Malafrena

Thank you, Dreamwidth admins, for making it possible for me and everybody else to move our blogs over here. I've only left up a few of the posts I had, on the grounds that if I expect anyone to read a post that is seven years old, it had better be interesting!

One of the most broken aspects of contemporary society is the lack of community. People often give lip service to the word "community" without knowing what it was, and I did not know what it was until I had children and suddenly understood its lack. When I joined the co-op preschool system, I began to feel what community could be - people looking out for each other, people working together on a long-term common goal. At the same time, I saw its limitations: for one, it would be a community I would have to exit when my children entered kindergarten.

So where do we look for examples of community? Here is a perspective from bell hooks, from her time growing up in the fifties and sixties, where home was a place to develop critical consciousness and a foundation for black liberation struggle. She's talking about the nuclear family as well as the extended family, and linking what happened in the family space to what happened in the broader black community.


So, the first step to a liberatory strategy - for families of any color - would be to rebuild that politicized domestic space, that "homeplace." To bring critical consciousness back into the home through feminist struggle.

I'll agree with that but also say it's only a first step. One home with a critical consciousness, disconnected from the rest of the community, is not going to be effective. Critical consciousness has to be shared with the broader community. For that to happen, we have to strengthen community ties. And for that to happen, we need to know what community really means.

Well, what does it mean?

No, I don't have the answer. But I do know that to build community, you find a common goal, shared work. For me it was the shared work of our co-op preschool. For the community hooks spoke of, it was building a black liberation struggle. Regardless, it goes farther than cultural criticism, farther than standing in a circle holding hands and singing. It has to move into practical action and material change too.

Of what sort?

That's the question.

hooks, bell. Yearning: race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston: South End Press, 1990.

 One of the blogs in my reader had a post that got some wheels spinning in my head. There are some number of people living with mobility issues, who would benefit from a house designed specifically for them. Like this:

- level entry
- clear access to entry
- wider corridors
- toilet on entry level
- reinforced bathroom wall to allow future railing
- step-free shower

So wouldn't it be cool if new house construction incorporated these elements?

Now, let's suppose that ten percent of households have someone with a mobility issue. Or whatever percent. Ideally, what percent of houses should incorporate an accessible design?

(BTW, this is a trick question.)

( Read more... )

After spending the better part of an hour sitting on my front steps, watching my daughter meticulously covering the same small area with sidewalk chalk, again and again, I suddenly deduced the origins of fire.

Adult: Quit that kid, you're getting on my nerves!
Kid (putting sticks down): Okay.

(Later)
Adult: If I've told you once, I've told you a million times. Don't play with the sticks!
Kid (putting sticks down): Okay.

(Later)
Adult: Can you pleaase stop that awful squeaking noise? It's been a hot day and I'm very thirsty and you're really getting on my nerves!
Kid: What?
Adult: Put. The sticks. Down.
Kid (putting sticks down): Okay.

(Later)
Adult: This is the last time I'm going to tell you --
(Stick bursts into flame)
Kid (waving stick about): Lookit my new toy!



Image from shoreacres.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/sprinklers-and-sparklers-and-mayo-o-my/trackback/

I'm chatting with another mom on the playground. A kid runs up to me.

Kid: Red apple.
Me: Red apple . . . ?
Kid: Green apple
Me: Green apple . . . ?
Kid: Green watermelon.
Me: Green watermelon.
Kid: Purple dinosaur.
Me: Purple dinosaur.
Kid: Purple nail polish.
Me: Purple nail polish.

With a look of triumph, kid runs off.

That kid will lead a fascinating life.

I'm resigned to the fact that I'm going to be obsessed with Doctor Who through the end of the current season. Here is a lovely poll someone posted to the community. (Results as of May 8th, 2010.) My responses below.

( Read more... )

And my response:

You missed TARDISexual!

The Eleventh Hour: "Oh, you sexy thing!"

OK. Changes with the Doctor.

One - Is a grandfather. Possibly het.
Two - Is pretty much a kid. Asexual.
Three - Paternal to his companions. Asexual.
Four - Is a kid. Asexual.
Five - Also a father figure. Asexual.
Six - Creepy. Tried to strangle Peri. Better be asexual.
Seven - Pal. Asexual.
Eight - WTF? The Doctor kissed a woman? Het.
Nine - Rose + Jack. Bisexual.
Ten - Rose and River. Fled from Jack, but propositioned the Master twice. Bisexual.
Eleven - Is a kid. But he's going to grow up fast. Het.

I'm on the hunt for substantive, feminist Doctor Who meta. It's on blogs all over the place, but it's hard to sort it out from the shorter response posts. Here's a start. Hope to find more.

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2010/20100301/king-a.shtml

 "Fall of the Superhero in Doctor Who: The Waters of Mars" explores the implications of heroes who gain ever-greater power, as well as their relationships with others. 2010.


http://www.geekachicas.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=taoism-and-the-tenth-doctor.html&Itemid=55

Discussion of the Doctor and Taoism by Nightsky on Nov 17^th 2009

"That his impulses are generally good--compassion, empathy, mercy--is kind of beside the point. In surrendering to them, he's giving in to power; and, in Taoism as in life, the people who want power are the very people who probably shouldn't have any.

"In short, the Doctor has lost his Way."{C}


http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2007/05/09/abws-tv-corner-doctor-who/

Discussion of the Martha Jones characterization by theangryblackwoman on May 9th, 2007

"So Doctor Who and Torchwood get a big A+ in my book. I love watching well-written SF shows. Add the excellent way in which they incorporate non-white, non-heterosexual characters makes them even better."

http://thingswithwings.dreamwidth.org/9471.html?thread=234239

Intersectional discussion of major themes of season 3 by thingswithwings on July 1st, 2007.

{C}

http://peterdray.blogspot.com/2008/12/doctor-who-feminism-and-jesus.html

Discussion of the 2008 Christmas Special:

"In the end, perhaps the episode was a critique of patriarchy and feminism. Feminism that become an inflexible meta-narrative is to be rejected as it threatens to become an evil ,oppressive (and Christianity-like) system; yet the tragedy portrayed by the episode is that a real heroine (a character called Rosita, who helps many children to be saved) ends the epsiode merely as a nanny."

{C} {C}

http://lizbee.livejournal.com/1097322.html

Commentary on "The Beast Below"

{C} {C}

http://lizbee.livejournal.com/1091493.html

Discussion of book "Chicks Dig Time Lords"

{C} {C}

http://blogs.feministsf.net/?p=373

Discussion of episode "Midnight" by blogger Yonmei on June 15^th, 2008

{C} {C}

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2008/05/09/dv-on-dw/

Discussion of Donna hitting the Doctor, as domestic abuse. By Daran, May 9^th, 2008.

{C} {C}

http://geekgirlsrule.wordpress.com/tag/doctor-who/

Various Doctor Who commentary

{C} {C}

http://gendergoggles.com/2008/12/15/doctor-who-companion-comparisons/

Comparisons of different Doctor Who companions. Dec 15^th, 2008.

Some people, on road trips, go to antique shops and scenic view pullouts and so forth. Well, I went to the Ellensburg public library and let the kids play with toy trains while I photocopied sections of bell hooks' Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center that I found interesting. Could I have stayed home and done that? Well, sort of. But I'm always up for a visit to a new library.

Intersectionality is a theory that multiple forms of oppression - gender, race, class, and all the others - are interlinked, and that it is a mistake to say that one form of oppression is the "primary" one. bell hooks is by no means the first feminist to introduce this concept, but she's just so clear and plain-spoken that she's a great starting point. So here are a couple of quotes. Eventually some of them will make their way into an essay I'm developing on collective liberation, but for now, just consider this "Intersectionality 101."

Source: hooks, bell. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, 2nd ed. Cambridge: South End Press, 2000.

(The first edition, BTW, was written in 1984. The theory of intersectionality has evolved since then.)

Here, hooks explains a prevailing attitude of the time that gender is the only important oppression and that all women experience it in the same way.

"Many contemporary feminist activists argue that eradicating sexist oppression is important because it is the primary contradiction, the basis of all other oppressions. Racism, as well as class structure, is perceived as stemming from sexism. Implicit in this line of analysis is the assumption that the eradication of sexism, 'the oldest oppression,' 'the primary contradiction,' is necessary before attention can be focused on racism or classism." (p 36)

But, she says, it isn't: "Suggesting a hierarchy of oppression exists, with sexism in first place, evokes a sense of competing concerns that is unnecessary." (p 36)

Here, hooks talks about the links between different system of oppressions:

"Since all forms of oppression in our society are linked in our society because they are supported by similar institutional and social structures, one system cannot be eradicated while the others remain intact.." (p 36)

And here, she talks about the problem of trying to end one oppression while ignoring all others:

"Significantly, struggle to end sexist oppression that focuses on destroying the cultural basis for such domination strengthens other liberation struggles. Individuals who fight for the eradication of sexism without supporting struggles to end racism or classism undermine their own efforts. Individuals who fight for the eradication of racism or classism while supporting sexist oppression are helping to maintain the cultural basis of all forms of group oppression. While they may initiate successful reforms, their efforts will not lead to revolutionary change. Their ambivalent relationship to oppression in general is a contradiction that must be resolved, or they will daily undermine their own radical work." (p 40)

So I picked up bell hooks' Teaching Community at the library. bell hooks is the most helpful feminist author for the issues I'm thinking about these days and will ultimately be writing about. I took feminist theory classes in college during the height of postmodernism - which means obfuscated thinking. There was so much focus on reinventing language that the underlying truths were hard to find. I was so frustrated personally, both because I didn't understand everything I read and because I was working as a technical writer and could see how the gobbledygook could be stated more clearly. But the books I'm reading now by bell hooks are so clearly and directly stated that they give ready access to important ideas.

I can't read the whole book. I simply don't have time. (Especially since I am tempted to make a post every time I crack open anything she wrote.) So I opened it to a chapter that immediately interested me: "What Happens When White People Change." I wish I could say my thoughts here, but I simply don't have time. Instead, I'll point to a few paragraphs that made me think:

"Racial integration ushered in a world where many black folks played by the rules only to face the reality that white racism was not changing, that white supremacy remained intact even as it allowed black folks greater access. To many black people who had dreamed the dream, who had believed that racism could be changed by law and interaction, this was cause for despair."

I knew about the ways racial integration did and did not live up to its promises, but I haven't seen this point of view before. It's important for an understanding of where racism is now.

"Rather than focusing on the individual heroic struggles of white folks who committed themselves to anti-racist justice, many black folks dismissed their effort as though it could have no transformative meaning given the collective world of white racism."

I have noticed that many white people tend to believe in racism as a sort of "original sin," one that we can't eradicate.  And I would also like to point out that sometimes people in the feminist movement (men and women too) discount the efforts of men to be feminist.

"All people of color who suffer racial exploitation and oppression know that white supremacy will not end until racist white people change. Anyone who denies that this change can happen, that one can move from being racist to being actively anti-racist is acting in collusion with the existing forces of racial domination."

Okay, now to the happy part. This is what I find most helpful about bell hooks: she does bear a message of hope and give constructive ideas for change:

"All white people who choose to be anti-racist proclaim this truth. Challenging racism, white supremacy, they are transformed. Free of the will to dominate on the basis of race, they can bond with people of color in beloved community living the truth of our essential humanness."

Thank you, bell hooks.

Saw Sherlock Holmes last weekend, enjoyed it pretty well, but during the credits, I noticed with dismay that the Humane Society notice that accompanied their "No animals were harmed" seal stated that they monitored only some of the animal action. What's up with that? So I went to the Humane Society site and got the facts, which are:

"American Humane Certified Animal Safety Representatives™ were unable to directly supervise all of the animal action in Sherlock Holmes because some of the animal action was filmed outside the U.S. and the production did not establish a contract for our oversight. American Humane did not monitor some of the dog action or any of the horse, camel, bird, fly and maggot action."

Okay, I had to laugh at seeing they didn't monitor the "maggot action." The picture that comes to my mind? Dueling maggots, swords flashing, threatening each other with little squeaky voices.

But . . . it seems to me that the Humane Society shouldn't have put any kind of seal on the movie at all. Because the moviemakers could have paid for the Humane Society to come watch the filming in another country.

And, had I known ahead of time, I would probably have chosen another movie.