So I read this article to my family over the break and it provided a very interesting dicussion.  My family didn't understand the reasoning behind the point of using different pronouns instead of just using he/she pronouns. I attempted to give them a gender studies lecture and explain the reasoning behind it. Also I found the comments on this article to be interesting as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html

I had an interesting experience over my Thanksgiving break. I've had the same phone for several years now and was due for an upgrade, so while I was home I went to the store to get a new phone. I am not well versed on what new phones are out and which ones are best, so naturally I asked someone at the store to help me out and give me an idea of what phones I should look at based on some preconceived ideas I had of what I wanted. The guy who helped me was very friendly, but at one point, he began telling me about a phone in the store that "girls really love." He kept telling me that "girls love this phone because it's very thin so they can fit it in their supertight jeans." Now if this salesman had known anything about me, he would have known that was the quickest way to piss me off and lose that sale. He repeated that statement to me about 3 or 4 times as I was looking around at other phones, and it made me super uncomfortable. First of all, I was pissed that he was stereotyping young women and me (though I wasn't even wearing tight jeans at the time so okay...). Secondly, I was pissed that he saw me as a female customer and assumed that because of that, I didn't care much about the technology, I just cared about the aesthetics of the phone, because of course no woman in her right mind would be interested in technological details!

While I understand the point Butler was trying to make, that everyone dies at some point and that we are all equal through that (I can't help but think of Gavroche from Les Miserables: "Here's the thing about equality - everyone's equal when they're dead!"), I'm not entirely sure I agree. We constantly try to quantify the weight of a death based on proximity, how they died, how old or young they were. We may all be equal once we are dead, but death in itself is hardly an equalizing platform. Determining any level of sensitivity is to turn death into something measurable and quantifiable, something affected by gender and race and class. While, in theory, Butler should be correct in that death should be the one thing that makes every human equal and should be the basis for relationships, death is soiled by contexts and legacies that do inevitably lead us to question the value placed on certain deaths over others.

I went to the Barnes Foundation without any previous knowledge about its background, and I'm gratified that I didn't watch the movie or read the articles about its "move" before I went there. Because then I wouldn't be ablt to enjoy any of it with a pure mind, since there would be so many conflicts going on in my head. Reading the background materials entirely changed my way of seeing Barnes Foundation. I felt a little guilty about going there, but I'm also glad that it was moved there so that I could visit. The sacred feeling it gave me originally about the building and the collection was crushed. From my perspective, it used to be a fabulous place for amazing artworks, but now it seems like a scandalous conspiracy. It surprised me that additional information could alter one's opinion so much and reminded me of the power of knowledge and education. I was also given a clearer outlook regarding Barnes and his collection, which is not only valuable financially, but also in terms of its original goal to educate.

I thought it was interesting that Judith Butler strongly emphasized a person’s concept of “self” as being connected to different relationships that are cultivated.  This is why I found Butler’s text the most accessible of the theoretical texts that we have read thus far.  I have found that most of my relationships have played a huge role in defining and discovering who I am as a person.  There are many people who would argue that too much interdependence can be dangerous. That being independent is the only way to move forward in life. 

One of my favorite singers, Sara Bareilles, recently released an album called The Blessed Unrest and one of the tracks is called “Islands.”  Whenever I listened to this song, I interpreted the message to mean that human beings are all islands and that becoming dependent on one another is dangerous and problematic.  Today I went back and listened to this song with Judith Butler and interdependence in mind.  To me, the song seems to have a different meaning now.  I think the message could be interpreted as a call to humans, or islands, to become more dependent on other islands to survive.  It seems that every time I listen to this sing it means something else but right now it feels like a call social dependence as a means of creating a “self.”      

Here is a link to listen to the song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPOhGIpZjKU

In The Book of Salt, the narrator sometimes speaks to a "you," using second person. I'm not used to this point of view when I read a novel, and it surprised and confused me. I'm not yet sure who Bình is talking to in the book. The use of second person makes the book seem like a personal story or letter that I am looking in on . However, I do not feel like I am invading Bình's privacy. I think that is because the "you" only comes up once in a while. I also am getting a sense of mystery while reading this book, because of the point of view (who is he talking to and why in the middle of the narrative) and because the time seems to jump around, like in Eva's Man. I am enjoying the book so far, and unlike while reading Eva's Man, I'm not constantly trying to put a normative order to the narrative. I think my favorite part of the book is the treatment of language. I'm reading a book written in English but the characters are speaking, living, in French and Vietnamese as well as English. 

Is the art itself vaulueble or it is priceless because people view it as a work which would be auctioned millions of dollars? Based on the discussion we had in class, I started to wonder how do we value the art? For Barnes, the art is more like an experience for education. So why he places these brilliant paintings and sculptures in these order. If I revisit Barnes Foundation, I will put more emphasis not only on the man in the paining but also on the relationship between the painting and the surrounding environment. How can people be educated by viewing art through Barnes’ idea? And if art itself is a lesson, what “the postman” wants to tell? What will be different if this painting is placed in a museum? 

Well, Thanksgiving is over, time to bring out the Christmas tree, snowflake lights, and the Christmas music Pandora station. Even of you don't celebrate, I'm sure you get swept up in this time of the year. The moment Thanksgiving is over, the Christmas music comes out. The usual "Jingle Bells" and "Silent Night" that we hear every year. Among these annual favorites are a few that caught my eye - ones that enforce the media's view on women. For example "All I Want for Christmas is You" by Mariah Carrey, a contemporary song embedded with the message that all women need is a man and their Christmas (life in general) will be perfect. Or how about "It's Beginning to Look a lot like Christmas" which continues to reinforce gendered stereotypes in children's toys - "A pair of hop along boots and a pistol that shoots, Is the wish of Barney and Ben. Dolls that will talk and will go for a walk, Is the hope of Janice and Jen.” Or "Baby it's Cold Outside" in which the traditionally male part of the song pressures the traditionally female part of the song into staying for the night even when she has said "I really can’t stay, I’ve must go away, my mother will worry” yet the man persists “I simply must go / but Baby, it’s cold outside. The answer is no / but baby, it’s cold outside” She says the first part of each of those sentences, she says no, but he pressures her to stay. Songs like this one normalize the problematic male behavior, which contributes to and perpetuates rape culture in our society.

After recollecting my thoughts on our class discussion on Tuesday, the essays and the movie I came to a couple of final conclusions. It made me wonder, who is art for? We have art museums but what role in society do they play and ultimately what is their purpose? To share art publicly to everyone in society or only the worthy educated ones? Do art musuems single out certain people in society? I'd like to explore different art exibits and how they welcome the public and also take into consideration where they are located. 

For my last Play in the City outing, I want to go somewhere where I don't feel eyes prying on my every move. I want to be able to go somewhere where I can roam and prance around, not necessarily physically but perhpas prancing around in my thoughts while humming or maybe even singing to songs in my head. I want to be able to see some form of creation with purpose, something sole. I was thinking of walking in on a music venue with live music, but most are open late at night after our final meet. I want to experience art, but less formal and more inviting, more intimate. I'd like to propose going to the Expressive Hand in Philadelphia on 622 S 9th St. I want to be able to create something that reflects my thoughts, something that speaks out to me. It would be a great way to end this journey because rather than observing, I would like to put it all into a piece of pottery and create something. 

Barnes always wanted his foundation to be a school first. He had a reason for putting everything together the way he did; each room was designed with that purpose in mind. When I rewrite my paper, I want to rewrite it thinking about how the design of the museum differed from what I was used to, and how that affected my reading of The Postman.