i love the apple store! Because you can be annoying a hog a computer forever and use free internet and no one yells at you! also, they play good music :).
So welcome to day three in New York City.
Let's talk a little bit about what the heck i'm doing here.
Coming to New York is meaningful, that much is obvious. i mean, how could it not be meaningful and have large significance in my life? I completely stumbled across this opportunity by chance, by a random accident. by the serendipity of link chasing one day when i was not doing my homework last semester so of course it was fate or the interferance of the gods or something.
So where is it, huh? what is the meaning of me being here? lucky for me and you and my belief in divine beings, i'm into spiritualism, post-modern theory, and discerning the little meanings that others might miss (aka making things up).
But this kind of "discernment" takes time--i can't have a reason for being after only three days! But stay tuned, it will come. The gods of fate have blessed me. This is evident even by the last 72 hours. Here are some examples:
-When i rode the subway downtown yesterday, i was thinking, "i wonder where H&M is", and then behold, as i ascended the stairs, there it was, like a vision in front of me. Just luck? i think not.
-Today, i ran out of time in the morning and didn't pack a sandwich. despite my restrained budget, i had to go buy something. it's freezing cold and i wore a skirt (it's the masochism) so my choice was based mainly on what A) didn't look so dirty i thought i was actually in cairo and B) closest. this left me with Cafe 28, a "gormet cafe" or some crap that translates to "we are going to charge you seven dollars for a sandwich." But nevertheless, i persevered, and found that a huge cup of soup was only 3.20 after tax. and you know what? when i was done eating that steamin' hot cup of soup, i actually though it was worth 3.20. how many times have you eaten a 7 dollar sandwich and were like, "gee, i'm glad i spent enough money to feed myself 3 weeks worth of spaghetti. that was worth it." never. so clearly, my good lunch fortune was another blessing.
Clearly, with this train of events, it is only a matter of days before i find out my True Purpose in Life.
And the first think i do when i know is make a sacrificial offering of thanks to the gods in the form of a new H&M wardrobe.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
metaphysics
this was a letter i wrote to a friend, about the amendment 2 discussion we were having. i've been wanting to blog about this for awhile, and i felt like this was a pretty good representation of how i feel right now. for those of you who don't know, amendment 2 is on the florida ballot this year and it would add an official definition of marriage to the state constitution, defining it as being between a man and a woman.
text of message:
first of all, here's something i need to establish. that i understand that whatever the prophets and GAs say is generally a trump card, and that that is the way it is in Provo and with most LDS people that i am every going to talk to about this issue, and that's okay. i understand that and totally respect that, and i think it's a valid reason to be voting however you are voting.
but for me, it doesn't fly. especially on the issue of gay rights, because i've found that everything that i personally believe in basically goes head to head with official church statements of late.
of late being these last couple of months, because before that with all the literature the church has recently put out (god loves his children, the oak's interview from awhile ago, a couple of ensign articles) it seemed like the church was taking a fairly progressive stance and i liked what they were working with there.
however, i feel like the church's enormous support for prop 8 and anti-lgbt legislation is a step backwards.
i also feel like provo is a sinkhole of anti-gay rhetoric, and i've sort of given up trying to defend my beliefs, which is sad, because the majority is adamantly, fanatically against my beliefs. well, that's probably not true. i feel like when i do bring up issues, people are a lot more caring and loving and understanding than i expect.
but i think this has been hightened by the prop 8 rallies. yes, i know all about the official support, and the special broadcast, and how california members are supposed to be donating all this time and energy to support the effort, and that's all really interesting because they church doesn't often take official positions like this, though it has an amazing amount of manpower and is an extremely effective network for this kind of situation (which makes me feel kind of sad that we utilize this for anti-gay culture war issues but we would never do that for any sort of anti-war movement. but anyway, that's different, i guess.)
so basically, what i'm trying to say is that i feel like there is no room whatsoever for dissent or questioning of any kind in this town concerning prop 8, and i think that's too bad. that's what life is for: to question and dissent from what's "right"and try and find out the truth of all things. that is the plan of salvation. that is what we fought for--to come to earth and be individuals who make mistakes and question things, and sometimes question things and get it right, and sometimes question things and get it wrong, but still have the ability to come to the truth anyway.
this relates to this issue, i swear. because yes, i have a testimony and i'm not an apostate, but i still want to be able to struggle with this issue in the normal realm, and not just be all "well the prophet said so, so i don't want to hear anything against it." i can't do that. i can't live like that, especially not with this issue.
okay.
now, to concretes. because we can deal in ideas and trends all day, but that won't get us anywhere because if there are not concrete examples, then your ideals are no more valid than mine. got that?
here's the thing: same-sex marriage is already illegal in florida. it's in our state laws several different times. we already have a defense of marriage act. so if you are voting for it because you don't want gay people to get married, don't worry. they already can't. this isn't a debate about whether gay marriage has to be recognized or not, or that churches will have to recognize gay marriage or else they will be shut down. that's not what voting this law down would do. if it doesn't pass, nothing changes. the LGBT community doesn't suddenly have the right to get married. that would take a lot lot lot more legislation. the only thing that would happen is that it wouldn't pass.
so what does it mean if it does pass? that's debatable. there are several theories. i think they are all valid and possible, but i encourage you to research them yourself. first, it's to galvanize the religious right and get them out to the polls. if there are more right-wing voters voting in florida, which is traditionally a swing state, then it will go mccain, and that is a lot votes to be throwing at mccain. florida has a ton of electoral votes. so that would make it totally worth it for a lot of the Right to do this amendment just for that.
second of all, there are lots of senior citizens living in florida. a lot of senior citizens do not get married, because they would lose some social security benefits, but they still want to have visiting rights, ect. i don't ethically believe this is right, it's cheating the system and while the system sucks and deserves to be cheated, it still is dishonest. anyway, it would definitely be within the corporate government's interest to somehow get these senior citizens to stop having their cake and eating it too, and this law could very well do that.
now, the pro-amendment people will tell you that this isn't true, that's stretching the wording of the admendment and that's not what will happen. here's the wording of the amendment:
Inasmuch as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
i think it could definitely go that way. supporters of the amendment argue that by not having this law in florida or in california, you are somehow endangering freedom of religion. that because a law like this is passed, churches or schools or other institutions that do not allow gay marriage could be shut down. i think this is also stretching it--if it's possible for that to happen if the law doesn't pass, it's possible for senior citizens and other unmarried couples, those that are in a legal union but not husband and wife, to also not be recognized as having the same rights as other married couples.
however, i don't think that will happen. if it passes, the courts won't let it outlaw partnership laws for senior citizens. i also don't think the courts would shut down churches because of their beliefs. i would hope that wise justices would recognize that this is a country where people are able to believe how they choose, and if that means that we don't allow gay students to attend byu, then that is what we chose. i agreed to that when i came here. (ps---this line of thought does need more development. but really, i see the argument that the defeat of these amendments as an attack on our freedom of belief as completely absurd. do you actually think that would happen? maybe. but only because of fanaticism, which these kind of laws don't solve, they only inflame.)
all that said, you are right. if the prophet is inspired to tell us something about how we should vote, well, God does know all things and He loves all his children way more than i ever could, and i have to have faith in that. but he didn't say that for florida. there's a proposition in arizona like this one, too, and they haven't said anything about that. he was inspired and directed to issue this fatwa for california, but not for the other places. if the prophet doesn't say, it means vote on your own judgement. and this is my judgement.
and freedom, and specifically, the freedom to believe however we choose
and see fit, is the most important freedom we have. but i think that in this day in age, it's also really important to make sure religion and belief and whatever that means to you is still examined. and that's what i'm trying to do. and also, it is most important that belief doesn't become fanatical. i've spent way too much time in southern baptist flordia and in the middle east to ever ever try and impose my beliefs on other people in anyway, and i think that needs to be kept in mind whenever our beliefs clash with other peoples in a public forum like politics and voting. bigotry and thinking we have a divine mandate to scourge society of all that we see as unfit never works out well. in the book of mormon, it was the self-righteous as well as the un-religious that caused the destruction of society.
so, don't take my word for anything more than what it is, my opinion. think about it yourself. pray about it. whatever you do to make a decision. one thing i suggest, don't think all in ideals. don't think all in trends. i'm a mystic, sure, i love ideas and living in a metaphysical world, but i want to live in the real one, too. you can do both. have a dual nature. i think we're old enough to start taking some of the responsibility of bringing ideas into the real world. and one of those ideas that we should bring into the real world is that we can all of God's children can live together in harmony, and be able to use their agency, whether that means believing that homosexuality is wrong or believing that people should be able to love each other however they choose.
so there you have it. i don't support the amendment. i'm not voting for it. first of all, i think it's stupid and second of all i support equal rights. but i also consider myself to be religious. and those two things seem to not mesh right away. but they will. i am refining my opinions all the time. i do not come to conclusions quickly. but i come to them, and hopefully when i do, they are the right ones.
**end message.
i hope i don't sound like an arrogant prick here. i think maybe i do: i am so smart and i think about things and no one else does! that's not how i mean to sound. it's probably what i think in my subconscious, but i would never let everyone else know like this :).
text of message:
first of all, here's something i need to establish. that i understand that whatever the prophets and GAs say is generally a trump card, and that that is the way it is in Provo and with most LDS people that i am every going to talk to about this issue, and that's okay. i understand that and totally respect that, and i think it's a valid reason to be voting however you are voting.
but for me, it doesn't fly. especially on the issue of gay rights, because i've found that everything that i personally believe in basically goes head to head with official church statements of late.
of late being these last couple of months, because before that with all the literature the church has recently put out (god loves his children, the oak's interview from awhile ago, a couple of ensign articles) it seemed like the church was taking a fairly progressive stance and i liked what they were working with there.
however, i feel like the church's enormous support for prop 8 and anti-lgbt legislation is a step backwards.
i also feel like provo is a sinkhole of anti-gay rhetoric, and i've sort of given up trying to defend my beliefs, which is sad, because the majority is adamantly, fanatically against my beliefs. well, that's probably not true. i feel like when i do bring up issues, people are a lot more caring and loving and understanding than i expect.
but i think this has been hightened by the prop 8 rallies. yes, i know all about the official support, and the special broadcast, and how california members are supposed to be donating all this time and energy to support the effort, and that's all really interesting because they church doesn't often take official positions like this, though it has an amazing amount of manpower and is an extremely effective network for this kind of situation (which makes me feel kind of sad that we utilize this for anti-gay culture war issues but we would never do that for any sort of anti-war movement. but anyway, that's different, i guess.)
so basically, what i'm trying to say is that i feel like there is no room whatsoever for dissent or questioning of any kind in this town concerning prop 8, and i think that's too bad. that's what life is for: to question and dissent from what's "right"and try and find out the truth of all things. that is the plan of salvation. that is what we fought for--to come to earth and be individuals who make mistakes and question things, and sometimes question things and get it right, and sometimes question things and get it wrong, but still have the ability to come to the truth anyway.
this relates to this issue, i swear. because yes, i have a testimony and i'm not an apostate, but i still want to be able to struggle with this issue in the normal realm, and not just be all "well the prophet said so, so i don't want to hear anything against it." i can't do that. i can't live like that, especially not with this issue.
okay.
now, to concretes. because we can deal in ideas and trends all day, but that won't get us anywhere because if there are not concrete examples, then your ideals are no more valid than mine. got that?
here's the thing: same-sex marriage is already illegal in florida. it's in our state laws several different times. we already have a defense of marriage act. so if you are voting for it because you don't want gay people to get married, don't worry. they already can't. this isn't a debate about whether gay marriage has to be recognized or not, or that churches will have to recognize gay marriage or else they will be shut down. that's not what voting this law down would do. if it doesn't pass, nothing changes. the LGBT community doesn't suddenly have the right to get married. that would take a lot lot lot more legislation. the only thing that would happen is that it wouldn't pass.
so what does it mean if it does pass? that's debatable. there are several theories. i think they are all valid and possible, but i encourage you to research them yourself. first, it's to galvanize the religious right and get them out to the polls. if there are more right-wing voters voting in florida, which is traditionally a swing state, then it will go mccain, and that is a lot votes to be throwing at mccain. florida has a ton of electoral votes. so that would make it totally worth it for a lot of the Right to do this amendment just for that.
second of all, there are lots of senior citizens living in florida. a lot of senior citizens do not get married, because they would lose some social security benefits, but they still want to have visiting rights, ect. i don't ethically believe this is right, it's cheating the system and while the system sucks and deserves to be cheated, it still is dishonest. anyway, it would definitely be within the corporate government's interest to somehow get these senior citizens to stop having their cake and eating it too, and this law could very well do that.
now, the pro-amendment people will tell you that this isn't true, that's stretching the wording of the admendment and that's not what will happen. here's the wording of the amendment:
Inasmuch as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
i think it could definitely go that way. supporters of the amendment argue that by not having this law in florida or in california, you are somehow endangering freedom of religion. that because a law like this is passed, churches or schools or other institutions that do not allow gay marriage could be shut down. i think this is also stretching it--if it's possible for that to happen if the law doesn't pass, it's possible for senior citizens and other unmarried couples, those that are in a legal union but not husband and wife, to also not be recognized as having the same rights as other married couples.
however, i don't think that will happen. if it passes, the courts won't let it outlaw partnership laws for senior citizens. i also don't think the courts would shut down churches because of their beliefs. i would hope that wise justices would recognize that this is a country where people are able to believe how they choose, and if that means that we don't allow gay students to attend byu, then that is what we chose. i agreed to that when i came here. (ps---this line of thought does need more development. but really, i see the argument that the defeat of these amendments as an attack on our freedom of belief as completely absurd. do you actually think that would happen? maybe. but only because of fanaticism, which these kind of laws don't solve, they only inflame.)
all that said, you are right. if the prophet is inspired to tell us something about how we should vote, well, God does know all things and He loves all his children way more than i ever could, and i have to have faith in that. but he didn't say that for florida. there's a proposition in arizona like this one, too, and they haven't said anything about that. he was inspired and directed to issue this fatwa for california, but not for the other places. if the prophet doesn't say, it means vote on your own judgement. and this is my judgement.
and freedom, and specifically, the freedom to believe however we choose
and see fit, is the most important freedom we have. but i think that in this day in age, it's also really important to make sure religion and belief and whatever that means to you is still examined. and that's what i'm trying to do. and also, it is most important that belief doesn't become fanatical. i've spent way too much time in southern baptist flordia and in the middle east to ever ever try and impose my beliefs on other people in anyway, and i think that needs to be kept in mind whenever our beliefs clash with other peoples in a public forum like politics and voting. bigotry and thinking we have a divine mandate to scourge society of all that we see as unfit never works out well. in the book of mormon, it was the self-righteous as well as the un-religious that caused the destruction of society.
so, don't take my word for anything more than what it is, my opinion. think about it yourself. pray about it. whatever you do to make a decision. one thing i suggest, don't think all in ideals. don't think all in trends. i'm a mystic, sure, i love ideas and living in a metaphysical world, but i want to live in the real one, too. you can do both. have a dual nature. i think we're old enough to start taking some of the responsibility of bringing ideas into the real world. and one of those ideas that we should bring into the real world is that we can all of God's children can live together in harmony, and be able to use their agency, whether that means believing that homosexuality is wrong or believing that people should be able to love each other however they choose.
so there you have it. i don't support the amendment. i'm not voting for it. first of all, i think it's stupid and second of all i support equal rights. but i also consider myself to be religious. and those two things seem to not mesh right away. but they will. i am refining my opinions all the time. i do not come to conclusions quickly. but i come to them, and hopefully when i do, they are the right ones.
**end message.
i hope i don't sound like an arrogant prick here. i think maybe i do: i am so smart and i think about things and no one else does! that's not how i mean to sound. it's probably what i think in my subconscious, but i would never let everyone else know like this :).
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
candlestick in the conservatory, but what was the motive?
We played an interesting 'game' in ME Social Patterns today.
what 5 characteristics best describe you? rank them in order of importance.
teacher was talking about demographic-type characteristics, mostly, and we pretty much stuck to that, but other things were included, too.
here's what i thought of:
1. student. I put this first because it's really what i am the most right now. I am just trying to learn, i'm just trying to absorb information and think about the world and be theoretical and try new things and experiment and everything. student is a good first defining point, because once you start thinking about how varied the student experience is, you start realizing just how vast and encompassing and ambiguous labeling yourself as a student is.
2. LDS. my religion. believe it or not, sports fans, thinking about G-d and truth and all the implications of all my religious experiences/revelations takes up a large part of my life and defines many of my choices. I do think its subordinate to my role as a student, though, at least at this point in my life.
3. female. I know, i know. I shouldn't have put 'female.' Female is just a biological characteristic and doesn't say anything about the social implications or system concerning my gender. Female is my sex, not my gender. blah blah blah, i know. I was a womens' studies minor for about 2 weeks for pete's sake. but i'm not really comfortable with labeling myself a 'woman.' that implies all kinds of maturity levels that i Know i haven't reached yet. i might be a 'woman' by many standards (i am physiologically mature, i am 20 years old, i am about 80% financially independent of my parents, ect), i don't want to be a 'woman' yet. if you are a woman, you have to wear eyeliner everyday or something, that's what i heard. so forget it.
4. middle class. i think this is a reflection of my obsession (one of dumb, too-scholarly obsessions. g-d, why can't i be obsessed with normal things, like christian bale or something) with class structure, and the attitudes engendered in the different classes, and the things that are different in my life because i am middle class as compared to upper-middle or working class or whatever else.
5...........
I left 5 blank. I did that for a couple reasons, none of which were intentional at first, but i'm a college student and a natural at english-major type b.s.-in', (which is why i'm not an english major, but anyway...), and so i have numerous reasons in retrospect :).
G-d, I sound so dry from this list. Boring.
I think the fact that i'm taking several sociology classes and am now always thinking about my life in terms of how do i fit into the general survey of society influenced my choices.
Things that other classmates put that i never would have thought of:
1. family. almost everyone put something about their family. wow, that would never have occurred to me. i don't know whether i feel happy or sad about that. neutral, i suppose. though honestly: we're twenty-something, are you really defined by your family still? i guess so, most everyone put it. I don't consider my family in any choice i make about my life. I know that is wrong. Or at least, sometimes i feel like it is wrong. But what what about personal liberty? what is so great about loyalty and 'family bonds,' anyway? my family made me who i am, they contributed to the traits i now possess, but now, it's up to me. Anyway, the idea to put 'daughter' or 'sister' of 'dickson' never crossed my mind, and that is probably tragic, or some future tragedy and battle of my identity waiting to happen, but i don't really mind all that much now.
2. Citizen. this was a la Cory (Corey? idk the spelling) and i liked it a lot. I asked him what he meant and he said that he had been realizing lately that he has responsibilities to the community and to the world and things like that, and that it defines who he is. Good answer. I liked it a lot, and it's true: we do have responsibilities, and they should define our actions.
3. Artist. another one of Cory's. he said in explanation something to the effect that he "hates engineers." haha.
all in all, this activity didn't so much apply to class as it did to me thinking about my life and what it means and yadda yadda i am so existentialist.
so what was with my numero cinco?
Well, i just really didn't feel comfortable defining that last one. I've worked really hard to be sort of 'undefinable,' in a way. I really couldn't sum up how i define myself or what i think is important about myself in that fifth spot, and so i didn't put anything. And that is the real reason i don't have a five.
other supporting reasons materialized as class went on.
For one thing, i noticed that not one of us put anything about sexual orientation. That's not really surprising---we are at here, in provo, and as far as i'm aware everyone in the room is pretty straight. But even if they weren't, its not like someone is going to list queer or gay or something on a public chalkboard at the BYU. I thought this was interesting because if you do identify as LGBT, then that's definitely something that is going to show up on your Top 5 Demographics list. And it wasn't represented here at all. I didn't even think about putting my sexual orientation.
Anyway, i mentioned this, and right after i said this Cory/Corey asked if i had decided on a 5th--i said no, i said i'd decided to leave it blank. and i hope in the context of that discussion it made everyone think twice about my sexual identity and sexual identity in general and assuming that everyone is straight. I wouldn't say that the LGBT community has a history of being maligned as significant and vast as other oppressed groups, like minority races and women, but it is something that we need to be aware about, like we're aware and sensitive as a society to women's issues or racial issues or being politically correct in other ways.
Which lead me to think about queer theory in general, and how silly, and maybe even inappropriate, in light of queer theory and issues with identity and ambiguity in identity in general.
First, another article (because i heart articles!), though this one doesn't have online access, i don't think. I know you can access it through BYU Library articles, but you have to have a BYU NetID, so if you ain't my classmate, forget it. Anyway, it's from Radical Teacher (see www.radicalteacher.org), Issue #79, called "Queering Public School Pedagogy as a First-Year Teacher." Read it if you can.
Anyway, one illustrative point that the author made was that because her gender was called into question, her race became ambiguous as well. Hmmm. That's interesting. and so queer theory. Reading the article was interesting for me, because i think i'm so smart and liberated from always labelling people and pre-concieved notions and all that pompous other psuedo-progressive tosh, but i had such a hard time with this article. Not because i'm against queer theory in the classroom, no i think it's great, but because i would be partway through this article and be all "so, what, are you a girl or a boy? or you bisexual or a lesbian or what?" and looking at the picture that accompanies the article, it took me forever to spot the teacher, because i was looking for what i traditionally think a teacher should look like--tallish, typical looking late 20s adult with a vague authoritarian air typified by heels or hose or a skirt of some sort of shirt/tie combination.
So i guess the point of that digression is, i can talk the talk but can't always walk the walk, and take the following discourse about identity and queer theory and being comfortable without stereotypical labels with a grain of salt. and also, ignore my liberal use of cliches.
It's just that, what were we doing, with these labels? is this really healthy? most of us put down male or female or woman, but what does that mean? should it carry some sort of inherent sociocultural definition? no, it shouldn't. that is way to confining and oppressive. even the labels of 'gay' or 'straight' both are too defined, and that isn't fair. That is so limiting. How many people really identify completely as male or female or gay or straight or LDS or anything? to find yourself, and to find other people, and to find the truth, you need to destroy this 'identity' obsession that we all have. Deconstuctionists unite!
anyway....
back to normative socialogical discourse...
Anyway, i noticed a few other things. Like, i really try hard to fit in. Isn't that weird! I guess because i obviously don't fit in so much, then i do try to. For example, I listed LDS as my second choice, but i think that in high school, it would have ranked lower. And i don't think it was because i was less religious--if anything, i was more religious back then. But listing my non-mainstream-christianity religious identity would have been the not-so-popular thing to do. i like controversy, sure, i'm the one who alluded to my possible LGBT identity in class on purpose, but sometimes....and here, it is the shiz to be LDS. you basically can't make it any other way, or you can but it would be like high school again, all "you are what? why? you are going to hell!(ish. i guess we technically don't believe in hell)" Yeah. So that is just one example, but i really do just want to fit in. It would be nice. Good thing i usually give up, cuz it ain't worth it.
anyway, the concluding part of this lesson was that we should think about how other people, specifially people in the ME, define themselves, and not how we define them.
Good point. Let people define themselves, instead of imposing identity on them.
But maybe, we should take it one step further and queer everything and forget this whole "identity" schtick.
okay, well that's all. Remember, kids, Imperialism isn't Sexy.
what 5 characteristics best describe you? rank them in order of importance.
teacher was talking about demographic-type characteristics, mostly, and we pretty much stuck to that, but other things were included, too.
here's what i thought of:
1. student. I put this first because it's really what i am the most right now. I am just trying to learn, i'm just trying to absorb information and think about the world and be theoretical and try new things and experiment and everything. student is a good first defining point, because once you start thinking about how varied the student experience is, you start realizing just how vast and encompassing and ambiguous labeling yourself as a student is.
2. LDS. my religion. believe it or not, sports fans, thinking about G-d and truth and all the implications of all my religious experiences/revelations takes up a large part of my life and defines many of my choices. I do think its subordinate to my role as a student, though, at least at this point in my life.
3. female. I know, i know. I shouldn't have put 'female.' Female is just a biological characteristic and doesn't say anything about the social implications or system concerning my gender. Female is my sex, not my gender. blah blah blah, i know. I was a womens' studies minor for about 2 weeks for pete's sake. but i'm not really comfortable with labeling myself a 'woman.' that implies all kinds of maturity levels that i Know i haven't reached yet. i might be a 'woman' by many standards (i am physiologically mature, i am 20 years old, i am about 80% financially independent of my parents, ect), i don't want to be a 'woman' yet. if you are a woman, you have to wear eyeliner everyday or something, that's what i heard. so forget it.
4. middle class. i think this is a reflection of my obsession (one of dumb, too-scholarly obsessions. g-d, why can't i be obsessed with normal things, like christian bale or something) with class structure, and the attitudes engendered in the different classes, and the things that are different in my life because i am middle class as compared to upper-middle or working class or whatever else.
5...........
I left 5 blank. I did that for a couple reasons, none of which were intentional at first, but i'm a college student and a natural at english-major type b.s.-in', (which is why i'm not an english major, but anyway...), and so i have numerous reasons in retrospect :).
G-d, I sound so dry from this list. Boring.
I think the fact that i'm taking several sociology classes and am now always thinking about my life in terms of how do i fit into the general survey of society influenced my choices.
Things that other classmates put that i never would have thought of:
1. family. almost everyone put something about their family. wow, that would never have occurred to me. i don't know whether i feel happy or sad about that. neutral, i suppose. though honestly: we're twenty-something, are you really defined by your family still? i guess so, most everyone put it. I don't consider my family in any choice i make about my life. I know that is wrong. Or at least, sometimes i feel like it is wrong. But what what about personal liberty? what is so great about loyalty and 'family bonds,' anyway? my family made me who i am, they contributed to the traits i now possess, but now, it's up to me. Anyway, the idea to put 'daughter' or 'sister' of 'dickson' never crossed my mind, and that is probably tragic, or some future tragedy and battle of my identity waiting to happen, but i don't really mind all that much now.
2. Citizen. this was a la Cory (Corey? idk the spelling) and i liked it a lot. I asked him what he meant and he said that he had been realizing lately that he has responsibilities to the community and to the world and things like that, and that it defines who he is. Good answer. I liked it a lot, and it's true: we do have responsibilities, and they should define our actions.
3. Artist. another one of Cory's. he said in explanation something to the effect that he "hates engineers." haha.
all in all, this activity didn't so much apply to class as it did to me thinking about my life and what it means and yadda yadda i am so existentialist.
so what was with my numero cinco?
Well, i just really didn't feel comfortable defining that last one. I've worked really hard to be sort of 'undefinable,' in a way. I really couldn't sum up how i define myself or what i think is important about myself in that fifth spot, and so i didn't put anything. And that is the real reason i don't have a five.
other supporting reasons materialized as class went on.
For one thing, i noticed that not one of us put anything about sexual orientation. That's not really surprising---we are at here, in provo, and as far as i'm aware everyone in the room is pretty straight. But even if they weren't, its not like someone is going to list queer or gay or something on a public chalkboard at the BYU. I thought this was interesting because if you do identify as LGBT, then that's definitely something that is going to show up on your Top 5 Demographics list. And it wasn't represented here at all. I didn't even think about putting my sexual orientation.
Anyway, i mentioned this, and right after i said this Cory/Corey asked if i had decided on a 5th--i said no, i said i'd decided to leave it blank. and i hope in the context of that discussion it made everyone think twice about my sexual identity and sexual identity in general and assuming that everyone is straight. I wouldn't say that the LGBT community has a history of being maligned as significant and vast as other oppressed groups, like minority races and women, but it is something that we need to be aware about, like we're aware and sensitive as a society to women's issues or racial issues or being politically correct in other ways.
Which lead me to think about queer theory in general, and how silly, and maybe even inappropriate, in light of queer theory and issues with identity and ambiguity in identity in general.
First, another article (because i heart articles!), though this one doesn't have online access, i don't think. I know you can access it through BYU Library articles, but you have to have a BYU NetID, so if you ain't my classmate, forget it. Anyway, it's from Radical Teacher (see www.radicalteacher.org), Issue #79, called "Queering Public School Pedagogy as a First-Year Teacher." Read it if you can.
Anyway, one illustrative point that the author made was that because her gender was called into question, her race became ambiguous as well. Hmmm. That's interesting. and so queer theory. Reading the article was interesting for me, because i think i'm so smart and liberated from always labelling people and pre-concieved notions and all that pompous other psuedo-progressive tosh, but i had such a hard time with this article. Not because i'm against queer theory in the classroom, no i think it's great, but because i would be partway through this article and be all "so, what, are you a girl or a boy? or you bisexual or a lesbian or what?" and looking at the picture that accompanies the article, it took me forever to spot the teacher, because i was looking for what i traditionally think a teacher should look like--tallish, typical looking late 20s adult with a vague authoritarian air typified by heels or hose or a skirt of some sort of shirt/tie combination.
So i guess the point of that digression is, i can talk the talk but can't always walk the walk, and take the following discourse about identity and queer theory and being comfortable without stereotypical labels with a grain of salt. and also, ignore my liberal use of cliches.
It's just that, what were we doing, with these labels? is this really healthy? most of us put down male or female or woman, but what does that mean? should it carry some sort of inherent sociocultural definition? no, it shouldn't. that is way to confining and oppressive. even the labels of 'gay' or 'straight' both are too defined, and that isn't fair. That is so limiting. How many people really identify completely as male or female or gay or straight or LDS or anything? to find yourself, and to find other people, and to find the truth, you need to destroy this 'identity' obsession that we all have. Deconstuctionists unite!
anyway....
back to normative socialogical discourse...
Anyway, i noticed a few other things. Like, i really try hard to fit in. Isn't that weird! I guess because i obviously don't fit in so much, then i do try to. For example, I listed LDS as my second choice, but i think that in high school, it would have ranked lower. And i don't think it was because i was less religious--if anything, i was more religious back then. But listing my non-mainstream-christianity religious identity would have been the not-so-popular thing to do. i like controversy, sure, i'm the one who alluded to my possible LGBT identity in class on purpose, but sometimes....and here, it is the shiz to be LDS. you basically can't make it any other way, or you can but it would be like high school again, all "you are what? why? you are going to hell!(ish. i guess we technically don't believe in hell)" Yeah. So that is just one example, but i really do just want to fit in. It would be nice. Good thing i usually give up, cuz it ain't worth it.
anyway, the concluding part of this lesson was that we should think about how other people, specifially people in the ME, define themselves, and not how we define them.
Good point. Let people define themselves, instead of imposing identity on them.
But maybe, we should take it one step further and queer everything and forget this whole "identity" schtick.
okay, well that's all. Remember, kids, Imperialism isn't Sexy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
