At Peter's urging, I will now write something that I do not have to stress about being marked on.
Relief surges through me.
Second term is all but done. Exams begin in about 4 weeks (though mine begin in about 6), and essays are coming due fast and furious.
Continuing on from last term are The Age of Elizabeth I (16th century literature) and 18th Century Literature. I'm still enjoying both, but coming to the end of the year I'm getting that feeling of having had enough of both. Same thing happened with my full year courses last year. I will miss them once they're gone, as I'm enjoying the material and the professors. But onwards and upwards, right?
As for the half year courses this term, it's a mixed bag. Critical Approaches to Literature continues to have a fantastic reading list. Nabokov's Pale Fire, Art Spiegelman's Maus I and II, Puig's Kiss of the Spider Woman. Great books. I'm just not sold on the professor. One thing that this second year back to school has taught me is that the pedagogical styles of professors varies vastly. There's something about her way of lecturing that I don't like. I suppose it couldn't happen that I'd enjoy all of my professors equally. I feel bad writing it, because she appears genuinely friendly when I see her in the hallways, but I get kind of a stand-offish vibe when she's lecturing. I think that I am finding this course a bit basic because I've covered much of the material in other classes already. A few people I've talked to about the class share the feeling that it ought to be a prerequisite for entering some of the upper year courses that deal with the kind of theory that this is an introduction to. I'll have to remember to write that on the end of term evaluation.
My non-English course this term is Aesthetics, a philosophy class. It's interesting, but I'm beginning to realize just how little it's going to have to do with what I want to go on with in my education. I suppose it's good to branch out, see what else is going on out in the world of the academy (witness Anthropology last term), but I'm getting to the point where unless it has something specifically to do with what I'm interested in, I'm not interested in it. Obvious, moi? Still, a decent course, gets the mind working, and the professor is fascinating to listen to. He talks like one of these professors who do PBS lectures. You can't help but listen to him. As an added bonus, his name is Barry Allen. (You get an A+ if you can tell me why that's a bonus. And no Google-ing!)
The course I'm having the most trouble with is Theories of Gender and Sexuality. The articles we're reading are interesting. The novels we're reading are extremely well-written. But, as with Postcolonial Cultures last year, I'm feeling like I'm the bad guy. The only time that white, ostensibly straight males are mentioned is as a force of opposition or subjugation. I understand why. I really do. There are voices of genders and sexualities that have been subjugated for centuries, and it is vital to our growth as an intelligent culture that they be heard. I'm interested in hearing the female perspective, or the queer perspective, or the trans-person perspective. But I'm also interested in hearing the contemporary hetero-male perspective. Surely there are men out there who are rethinking what it is to be a heterosexual male in a society where we've been the oppressors for hundreds of years. Isn't it important for us to have a voice to join with these other voices? I've never oppressed a woman, or a gay man, or a gay woman, or a transexual, but I'm not given a place in this new theoretical framework of gender because people who bore a superficial resemblance to me were assholes for a few centuries? I don't get it, and I don't think it's fair. Tara was listening to a woman on CBC to other day who runs a company founded on feminist principles (I don't remember exactly what it was, but that's not the point). Apparently there was a big stink raised by her hiring a man into a position of power in this company. She came on the radio and said it was ridiculous to be angry about this, that feminism wasn't looking for superiority, but equality, and that of course she hired the guy, because he was the best person for the job. That makes sense to me.
Bah. This class makes me angry. The ideas about sex and marriage and men that I'm getting from it are infuriating. Last week the professor even asked what the difference between a prostitute who asks for money for sex and a wife who gets a present and is expected to provide sex is. Ridiculous. I know she was thinking critically, and that that's what I'm training to do, but come on.
I'm also not sure, but whenever I've gone to talk to the prof in this class, I get the impression that she doesn't like me. I may be reading too much into it. I'll be glad when the class is done. I don't like finishing it and going home feeling angry and put upon.
So there. That's my second term. I'm looking into classes for next year and I've decided I'm done with the cultural studies as much as I possibly can be. I'm only looking at taking literature courses next year (19th c., American Lit., Shakespeare). My 4th year seminar selection is also coming up in a couple of weeks. That'll be cool. Smaller classes, no exams. And I'm planning, as one of my 4th year courses, to do an Honours Thesis. 15-page paper based around something I'm interested in. Looking forward to it.
Many of my friends at school are applying to grad school this year, or moved on to it last year. I'm feeling impatient and left behind. I know I still have more to learn in my undergrad classes, but it really feels like the really interesting stuff is kept for graduate work. I want to get on to the really interesting stuff.
That enough of an update for you, Pete?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Four posts for the whole of third year; seems like school gets harder and busier as you go on :)
We could take the whining about the travails of being a heterosexual male a little more seriously if you didn't still have pix of "sexy AD&D chix" online. Just a hint.
I'm not sure it's whining. I think that it's valid to be upset that my particular choice of gender and sexuality was not addressed in a course about gender and sexuality. It wasn't called "Theories of Gender and Sexuality that are Alternative to Heteronormative white Maleness." Regardless of how much history has been dominated by that particular mindset, it is still a valid perspective on life, and ought to be theorized about and evolved. And you'll note I said "ostensibly straight." I myself would describe myself more as bisexual, but there was no mention of that either. I realize that a class can't cover everything, but this class covered very much what it meant to be a woman, a transexual, a mother, a black woman, a lesbian, or a feminine gay man. It was not a course in Theories of Femininity, but in sexuality. And male heterosexuality and bisexuality are included in that. I am not the only one "whining" about it. Many of the women I was in class with were interested in masculinity, but it was never addressed.
(And your use of the word whining belies contempt that I find detrimental to a meaningful discussion. I wasn't whining. Be careful of the aspersions you cast at people you don't know, "Anonymous.")
As for the AD&D site, you'll have to chalk it up to nostalgia. As I said, that was my first exposure to female sexuality, regardless of the lens through which it was skewed. Those pictures aside, when we played the game, our female characters were always every bit as capable as the males, and never dressed in chainmail bikinis. You can't stop a +2 Longsword with a chainmail bikini.
Post a Comment