TyG - 11/14 - Postmodern Breasts

Due to my compliance with the rules of yesterday’s game, I was unable to voice some observations. I’m normally pretty vocal, but I was pretty comfortable being one of the “silent ones” last night; I choose to express my thoughts now, though I believe – truly – that if I never shared them I would not be traumatized (and the note-passing was a rather fun bit of nostalgia, along with all the mis-communication it created).

All that said, I agree that NEVER being able to comfortably voice my thoughts would STINK.

If, as Cixous poses, "Every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud" (163), then wasn't the exercise requiring only the women in the class to speak just a little masochistic? Was Dr.(NOT)Rog "torturing" the women by "giving" them this power? Or was it another demand by the hegemony that only appeared empowering?

Why is a "good listener" of such high value? Does it matter if that "good listener" is a man or a woman?

Does WRITING have a clear gender voice, or can it act as an "equalizer"? e.g. (among many others) James Tiptree, aka. Alice Bradley Sheldon, successful female science-fiction author who wrote many works under her "male" pseudonym.

I asked myself: WOULD THIS FEEL different to US SILENT ONES if the "dividing line" were a different one – if, for example, only the blonde-haired humans, or some even more random selection, were allowed to speak?

My answer: yes, it would feel different. I recall an event from elementary school; we had been studying the Holocaust, and my heritage is agnostic Jewish. I was walking home alone when it hit me, squarely in the gut – people like the Nazis might want to KILL ME for an accident of my birth, for something I couldn't care less about. (I think I stayed home "sick" the next day watching cartoons and eating green Jello.)

So ANYTHING that addresses our unchosen, unchangeable nature -- skin color, height, gender -- in ANY PERCEIVED NEGATIVE WAY -- exclusion, imprisonment, persecution -- causes us pain, a far, far worse pain than we would feel for something we had chosen. Last night had very light consequences – and so light feelings of involvement. Maybe next time, Dr. Rog will add/delete class credit based on gender (wouldn't that be fun for the Provost to explain?).

Finally, on the subject of "anatomy awareness" -- we had some interesting commentary, to say the least. I may get some flak on this, but here goes.

The old complaint, one that will likely never die, arose, this time with the focus on breasts (pun acknowledged but not really intended) -- "A revealing manner of dress should not determine the response from people around me." Well, duh. JS is right. But it will happen anyway.

The degree to which a person dresses to “accentuate positive physical attributes,” combined with the “sophistication” (or lack thereof) of the audience may result in inappropriate, even rude, comments. Does the dress excuse the behavior? No, it doesn’t matter if a person is prancing around nude in public and waving sex toys, it will never excuse violent or uncouth behavior by the audience. But look at the Hollywood portrayal of women at a male strip show (pick a movie); are the women shouting suggestions and stuffing dollars into g-strings expressing their sexuality in a free, non-repressed manner, or are these adopted behaviors, man-copying and alchohol-amplfied? Whatever the case in this example, there are times when vulgarity may seem “appropriate for the occasion, and “everybody” may be doing it, but it’s still impolite and demeaning to all concerned – rude, crude, unattractive, and, sadly, part of human nature.