Irreplaceable Language

That sheet stuff/'s a lot a cheese

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Sep. 8

Studies in Modernism -
Today we spent time on Ezra Pound's Draft of XXX Cantos, focusing on the hell cantos (my favorite, which is probably no surprise to most of you). I learned a lot, as I always do in this class, but I will just share with you some brief highlights. In its firts edition, this piece was entitled 17 Cantos. Pound added until there were 30 (rushing to finish the last one for publication), and then switched the numering system to Roman numerals. Why? Because he liked the way that the three x's on the spine of the book made it look like the fasces, the fascist symbol.

Needless to say, this guy was crazy. Yes, he was a fascist. Yes, he believed that usury was among the greatest of sins. Yes, he believed that obstruction of flow in any sense was bad. Yes, he believed that Confuscian govt's were good, Buddhist ones were bad, and Taoists were worse. Yes, he was sexist, anti-Semetic and homophobic. Yes, he believed that thick lines in art were directly linked to high interest rates. Yes, he had a special chair made for him in which he was reclined so that there could be straight line from his brain to his penis. And my favorite fact of all: he was born in Idaho.

There is so much more to talk about this guy; if you're interested let me know. I am nothing but enthusiasm.

Shakespeare -
Went through some of Timon of Athens. Timon is a misanthrope (hater of people), and has some great insults. I sat through the normal drudgery of future-high-school-educators-of America comments, but they were better than last time. Had a few heartly laughs.

Feminist Theory -
Today we talked quite a bit about the institution of marraige. Susan Okin argues in her Vulnerability by Marraige, as the title suggests, that the institution of marraige itself makes women vulnerable. This is because they get the worse-end of divorce (even if assests are divided equal since males have a higher earning-potential and usually don't have to take care of the children), have children, and because they plan for marraige from a very young age they let that effect their educational/occupational decisions. Betty Friedan, infamous author of The Feminist Mystique, argues that marraige is a place where oppression can be seen and frequently occurs, but is not the source of that oppression.

We also discussed the sameness/different debate: Should feminists emphasize the differences between men and women or their similarities in their lobby for equality? By arguing for difference, women can get special treatment. By arguing sameness, women get equal treatment, but some feminists wonder whether or not this would ensure equal opportunity. Although there are great arguments for both sides, and I think certain situations differ, I usually vouch for emphasizing sameness. I'm all about the equal opportunity, or equal options. We don't need special treatment. I'm sick of women being put on pedastals. We never asked for it and we certainly don't deserve it. There are average differences between men and women, but I think the most important thing to acknowledge is that every individual is different, and since it is not practical to treat everyone differently (at least when it comes to law), then we should be treated the same as much as possible.

Feminist Political Theory -
We talked about Locke's form of government and how in principle, he made a radical claim: that all people had the same opportunity to develop reason and natural rights (life, liberty, property). Although he didn't believe theoretically that men have any natural authority over the women, in his ideal society, men still retained domestic authority. Different reasoning, same oppressive conclusion. His basic argument was that for practical purposes, households needed one consistent person to hold authority in order to stay functional. He then gives a few different reasons my men are the best, and "natural" choice: they are stronger, more consistent (aren't periodically disabled due to pregnancy), etc.

Obviously I didn't cover everything I learned in class today, but that was a brief synopis. This may be extremely annoying to some of you, but it really helps me retain info. If it bothers you, don't read it. :) Ciao.

2 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

uummm. . . Locke. I'm a big fan. We should discuss this sometime.

1:13 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

In response to your Fem. class, I agree that equal opportunity is key, not special treatment.

I think it is strange to say that marriage disadvantages women and then support it by divorce legislation. Divorce is the ANTITHESIS of marriage. Also, I don't consider keeping your children a disadvantage in divorce settlements. Quite the contrary. You keep the boat, I'll take David.

1:18 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home