life and the meantime

In Response

Buckle up, kiddos... I'm about to geek out for a second. I want to write on two topics today. The first is in response to LeLo's comment on "Divorced from Reality," the second is the economic state of Oregon. So, off we go on our adventure....

If you recall in the previous post (Divorced from Reality) I talk about the linguistic (and thus systemic) difference between "hookinng up" and "having sex." LeLo's thoughtful comment sheds light on something I admittedly strayed from: the lesbian picture. While I can't speak directly to the issue of lesbian sexual discourse, I can offer two of my thoughts on it: the first academic, the seond a more personal take on the issue. So, here it is. The academic- If you were to combine a feminist/queer/critical epistemology to this question, a possible response might be that women in general, regardless of sexuality, are unable to challenge the patriarchal system because they lack the needed access to effect change on a systems-level. From a media studies lens, one might offer a possible explanation for this lack of power in what Laura Mulvey identifies as the male gaze. That is, the scope and production of an image for male consumption. I don't think it's possible to attribute this lack of access to one simple factor... rather, I believe it is several systemic nuances that exist in both the cultural and economic sphere, a sort of Venn diagram, if you will. The intersection and consort of these nuances allows the subjugation of a population based on their participation in the given system. But that's all academic nonsense.... I think it's a little different. My take- Imagine two boxes, one larger than the other. Now imagine one growing while the other is shrinking. Imagine a woman in the larger of the two boxes, and the man in the smaller. Douglas Kellner calls this the exploration of the bounds of sexuality. So, my take... I think that lesbians are in a unique and troubling situation. Unique because they do not typically have access to systemic power. By this I am speaking in the sexual vernacular. Here's what I mean: For two men or a man and woman the act of penetration can take place "naturally," (without aide). That is, one partners sex organs can penetrate the other partner. In a lesbian context, there are no external sex organs (breasts are not included in "sex" organs because they do not function in the role of reproduction) that have the ability to penetrate, and thus aides must be used. If, in a patriarchal system sexual power/prowess is defined by ones ability to penetrate multiple partners, then lesbians are systemically excluded from this model of power. Therefore, lesbians are in a unique situation because of their ability to explore sexual boundaries more freely based on Kellner's model. One major criticism I offer of Kellner's "box" model is that it is predicated on the assumption of dichotomous spectrums of gender and sexuality... which is why I refer to lesbians' positions as unique: from a critical/queer perspective they are the most well suited to challenge the system of dichotomous patriarchy because they are precisely poised in opposition to it. Hailing back to the 1970's feminist reclaimationist philosophies, I believe lesbians who engage in the sexual vernacular of creating discourse have the ability to reshape that discourse. This is why I refer to their position as troubling. Not to me personally, but culturally. Because of the deep-rooted and closely held assumptions of "the way things are" and "the way things should be," lesbians' position in this context challenge the status quo. They are diametrically opposed to the gender and sexual dichotomies and thus are best poised to challenge them... thus the troubling nature of their spot. I make no judgements about this topic, because I'm not a lesbian, and I can't presume to speak from a lesbian experience. I can, however, offer my thoughts for discussion on something I think has great value in discussing in popular discourse.


And now my second topic: Oregon's economy. I promise to keep this one short because the last tirade wore me out a little bit...

It seems that the people/legislators/businesses of Oregon want to improve the economy. Who doesn't? August 2005's unemployment rate was at 7.5% while the national average is 5.4%. But I've been thinking on this one, and I've noticed a few troubling trends coming from the state. 1) We want to fully fund higher education in Oregon in order to provide access to as many Oregonians as possible. 2) We want to create a positive business climate in Oregon to attract more business. Problem 1- Attract more multinational corporations who employ a lot of people. Because Oregon's system of higher ed is lacking (at best), they go outside the state, and sometimes the country in order to attract the best talent, thus pushing Oregon's graduates into low-wage, low-status, low-mobility jobs, or even worse, pushing them out of the state all together. What's the solution? I've got no idea: what I do know is that "anti-business" DOES NOT equal "pro-education" and vice versa. We need to attract businesses that will hire Oregon's graduates because they are the best in the region, this means developing more completely the regional economic drivers rather than attracting new industries that Oregon's institutions of higher learning aren't capable of supplying. Okay, that's it. Food for thought.


Love and peace

posted by Alaska @ 3:22 PM