How are your Google Lists coming? Do you happen to write down your short "ID's" for each one you look up? Do you think you could help your fellow classmates out by sharing your work? It's the only way we are all going to make it through this class, right? You can leave comments here if it's easy to copy-paste, or you can email me your note files: mundanugacity@gmail.com.
Thank you, and good luck!
/Aaron
2011-03-05
Film: Gray Matter
IMDB info
NOTES:
want to see where the pathologists work, instead we are going to see the church
"what do you call that? er... sidetracking!"
"the children were only a material" a tool to enhance one's medical/scientific career
misdirecting interview
will he talk to a fellow neurologist?
"anti-social behavior" categorized as genetically passed
"Austrians always present themselves as the victims of Naziism" but the majority of Austrians enthusiastically accepted Hitler and embraced him
Austrians not sincere - speak with mouth but don't do what they promise to do
did his research result in anything positive?
scientific value of experiments
Even if there are "positive" results from the deaths of these children, the overall message that is sent in cases such as this is that if there is enough benefit derived from their horrible deaths, then we can sanction their murder. It's okay to committ horrible atrocities if some good can come of it?
Gross wrote about 37 papers while head of Spiegulgrund, (50:59)
NOTES:
want to see where the pathologists work, instead we are going to see the church
"what do you call that? er... sidetracking!"
"the children were only a material" a tool to enhance one's medical/scientific career
misdirecting interview
will he talk to a fellow neurologist?
"anti-social behavior" categorized as genetically passed
"Austrians always present themselves as the victims of Naziism" but the majority of Austrians enthusiastically accepted Hitler and embraced him
Austrians not sincere - speak with mouth but don't do what they promise to do
did his research result in anything positive?
scientific value of experiments
Even if there are "positive" results from the deaths of these children, the overall message that is sent in cases such as this is that if there is enough benefit derived from their horrible deaths, then we can sanction their murder. It's okay to committ horrible atrocities if some good can come of it?
Gross wrote about 37 papers while head of Spiegulgrund, (50:59)
2011-03-04
2011-03-03
An encounter with modern slavery
Last weekend I worked a local conference/convention for leather/fetish/kink/BDSM lifestylers. I did so in a volunteer capacity, at the recommendation (from back in October) of some of my friends who are part of this circle, and did so willingly (of course) because I am a supporter of sexual freedom. The mantra of this community is "safe, sane, consensual" and although this is a debated point, that is what makes me comfortable associating with them.
I met all kinds of interesting people. I learned how to wield a 4 foot snake whip without killing myself. I tried on a shirt made of latex, and let someone demonstrate the marking pattern of a rubber flogger on my forearm. A got my boots polished (and was "claimed" by a society of people who call themselves "bootblacks") like they've never shined before, and shared a cigar with a host of national and international title holders. It was a good experience.
However, I remain conflicted on a number of points; especially about this whole Master/slave lifestyle. You see, there are quite a lot of people in the world who willingly enter into relationships which puts one person in the position of Master, and another identifies as slave. This is not always a sexual relationship, I hasten to point out. And these are, as far as I'm aware, entirely 100% consensual relationships, in which the two (or more) negotiate a deliberate exchange of power. Beyond that I don't feel qualified to elaborate. Like me, you'll have to do more research.
What I do feel qualified to do, however, is to talk about my conflict between liberating our private lives and being responsible with our public lives. I'm very much the relativist butterfly-effect we-are-all-connected kind of person (philosophers will have more word to describe this status I'm sure), so I believe that everything I am, everything I do, impacts who you are and your life, and vice-versa.
Alright. So, at this conference I was treated to the barest acquaintance with a couple named Master Obsidian and slave namaste. They are a beautiful couple in every way, and I wish I had gotten to know them on a personal level. Perhaps in the future.
Part of the events of this weekend was the announcement that the two of them would be getting married. Recently, namaste wrote [about it in this blog post]
Now, being a person who studies power dynamics, with an eye especially toward gender as a factor, and as an activist who feels personally invested in the ways these things are constructed and used, for better or for worse, I find myself in serious conflict with what's going on here. So I'm just trying to work it all out.
Rather than re-write everything, since I'm short on time at the moment, I'll just copy-paste the comments I write when I posted this link on my Facebook:
PERSON 1: I can't see anything wrong with it. What exactly was it that bothered you about it?
MY RESPONSE 1: Well, basically, I fight for equality; that's what my life and career are about. Unequal access to power is, by my understanding, the root of all evil in the world. Inequality within marital structures is a huge part of how women around the... world are oppressed. Marriage itself is something I struggle with conceptually, and I already have difficulty with the entire idea of M/s lifestyle, (it's only the agency/consensuality of them that allows me to even consider the subject) so to frame marriage within that relationship and deliberately seek that inequality, to celebrate it, to reinforce it with the legal system... it's one of these cases where yes, to each his or her own, but there are times when the way you live your life, justify your lifestyle, and portray certain aspects of it as good and desirable, can have a seriously negative effect on the world's perception of things that look similar. ie. This person celebrates her status as a man's property. She sees her marriage as a part of reinforcing that status with the law. That sends the message out to other men that this is something women want - to be owned - and tells other women that being owned and controlled is a good and wonderful thing to be preferred and pursued, and that that is what the law is there for - to help them be owned.
PERSON 2: Er...... someone women do, just like some men do. If that is what makes a person happy, so be it. It is when it is FORCED that it becomes a problem.
PERSON 3: I personally feel that marriage is different for everyone I have seen three different forms of marriage just between my parents and their spouses I see this as just another form if marriage not something that is for everything but if it's something to fulfills a person and brings them happiness then it has some good in it just for that but this is only my opinion
MY RESPONSE 2: I'm not arguing with that Tom; as I said, to each their own. In Private.
Marriage is a matter of public life, however. It is a legal contract, which affects more than just the individuals who sign on. Without getting into all the civil bene...fits and obligations which come along with a marriage certificate - I'm going with the assumption that most people who will read this are familiar, perhaps intimately so, with those aspects of marriage since most of us are involved with the pursuance of marriage equality on the queer front - but I can speak to the more subtle effects every marriage has on our overall perspective of marriage. Every couple who makes a public statement about their private life affects the way we all view our own private lives. (In fact, that's kind of what's so threatening about legalizing gay marriage to a lot of people - it causes them to re-evaluate things about their own relationships which they previously got to take for granted or ignore.)
Let me take this another for-example route. Thomas Beatie. A transgender man who decided to get pregnant and have a baby. A private decision to be sure. Except he chose to go public with it. (And that wasn't a "media outing" that was a very deliberate and calculated choice and his and his family's part.) Now, everyone who saw/heard/read about him has that in their mind when they think of transmen. That may even be the only, or primary model they use to evaluate other transmen they encounter from then on. For better or for worse, when we bring our private lives into the public sphere, we affect everyone in the world. That's the nature of the public sphere.
Now to return to this particular case. Although I'm sure Obsidian and namaste's relationship will not be the only example anyone has of a marriage. Nor do I assume that they provide a /bad/ model. Having seen them together, I think they are a beautiful couple and their dynamic just reeks of positive energy. Power to them! However, that dynamic has been the result of very careful negotiation, and the product of a very rare set of cultural, temporal, and personal factors. All we (the ubiquitous anonymous "we") see, however, is these two people, who are in a relationship, called a marriage, in which one person is very explicitly owned and controlled by another. That sends a message. I just wonder how a woman who was owned and enslaved by her husband against her will, upon encountering that, would feel. And how would it affect the countless other relationships looking to model themselves off of something. Furthermore, how does this affect people who are in charge of reforming marriage laws? To see a relationship like this, without understanding its nuances, could potentially reinforce the acceptability of laws which DO define one spouse as the property of another.
Just another example of how this social dynamic works in reality, in case you think I'm overblowing this whole thing. Let's take the acceptability of the word "tranny". I may identify with that word in a positive way, and use it for myself and certain other trans-folk. But I have to be very aware of the context I do that in. If I allow someone who doesn't know who I am, what I've been through, and how I've negotiated my identity, how I relate to the people around me and what /they/ have gone through to reclaim themselves, all they see is me calling a bunch of gender-transgressive people "trannies" and getting away with it. So the person thinks that's okay. They go out, use that word on someone else, trans or not. Now the term is even more out of context, and more people are exposed to it. Someone takes that situation and ends up calling their cross-dressing brother "tranny" as a way of telling him he disapproves of his gender expression. Next thing I know, I've just contributed to the oppression of some of my trans-brothers and sisters without meaning to. That's how these things work. So saying "We are married, and our marriage reinforces my property-status to this man" it just worries me...
I mean, geez, it's Women's History month right now! Just highlights the fact that only a few decades ago, women weren't allowed to have credit, or even their own bank accounts. They WERE property. So my commitment to never letting that happen again just makes me look at this and say "What am I seeing here? Am I seeing one person's unique lifestyle choice and empowerment through civic agreements like marriage licenses? Or do I smell trouble?"
To be continued...?
Readers, your comments are VERY welcome on this subject, PLEASE post if you have anything to say, even if "Aaron STFU you are overthinking this stuff!"
I met all kinds of interesting people. I learned how to wield a 4 foot snake whip without killing myself. I tried on a shirt made of latex, and let someone demonstrate the marking pattern of a rubber flogger on my forearm. A got my boots polished (and was "claimed" by a society of people who call themselves "bootblacks") like they've never shined before, and shared a cigar with a host of national and international title holders. It was a good experience.
However, I remain conflicted on a number of points; especially about this whole Master/slave lifestyle. You see, there are quite a lot of people in the world who willingly enter into relationships which puts one person in the position of Master, and another identifies as slave. This is not always a sexual relationship, I hasten to point out. And these are, as far as I'm aware, entirely 100% consensual relationships, in which the two (or more) negotiate a deliberate exchange of power. Beyond that I don't feel qualified to elaborate. Like me, you'll have to do more research.
What I do feel qualified to do, however, is to talk about my conflict between liberating our private lives and being responsible with our public lives. I'm very much the relativist butterfly-effect we-are-all-connected kind of person (philosophers will have more word to describe this status I'm sure), so I believe that everything I am, everything I do, impacts who you are and your life, and vice-versa.
Alright. So, at this conference I was treated to the barest acquaintance with a couple named Master Obsidian and slave namaste. They are a beautiful couple in every way, and I wish I had gotten to know them on a personal level. Perhaps in the future.
Part of the events of this weekend was the announcement that the two of them would be getting married. Recently, namaste wrote [about it in this blog post]
Now, being a person who studies power dynamics, with an eye especially toward gender as a factor, and as an activist who feels personally invested in the ways these things are constructed and used, for better or for worse, I find myself in serious conflict with what's going on here. So I'm just trying to work it all out.
Rather than re-write everything, since I'm short on time at the moment, I'll just copy-paste the comments I write when I posted this link on my Facebook:
PERSON 1: I can't see anything wrong with it. What exactly was it that bothered you about it?
MY RESPONSE 1: Well, basically, I fight for equality; that's what my life and career are about. Unequal access to power is, by my understanding, the root of all evil in the world. Inequality within marital structures is a huge part of how women around the... world are oppressed. Marriage itself is something I struggle with conceptually, and I already have difficulty with the entire idea of M/s lifestyle, (it's only the agency/consensuality of them that allows me to even consider the subject) so to frame marriage within that relationship and deliberately seek that inequality, to celebrate it, to reinforce it with the legal system... it's one of these cases where yes, to each his or her own, but there are times when the way you live your life, justify your lifestyle, and portray certain aspects of it as good and desirable, can have a seriously negative effect on the world's perception of things that look similar. ie. This person celebrates her status as a man's property. She sees her marriage as a part of reinforcing that status with the law. That sends the message out to other men that this is something women want - to be owned - and tells other women that being owned and controlled is a good and wonderful thing to be preferred and pursued, and that that is what the law is there for - to help them be owned.
Okay, so there, not exactly succinct but fairly thorough I guess.
PERSON 2: Er...... someone women do, just like some men do. If that is what makes a person happy, so be it. It is when it is FORCED that it becomes a problem.
PERSON 3: I personally feel that marriage is different for everyone I have seen three different forms of marriage just between my parents and their spouses I see this as just another form if marriage not something that is for everything but if it's something to fulfills a person and brings them happiness then it has some good in it just for that but this is only my opinion
MY RESPONSE 2: I'm not arguing with that Tom; as I said, to each their own. In Private.
Marriage is a matter of public life, however. It is a legal contract, which affects more than just the individuals who sign on. Without getting into all the civil bene...fits and obligations which come along with a marriage certificate - I'm going with the assumption that most people who will read this are familiar, perhaps intimately so, with those aspects of marriage since most of us are involved with the pursuance of marriage equality on the queer front - but I can speak to the more subtle effects every marriage has on our overall perspective of marriage. Every couple who makes a public statement about their private life affects the way we all view our own private lives. (In fact, that's kind of what's so threatening about legalizing gay marriage to a lot of people - it causes them to re-evaluate things about their own relationships which they previously got to take for granted or ignore.)
Let me take this another for-example route. Thomas Beatie. A transgender man who decided to get pregnant and have a baby. A private decision to be sure. Except he chose to go public with it. (And that wasn't a "media outing" that was a very deliberate and calculated choice and his and his family's part.) Now, everyone who saw/heard/read about him has that in their mind when they think of transmen. That may even be the only, or primary model they use to evaluate other transmen they encounter from then on. For better or for worse, when we bring our private lives into the public sphere, we affect everyone in the world. That's the nature of the public sphere.
Now to return to this particular case. Although I'm sure Obsidian and namaste's relationship will not be the only example anyone has of a marriage. Nor do I assume that they provide a /bad/ model. Having seen them together, I think they are a beautiful couple and their dynamic just reeks of positive energy. Power to them! However, that dynamic has been the result of very careful negotiation, and the product of a very rare set of cultural, temporal, and personal factors. All we (the ubiquitous anonymous "we") see, however, is these two people, who are in a relationship, called a marriage, in which one person is very explicitly owned and controlled by another. That sends a message. I just wonder how a woman who was owned and enslaved by her husband against her will, upon encountering that, would feel. And how would it affect the countless other relationships looking to model themselves off of something. Furthermore, how does this affect people who are in charge of reforming marriage laws? To see a relationship like this, without understanding its nuances, could potentially reinforce the acceptability of laws which DO define one spouse as the property of another.
Just another example of how this social dynamic works in reality, in case you think I'm overblowing this whole thing. Let's take the acceptability of the word "tranny". I may identify with that word in a positive way, and use it for myself and certain other trans-folk. But I have to be very aware of the context I do that in. If I allow someone who doesn't know who I am, what I've been through, and how I've negotiated my identity, how I relate to the people around me and what /they/ have gone through to reclaim themselves, all they see is me calling a bunch of gender-transgressive people "trannies" and getting away with it. So the person thinks that's okay. They go out, use that word on someone else, trans or not. Now the term is even more out of context, and more people are exposed to it. Someone takes that situation and ends up calling their cross-dressing brother "tranny" as a way of telling him he disapproves of his gender expression. Next thing I know, I've just contributed to the oppression of some of my trans-brothers and sisters without meaning to. That's how these things work. So saying "We are married, and our marriage reinforces my property-status to this man" it just worries me...
I mean, geez, it's Women's History month right now! Just highlights the fact that only a few decades ago, women weren't allowed to have credit, or even their own bank accounts. They WERE property. So my commitment to never letting that happen again just makes me look at this and say "What am I seeing here? Am I seeing one person's unique lifestyle choice and empowerment through civic agreements like marriage licenses? Or do I smell trouble?"
To be continued...?
Readers, your comments are VERY welcome on this subject, PLEASE post if you have anything to say, even if "Aaron STFU you are overthinking this stuff!"
2011-03-02
HR Lecture 7/14 - The Holocaust (Part 1/4)
ANNOUNCEMENTS
>> participate >> http://bit.ly/f84Mls
Stage Reading of 'How To Be Black' by Nick Cains
AUDIO RECORDING OF TODAY'S LECTURE
LINKS FOR TODAY (Wikipedia and Others):
Information about Aung San Suu Kyi
Origins of the term 'Coolie'
Concentration Camps
Dachau
How many passed through? How many died? How did they die? Who were the primary victims of this camp? When did it open? Where was it located? When was it liberated and by whom?
Sachsenhausen
[A related film]
Buchenwald
Neuengamme
Ravensbruch
Flossenbürg
Mauthausen
[more information]
Information about Herschel 'Greenspan'
Kristalnacht
>> participate >> http://bit.ly/f84Mls
Stage Reading of 'How To Be Black' by Nick Cains
AUDIO RECORDING OF TODAY'S LECTURE
LINKS FOR TODAY (Wikipedia and Others):
Information about Aung San Suu Kyi
Origins of the term 'Coolie'
Concentration Camps
Dachau
How many passed through? How many died? How did they die? Who were the primary victims of this camp? When did it open? Where was it located? When was it liberated and by whom?
Sachsenhausen
[A related film]
Buchenwald
Neuengamme
Ravensbruch
Flossenbürg
Mauthausen
[more information]
Information about Herschel 'Greenspan'
Kristalnacht
2011-02-28
Articles [25]
Transit labeling angers transgendered
Posted: 28 Feb 2011
Source: United Press International
Tags: US, Pennsylvania, transgender, public transportation
Posted: 28 Feb 2011
Source: United Press International
Tags: US, Pennsylvania, transgender, public transportation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)