I had a breakthrough last night while I was reading My New Gender Workbook. Kate, the author, asked readers to think about “any journeys [they’d] made across identities.” Before this comment, I had been having trouble connecting with Kate and her “twibe’s” gender identity experiences. While I was interested in them, I was at a level where I couldn’t truly understand them. That is until I was asked to think about my own identity. That’s when I realized that the way gender identity had been described throughout the book so far was similar to the way I felt about my own racial identity. I am mixed race with a Black mother and a White father (to put it simply). Yet all of my life I have been strictly classified as Black. Why? Because it’s convenient to put people in specific categories and think of them as just that. If there was a name for every combination and racial mix of people out there then our perception of race would be even more complicated than it already is. Is that a bad thing though? 

am also wondering what folks think about this form of representation?
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/design-firm-gets-real-orange-new-blacks-great-opening-credits-151971

The city is a limited area where people can live, trade, inherit and create culture. In the original, hominids gathered together to hunt, collect and make original deal because of the environment forced them to do so. At that time, because of the limitation of technology, they didn’t have enough power to resist wild animals which may threaten their lives. More people represented higher survival rate, because they had more power to keep safety and hunt. With the development of science and technology, the threat of environment became smaller, and they still gathered for different reasons, one of which was economy. They looked for more resources from other people to satisfy their living needs and tackled emergency. Basic financial trades appeared and developed, more and more people took part in and finally formed a steady area to trade and live in-a city.

It is so important to talk about gender in today's society. I was very struck by Piper's comment in class, about how even simple words in the passage from "Seeing Gender" had subtle gender associations with femininity, and affected the way we read it. The gender binary has been so ingrained in society for so long that it is hard to escape, and even to spot if you're not aware of it. I never thought much about gender before coming to Bryn Mawr. I was assigned an "F" at birth and I never questioned it. However, once I came to Bryn Mawr and began to talk about gender issues, it opened up my eyes to how much it had affected my life. As a kid, I was often labeled a "tomboy", but I never liked that. I didn't feel like a tomboy. I always felt like if I was a tomboy, if I liked hiking and power tools and hated the color pink, I then also wasn't allowed to like fancy shoes or pretty dresses and lipstick. Admittedly, I LOVED Polly Pocket. However, I was ashamed to tell any of my friends - boys or girls - for fear of being a "freak" and not fitting in with either group. It was very confusing for me because I felt like I had to pick a category - it was an either/or situation and being on the fence was precarious and not acceptable. It wasn't until much later in life that I recognized the connection to gender and gender roles. As I learned more about the issues, I realized that having to "choose" a category to fall under was ridiculous. I just wanted to do and wear whatever made me feel comfortable.

Kathy Acker concludes her essay "Seeing gender" with her powerful description of what she terms "languages of the body."  As she argues, the languages of the body are innately true and real, untouched by the mimetic qualities of language as it has been constructed and owned by the patriarchal model.  Because Acker cannot disconnect herself from her body, and in that same way how the body must be the site and originator of her imagination and self, she finds in it the only deeply true language in that it has not yet been subject to the socially constructed world outside her self. 

I thought it was really interesting that we compared gender to a ‘performance.’  For me, defining gender as a performance is what separates ‘gender’ from ‘sex’ because there is a certain individual agency that is associated with a performance that has nothing to do with a clinical evaluation or label.  However, I think an argument can be made that both for and against this ‘performance’ term.  I think that a performance can have elements that are completely autonomous.  As the main character of the performance, a person as the ability to change and expand to fit the truest definition of themselves.  On the other hand, the performer must also keep the audience in mind when creating the character.  This makes me question whether or not the performance changes when in a private or public setting when there is or is not an audience watching the performance?

Someone made a point in class that a woman is not less of a woman when she is alone in her room.  I thought this was a really important argument to make and it is the reason why I am struggling with the term ‘performance’ in association with gender.  I think that many different arguments could be made to support or challenge the ‘performance’ as gender but my main concern with the term is the audience factor.  Is it a performance if there is no audience?  

Every week during the Summer of 2012, Daniel would text me, “Let’s go into the city.” It was always spur of the moment.  Immediately, we would bike to the train station and wait for the soonest train. Once it arrived, we would sit down and begin to discuss almost everything, from poetry to politics. Yet, there were two things we never spoke of: the city and what we would do in it. We did not talk about the city because its diversity gave us a variety of topics to consider; it was the place where events occurred, without being an event itself. Furthermore, we never proposed an activity because it would ruin the spontaneity we sought.

In my opinion, the phrase “Let’s go into the city,” is significant. Just this morning at breakfast, my friend said the same words to me. I immediately agreed. But, if my friend or Daniel recommended that we got to Safeway, I would probably say, “OK! Why?” Going to the city (unlike driving to Safeway) does not need an explanation or a plan: two things that have very different implications. The idea of “the city” alone appeals to us so we never need a reason to go. Simultaneously, the security that a plan gave us seemed unnecessary; the thought of “the city” is a fun and innocuous one. 

    My mother introduced me to art after she and my father got divorced thinking it would be a therapeutic and meaningful way for me to release my feelings.  As a toddler, she ensured we visited MOMA, The MET, El Museo del Barrio, The Guggenheim, and The Museum of Natural History often.  My favorite by far, however, was The Cloisters, a branch of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and home to one of the largest medieval art collections in the world.  I spent the majority of my childhood living in Washington Heights where The Cloisters was located.  Manhattan, to me, is synonymous with medieval art and more specifically with the works exhibited at The Cloisters. 

   Although I was born in Midtown Manhattan, I soon after moved to Texas with my mother and father.  After they divorced, however, my mother and I moved uptown to Washington Heights where I made some of my earliest memories and experiences with New York City.  My favorite event by far was “The Medieval Festival”, hosted by The Cloisters in Fort Tryon Park, where I saw jousting, puppet shows, jesters, and live music.  It was certainly the flame that ignited my love of medieval festivities and art. 

Samantha Plate

Play In The City

09/07/2013

Is The City My Home?

When asked where I live I often tell people “I live just outside of Philly.” Philadelphia is a well-known city and it is easier to pinpoint than my small town of Holland. But in reality, I have no real claim to Philadelphia. I feel like a tourist in my own “home town”. In fact, my friends and I took a sight-seeing trip to Philadelphia this summer. We did all the touristy things: we took the Big Bus Tour, ran up the Rocky steps, visited the LOVE statue and went to museums. It was then that I realized I had only been to Philadelphia a few times in my life and I had never really experienced it. I couldn’t really call this city my home.

On Thursday my gender was represented as my partner Kalina's drawing of a couch. She told me that she chose a couch because they are comforting. Within the first five minutes of knowing me, she could discern that I’m completely accepting of all genders on the spectrum. And she’s completely right. When you’re around me, just do you. As long as I’m aware of your personal pronoun preference, I won’t hesitate to support you. It’s who you are. And I don’t care what society says, you’re normal to me. I believe gender is a personal spectrum set in a societal binary. It can fluctuate day-to-day. One of my best friends is genderfluid, and she’s told me that – on most days – she feels more comfortable in a more masculine style of clothing but on other days she’ll sport a dress. On both occasions she is being herself, and that’s what’s important. Society has tried to make gender a binary, but honestly the definition of gender depends on the person because it’s how they indentify themselves and how they feel comfortable presenting themselves to others. The definition of gender is expanding and evolving – and I believe for future generations, gender will be seen on personal and societal spectrum.