Intellectual Experience Post 1

History of Feminism in Philosophy Lectures

Source: Oxford Philosophy Department

Dr. Pamela Sue Anderson is a brilliant philosopher and I had the honor of attending her lectures on the History of Feminism in Philosophy.  These lectures were the first feminism lectures in the history of Oxford according to Dr. Anderson.

The first lecture in the 8 week series set up the definitions for not only the waves of feminism in philosophy but a few different types of feminism. In this context, we used the publication of Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792 as the beginning of the first wave of feminism. The publication of Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex in 1949 marked the beginning of the second wave. We used a less firm date for the beginning of the third wave of feminism leaving the date at either 1974 with either Luce Irigaray's Speculum of the Other Woman  or bell hooks' Ain't I a Woman in 1981. Along with waves of feminism there are different types of feminism including liberal, radical, Marxist, and Post-structuralist.

To quote bell hooks, "Feminism is for everybody."

This has been the hardest post to write because Dr. Anderson's seminars were incredibly complex and covered a vast amount of material. I was also there sitting in awe of the great minds around me including my tutor and Dr. Anderson.

Feminism is not a dirty word and feminism is only guilty of trying to make the world a better place. 

Intellectual Experience Post 2

       Source: University of Sheffield

While studying feminist theory, my tutor encouraged me to attend an event with Philosopher Miranda Fricker from the University of Sheffield.  Dr. Fricker talked about blame. I was a little out of my league with this discussion, but I think I got the gist of the talk.

One of the points that struck me were aspects of appropriate blame. She outlined several aspects such as  "expectations should be reasonable", and "strength of blame must be proportional to fault". I find these parameters logical, but when I'm upset with someone, there is very little logic involved--I'm wrapped up in emotion. One thing I learned this term is the importance of awareness, but I get frustrated (speaking of emotion) because I like things to move fast and awareness seems like a slow part of the process of change.

I do agree with Fricker that blame can be constructive when asserted properly, but I disagree that appropriate blame is entirely possible because of the emotions involved especially in the heat of the moment. When I'm driving, especially when I'm alone, I yell at the other drivers who do dumb things. I blame them for not using a turn signal, not going any where close the speed limit, and for cutting me off among other sins. Is my blame appropriate? Probably not, but is it still inappropriate if i'm the only one that knows I'm blaming them - I'm not one to use the horn or get out of my car and yell at someone. Is the ultimate goal to get to a point where I'm not yelling at the person in front of me?

Bibliography

Fricker, Miranda "What's the Point of Blame?" February 2013

"Miranda Fricker" University of Sheffield Department of Philosophy.  http://www.shef.ac.uk/philosophy/prospectivepostgraduates/rtm

Intellectual Experience Post 3

The International Gender Studies Centre based at Lady Margaret Hall hosts weekly seminars. Since one of my tutors was associated with the Centre, she encouraged me to attend the seminars. The last lecture I attended was given by Dr. Kirsten McConnachie.

Dr. McConnachie discussed gender in the Thai-Burma border refugee camps among the Karen people. She discussed gender-based violence (GBV) and the mechanisms in place to deal with GBV. One aspect that I took to heart was the courage the survivors of sexual violence must have to pursue a case against their attackers. Part of the process is going to Thai courts and that is no small thing. Along with going to Thai courts the survivor must take the initial step of reporting what happened to someone that can help. Though the support systems exist, there is only so much confidentiality that can exist in such a densely populated area where everyone knows everyone's business. It's hard enough for survivors here in the US to report sexual violence and there is more confidentiality.

Changing rape culture is no small feat. I know too many survivors of sexual violence. Even one is too many. Education and awareness are key parts of any process of change (even if I think that's too slow it's still important). One study Dr. McConnachie cited, included a question to the young people if it was ok for a man to force a woman to have sex with him as long as he loved her. The majority of the young people said yes that was ok.

We still live in a world where there are people that think sexual violence is ok. I do support education and awareness as well as understanding. Survivors should be supported, not judged as if it was their fault. This cycle needs to end--we need to end sexual violence because expecting everyone to know that it isn't ok isn't working.

Bibliography

"Kirsten McConnachie" http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/people/academic-staff/kirsten-mcconnachie

"Protecting Refugee Women: Local/Global Relationships on the Thai-Burma Border" Dr. Kirsten McConnachie, 28 February 2013.

Tutorial Post 2

Tutorial Post 2

In my history course, I had the exhilarating opportunity to explore the history of women's colleges at Oxford. Lady Margaret Hall (LMH) was the first women's college followed by Sommerville and eventually St. Hugh's, St. Anne's, and St. Hilda's. St. Hilda's was a single-sex school until 2008. I started my study with a tour of the women's colleges led by my tutor, which is probably the first reason I found the topic as exciting as I did, but I also attended a single-sex high school making the topic personally relevant. Alumni from the different former women's colleges range from Margaret Thatcher to Vera Brittain of Sommerville to Aung Sun Suu Kyi at St. Hugh's and Benazir Bhutto from LMH. One aspect of the former women's colleges that I found most intriguing were the precautions that each college took to protect their female students.

The street sign for the road LMH is on

According to a book about St. Hugh's, there were chaperones, housing with special rules, and naturally a dress code (Griffin, P., 1986). I cannot imagine having such strict controls over my life as a college woman. I am an adult and should be recognized as such by my academic institution not treated as incapable of making my own decisions. Things have changed drastically since the early days of women's education at Oxford, but even after examining women's history and feminist theory, some of these ideas about "protecting women" just seem utterly ridiculous.

How do we learn from these strict regulations that women had to live with? How did those rules and regulations serve the women during those times? What regulations are in place in our lives and how "ridiculous" will some of them look to someone fifty to one-hundred years from now?

Bibliography

Griffin, P. St. Hugh's: 100 year's of Women's Education at Oxford. London: MacMillan, 1986.

Tutorial Post 1

Tutorial Post 1



All of my tutorials stretched my mind and challenged my way of thinking about the world. There was one theory tutorial that hit closest to home in regards to challenging my worldview. In week 5, we covered Lesbian Feminism. I read Judith Butler's "Critically Queer" her book Bodies that Matter, Monique Wittig's "Straight Mind" in her book The Straight Mind, and Adrienne Rich''s essay "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." Butler and Wittig discuss language and how the world is trapped in a hetero-centric language that controls us and prevents us from moving forward. This reminded me of Mary Daly who, in Beyond God the Father, discusses the importance of living on the boundary and challenging everything because even the most basic things further patriarchy like language. I spent my whole day contemplating our discussion, which focused on sexuality as a spectrum. Sexuality is a spectrum, but language is so hetero-centric and focused on binaries that language fails to accurately describe the sexuality's fluidity. 

We are trapped with these labels "heterosexual," "homosexual," "lesbian," "gay," "straight," bisexual" and "asexual." There is so much fluidity in this thing that we are forcing into boxes - as if it is some sort of shirt we can fold and put in a box rather than something more akin to the ocean or the wind. Even that is not an accurate metaphor because sexuality is not predictable or clearly caused by any one thing.

How do we move past this language problem? How do we change something so fundamental? How do we describe the indescribable? What would a new language look like? Is a world where individuals are simply attracted to other individuals enough? I doubt Daly, Butler, Rich or Wittig would accept the idea of one individual attracted to another individual, but I think it's a start for changing the way we function in the world.

Lecture Post 2



The UK's had things mostly right since the 1960s. In 1968, homosexual sex was legal--it took the United States until 2003 when the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. 

In the 1950s, one member of the House of Lords was arrested and put on trial for violating the law banning homosexual sex. Edward John Barrington, Douglas-Scott-Montagu was in his late-twenties. The public believed that the legal proceedings were not reasonable and along with the Wolfenden committee led directly to the legalization of consensual sex between adults regardless of gender (Standard). Granted the age of consent was 21 for homosexual sexual activity and only allowed in private, which excluded hotels. Oddly enough, more people were prosecuted after 1968 because the police did not like the law. 

It has taken more steps in the UK to "legalize gay" as the catch phrase goes, but the steps started earlier.   Now same-sex marriage is legal in the UK. The United States seems to be moving toward legalizing marriage as the latest polls show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. The ABC news-Washington Post Poll, puts support at 58% in support of same-sex marriage (Same-Sex Marriage Poll). Americans are slow on the up take and are behind the UK, but although it has taken several decades the US is moving slightly faster now. Homosexual sex is legal and same-sex marriage is legal in a few states and is becoming more and more accepted. 

One thought about why Europe is much more accepting of homosexuality and has been is because of continental philosophy, which is much more liberal than American philosophy. Continental philosophy includes Simone de Beauvoir and The Second Sex. The US is dominated in part by religious extremism and conservative thought. 

How do we keep moving forward and broadening our American perspectives? 

Bibliography

"Poll tracks Dramatic Rise in support for Gay Marriage" http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/poll-tracks-dramatic-rise-in-support-for-gay-marriage/

"Lord Montagu on the court case which ended the legal persecution of homosexuals" 
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lord-montagu-on-the-court-case-which-ended-the-legal-persecution-of-homosexuals-6597923.html

Lecture Post 1

Is it better to have a meritocracy or a political system when it comes to executive appointments?

In the US, the best of the best can be appointed to executive leadership where as in the UK members of Parliament are the ones chosen for executive leadership. Are people better served by generalists who know the political system or specialists in the field? 

In the USA, Timothy Geithner was appointed to be Treasury Secretary. Geithner was  He faced many challenges in trying to get his agenda through the political system. Eventually, he was able to chip away and get some of his agenda passed. He had served in various other political positions before becoming Treasury Secretary all relating to economics and finances he just did not have the political muscle that some members of Congress might have had. Geithner has since been replaced by Jacob Lew who is more familiar with the budget as he worked at the Office of Management and Budget along with several other positions after working for Citigroup.  (http://www.treasury.gov/about/Pages/Secretary.aspx)

In the UK, there are the MPs with political influence and experience in Parliament. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, is an MP. Cameron has experience at various levels of government and has done some media work according to his biography on number10.gov.uk. Nick Clegg, the deputy PM, has been an academic and done business consulting (number10.gov.uk).  Though they have political experience, they have done more than work in and for Parliament.

Does having political muscle necessarily mean the best for the people? Is knowledge of the area more important? Is there a way to have both?

Bibliography

"Timothy Geithner" http://www.biography.com/people/timothy-geithner-391494?page=1
"Jacob Lew" http://www.treasury.gov/about/Pages/Secretary.aspx
"David Cameron" http://www.number10.gov.uk/the-coalition/prime-minister-david-cameron-biography/
"Nick Clegg" http://www.number10.gov.uk/the-coalition/deputy-prime-minister-nick-clegg-biography/