of, “I’ve taken three courses with Anne already, I know what’s up,” and almost immediately crashed into a pile of, “can I do this? Do I have anything to contribute that won’t make me sound like I don’t know what I’m talking about?” I guess I regressed before I grew, which I think is a good thing. Not only did I learn new things, read new authors, and jump out of my comfort zone a bit but I was also able to recognize and trace the entanglement of my education, which seems to grow in complexity daily. And isn’t that what growth is?