A right is an entitlement to obatin something, and I do not beleive one has rights over me; my thoughts, my opinions, my ideas, my silence, especailly my silence. To have a right to it is to have power over me. Only I know what is hidden in my silence, whether it be gold or trash, and only I should have the right to it, it is my property. In thinking about feminism, can keeping silence be a way in which one keeps power? I feel that at certain times it is necessary to speak to be heard so that others will recognize your existence and not step all over you. But i think one can be silent and still talk. Through movement, through dance, through words, through prayer, through action messages, ideas, concerns can be voiced. Silence speaks a different language.

The idea of tying feminism and revolution together definitely intrigues me, especially considering Brown's parallels to the fall of socialism in eastern Europe. One idea that stuck with me was in the final paragraph, where Brown, stating revolution as a 'paradigm of transformation', tries to imagine what movements would come about with the abolishment of revolution (which, paradoxically, seems a revolution in itself). While I cannot envision a revolution in the connotated sense, with fighting and barricades, I do wonder how else one might achieve certain end goals. Brown also states earlier that feminism, unlike some political and economic based revolutions, has little effect on the means of production in society, implying that such an act would hardly disrupt the status quo after the initial uproar. However, because of the cultural nature, I'm not sure anything but force powered by occasional legistlature would be able to establish a permanent change - the Czech Velvet Revolution was a successful example of a quiet transition, but it was also primarily political, and I struggle to imagine the same being true of feminism on a large scale. I would, however, love to see examples of non-revolutionary cultural shifts that would be able to support the idea of a similarly-structured new feminist wave.

During our discussion, I mentioned a TED talk in which a woman discusses her feminism in relation to that of her mother's. This is one woman's definition of feminism. A new revolution, in my opinion, is happening--maybe one piece to fill the space left after Brown's feminism.

http://laughingsquid.com/the-dramatic-reunion-of-performance-artists-marina-abramovic-ulay/

After watching the show of 17 Boarder Crossing, I am curious about whether the experiences are real? I think so, because the stories the actor acted were detailed and vivid.

Thinking of the denifinition of Deep Play, I feel like that such experiences themselves are common play, but when they were acted as a show, they could be considered as a  kind of deep play, because they were expressed with clear topics and became to have art value.

17 Boarder Crossings meets the ideal of "the live creatures" in that it's drawn from everyday life, and is in interaction with the nature. The artist finds aesthetic pleasure in the "vulgar", enjoys the problems and creates an order in the seemingly chaotic 17 crossings. Some say it has political meaning and despises the boarders that men set. But using "communist" as a way to curse and mocking small languages seem offensive rather than harmonious and unifying.

I think 17 Border Crossings had the greatest potential for deep play at the end when Pablo was crossing. That moment was not meant to make us laugh, but to have us be internally emotional. Everything else in the play felt more like examples that were humorous critical play. I think a lot of the time critical play leads to deep play and the live creature. The live creature almost seems like the emotional side of critical play, in that the live creature has more to do with being aware about the facts in your surroundings. Then deep play seems like you are more aware through emotions than facts.

I really enjoyed 17 Border Crossings and was impressed with how well Thaddeus utilized his space and objects on stage.  It left me wondering how he was able to master so any languages and the purpose of the majority of the trips.  A few of the stories slightly reminded of my not so horrific airport experiences such as a minor delay when arriving back to the U.S..  I thought Thaddeus really captured the humor and spirit behind the characters through his use of accents and mannerisms.  Overall I was really amazed at how one man could transport us all over the world using only lights, a table, chair, and passport.  

The 17 Boarders was a very interesting show. It is very impressive that the man just used several simple things a desk, a chair, a suitcase, a cup, a piece of chalk and lights to present these different countries, even to let audience to see his show in different view( when he lied on the floor pretending to be sitting). There were several scenes that reminded me of my own experiences, and I started thinking about my feelings when I was doing the same thing as he was doing, and therefore missed a few things in that show. Also, it raised a question: if by crossing boarders there are actually no difference, then what is the meaning of boarder? Meanwhile if there is a difference between two places, should there be a boarder?