When you’re a women and gender studies major you discuss oppression ALL THE TIME. And we’re not just talking about the big time oppression of sexism in the American workplace, we’re talking about theories down to how high heels were designed to cripple women and keep them in their place. (You can decide what you think of that, I must say I agree but I’m unsure whether I can ascribe it to the Patriarchy or to the fact that for about 2 years now my feet cramp constantly. Perhaps they’re one and the same. Too bad more potassium isn’t the solution to both.)

But anway, you learn all these little things that you’ve always witnessed but never really looked upon as anything much, like how I tend to always sit cross legged. Well, this can be related to the idea which posits that in society, women are expected to take up as little room as possible. Hence why we sit cross legged, it’s a gendered behavior. You don’t see many men sitting cross legged and the ones that do are often viewed as less masculine. It is deemed more masculine to take up space. And whose space do they take? Mine, on an airplane flight from Chicago.

I have never experienced an encroachment of space like this one before. Actually, that’s a lie. I’ve never before experienced such an encroachment of space where the person wasn’t hitting on me. This man must have been the manliest man alive. He was all sorts of splayed, listening to his ipod. His suitcase was not under the seat in front if him but on the floor between his seat and the seat in front of him and his legs were stretched on either side of his suitcase. Not only was his right leg poking into my space but he wasn’t following the safety rules. But that wasn’t the worst of it, the worst of it was the arm rest. He had taken all of it and not just taken it but his elbow was poking into my space, poking me as I bitterly sat scrunched trying to avoid the point of his elbow. Two limbs out of four encroaching. That’s half. That’s a lot.

So I got angry. And then I got angry that I was angry and not doing anything about it. What could I do? I crossed my legs and shrunk towards the aisle because I didn’t want to touch him as I mulled over my options. I ended up using a three-fold approach. I would every once and a while jab his elbow with mine, sending a “I know what you’re doing and I’m aware that this is my space too even though I’m a frail looking tired woman, and ill even let you have the armrest how generous of me just move your elbow.” I also would look scathingly down at the armrest every time his elbow poked me, willing his arm, not to burst into flame because we were on a plane, but to perhaps disintegrate into dust like the humans in Body Snatchers when they would get killed and replaced by alien clones in their sleep. My third approach (this one was my favorite) was to pretend I was asleep the whole way so he would have to “wake me up” to go to the bathroom because I had the aisle seat and it’s SO awkward to attempt to wake up a stranger so you can urinate. I thought that would get him.

Anyway, so that was my experience and it left me wondering if he saw me and thought that he could be disrespectful in that way or if he just had no clue what he was doing. I’m not sure which one is worse. I also thought back to my other plane experiences and I realized that I’ve always worked out an armrest compromise when I am seated next to another woman. Either she takes the front and I the back or vice versa. Her elbow doesn’t sneak over, her legs aren’t splayed, there’s almost an unspoken understanding. Perhaps it results from her on her last flight having to pretend she was asleep so the man next to her would have to hold his pee for 2 and 1/2 hours just to teach him a lesson he probably didn’t get.

So, moral of the story: Men, close your legs and keep your elbows in check. Women, don’t feel afraid to take what’s yours and when all else fails and your in the aisle seat, feign sleep. I know the arm rest isnt big but in the interest of gender equality, let’s compromise.

Shhhh,

Steph

So I am the Girl Talk of the thesis world.  I do mash-ups.  That’s my thing.  I make my living off of taking other people’s work and smushing it together into something on which I put my name (not without giving due credit of course).  But really, I am taking the thought of a 13th century Japanese Zen philosopher and comparing it with a contemporary feminist thinker of technoscience.  That’s like combining “The Hallelujah Chorus” with Missy Elliott.  And, I can groove to it.  Without getting hit in the head or knocked on the ground like the recent Girl Talk show here at Bates.

But the most interesting thing about the comparison of my thesis to mash-up music is that the critiques of both ventures are the same.  Concerning mash-up music, debates have been circulating concerning the question of whether a mash-up song should be considered new or not.  Is a mash-up song authentic?  Is it “real” music?  Or is it simply two previously written songs placed together into something that is less novel than it is a rip-off.  And what does it mean that computers are so fancy these days that any Joe-shmo can take two of his favorite songs and layer them together?  Does that count as authentic?  Or does one need to have a certain knowledge about music, about both the songs, about how sounds and beats and rhythms work together?

I face some of those similar questions in my thesis writing process.  Can what I produce be considered “original” or “new”?  What about authentic?  Am I just taking from others?

Unfortunately, because Girl Talk just needs a record deal and I need not to be torn limb from limb by feminists, I have to make sure my methods in this process are unassailable.  While thinking two songs are awesome and then having the artists approve their use works for Girl Talk I can’t exactly put that same approach into my methods: I think Dogen and Donna Haraway are awesome and their works are published so I’ll make sure to cite them properly.  That won’t fly.  I need to contextualize these authors’ thoughts in their specific historical times.  Which means I’ve read A LOT about 13th century Japan and A LOT about America post-WWII.  And what have I learned so far?  I have learned what makes what I’m doing so difficult and GirlTalk has no idea.

The problem with what I am attempting to do is that I am alive.  Yes, I’ve discussed this with my advisor, this is actually real.  The problem is that I’m alive.  How do I fix that problem and still finish my thesis?  However, this is a problem that all historians supposedly face- we’re alive and the people we’re talking about often aren’t.  So we can’t ask the Coolios for permission to use track 13.  I cant ask Dogen if he’s okay with what I’m doing because he’s dead.  And I can ask Donna Haraway- and maybe I will once I get a more solidified thesis idea but the fact of the matter is- I’m alive and Haraway’s alive and Dogen’s not and we make an odd threesome.

But I’m optimistic.  I’m learning a lot about both thinkers and the times in which they existed.  I also learned that I hate Ronald Regan.  So here I am: the mash-up philosopher who’s making friends and influencing people.  And hating on Ronald Regan.  Only with thesis.

Shhhh,
Steph

Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly gives a talk titled Feminism vs. Conservatism: The Great Debate at Bates College at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 28, in Chase Hall Lounge, 56 Campus Ave.

Sponsored by the Bates College Republicans, the event is open to the public at no cost.

“Mrs. Schlafly’s talk will focus on the failures of feminism and the importance of the traditional family unit,” said Jonathan Browher, first vice president of the Bates College Republicans and a junior from Meredith, N.H. “She’ll challenge the perpetuated myth that the promotion of women’s rights is incompatible with the conservative movement.”

“With Schlafly’s expertise on women’s issues, the Bates community will have the opportunity to hear some novel ideas and insights about the state of the feminist movement today.”

Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo (Pere Marquette Press, 1964). She has been a prominent foe of abortion since 1972, when she started the national volunteer organization now called Eagle Forum. In a 10-year battle, Schlafly led the successful national opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.

An articulate opponent of what she terms the radical feminist movement, Schlafly appears in debate on college campuses more frequently than any other conservative. She was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies’ Home Journal.

Schlafly’s monthly newsletter, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, is now in its 38th year. Her syndicated column appears in 100 newspapers, her radio commentaries are heard daily on 460 stations and her radio talk show on education called Phyllis Schlafly Live is heard weekly on 45 stations.

Schlafly is the author or editor of 20 books on subjects as varied as family and feminism, nuclear strategy, education, child care and phonics. Her most recent book, Feminist Fantasies (Spence Publishing, 2003), is a collection of essays on feminism in the media, workplace, home and the military.

Schlafly is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Washington University, received a doctorate in law from Washington University Law School and received her master’s in political science from Harvard University.

Raised in a Catholic Worker community, Landry has spent her entire life asking and answering questions such as: Why would any woman stay in a patriarchal faith community? How does change best occur – outside institutions or in them? What does the future of women’s experience and leadership look like in the Catholic Church? Landry will discuss how these and other questions have formed and informed the spiritual journey of a contemporary Catholic woman.

Next in the Spiritual Journeys series is Stephen P. Huyler, freelance cultural anthropologist, author and photographer, who will discuss Meeting God: A Scholar’s 25-Year Encounter with Hinduism in India at 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 5, in Skelton Lounge. The talk will be given in conjunction with Huyler’s exhibit Meeting God: Elements of Hindu Devotion in the Chapel, March 1-21. For more information, call 207-786-8272.

Goldstein’s book explores specific female characters of the Torah and their interaction with society. Goldstein’s chapters on blood and water discuss the biblical sections on menstruation, challenging women to reappropriate traditional laws concerning the body. Her scholarship on God, goddess, gender and Torah reveals how the traditional masculine image of God has affected women’s spiritual journeys.

Sponsored by the Office of the Chaplain at Bates, the Spiritual Journeys lecture series features speakers from a variety of traditions who tell the stories of their spiritual awakening and development. Speakers are invited to explore how they experience a sense of the holy in their everyday lives, how their perspectives and disciplines have shaped that sacred experience, and how they understand religion as a resource or an obstacle to the life of the soul.

Next in the Spiritual Journeys series will be John P. Streit, dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, on Faith, Doubt, and Passion: Companions for an Unlikely Spiritual Journey from 4:30 to 6 p.m. March 19, in Skelton Lounge, Chase Hall.