Sexuality and Gender

         While, it's not been a subject entirely touched on in either chapter one or two, I do find the inter-generational love between men and boys and how it relates to homosexuality curious. A man in love with a boy, whether companionably  or passionately, is not only taboo but criminal in modern society. While I'm not personally advocating for the rights of pedophiles who harm children, I do think that inter-generational love (whether "gay" or not) is something that should be more accepted in society like it used to be. Given the little history I know about sexuality and the even smaller amount I know about homosexuality I was very surprised to see that a lot of what we assign as history for gay people is also used as support in inter-generational communities. It definitely makes me think about the Catholic Church scandals more critically. Additionally, I wonder what our society would look like if sexuality and preference were more accepted regardless of age group. We know that developmentally, a lot of sexual tendencies manifest earlier. These tendencies and curiosities of childhood often influence our life long preferences. At what age does a person know who they are sexually?
          Chapter two discussed at length the ideas and works of Havelock Ellis, considered to be a pioneer in the scientific study of sexuality. I found myself agreeing with a lot of his ideas and can see how some of his insight can be applied to today. I don't fully buy into the belief that people engage in same-sex behaviors because of accidental absences, but I really did enjoy his connection to prison life. "For example, he writes that '[p]rison life develops and fosters the homosexuality tendency of criminals, but there can be little doubt that that tendency, or else a tendency to sexual indifference or bisexuality, is a radical character of a very large number of criminals" (p.49).  Criminology is a topic of personal interest for me, as well as prison life. Statistically a lot of men engage in same-sex behaviors while serving time. I don't believe that makes a man gay.
          I don't discount Ellis's influence scientifically, but I think with what we know now about gender, sexual practice and desires, and the differences between behavior and identity, that somehow sexologists of yesteryear missed the mark.  Your gender (whether assigned or identified) doesn't make you more prone to homosexuality. Ellis believed that his own love for men was a natural part of him (History II, p. 58) but that homosexual tendencies of women happened as a result of family life, or social pressures. I don't believe you can have it both ways. I also believe you can engage in same sex behaviors, but identify as heterosexual because sexual behaviors are different than emotional and loving connections.

Online Identity

My chosen identity on both sites, was not really something that I considered in terms of what it would imply, or how I wanted to be represented. There is not much listed about me on pbworks, because for me that is the more serious (or formal) of our interactions. As for my ning profile, I wanted to include pictures that I feel best represent the things I am or most care about. I wondered what people would learn about me in a face to face setting, and for me the pictures that reflect that are everyday things. My husband and I have wonderful, smart, amazing, diverse, artistic, and independent children. For me, the way my children are reflect who I am as a parent, which in its own way makes up my identity. I don't know that I've ever considered a label for myself, but if I were to pick one it wouldn't be straight, or gay, or student, or wife, or white, or female. It would be Mom. I feel incredibly blessed for my life and my family, and I look at everything as if it's an adventure.

Reading Analysis: The Ethics of Reading

The argument (simplified), amongst many, is that the ability to become a close reader can in turn make us better listeners, enabling us (the student) to become better learners in our environments. By accomplishing this, we are enabled to challenge ideas and beliefs that either reaffirm or conflict with our ideas of what should be, and ultimately can help us to become more ethical human beings. On page 17 in “The Ethics of Reading” author Jane Gallop summaries this argument with the following, “Reading, by which I now mean close reading, can school for all our close encounters. And then maybe, just maybe, we could learn not only to read better but to fight and love more fairly.”  While this is a statement I neither disagree nor agree with, I did find some of the assumptions and conclusions of the author’s statements troubling and contradictory. 

On the surface what I find troubling about the statement is you need to consider the perspective of the writer as well as the lack of scholarly resources in the chapter. Basic college English teaches you one of the first things to consider are the context in which something is written. I wonder if the arguments would be similar if written from the perspective of a musician or even a different type of teacher. Gallop asserts on page 11, “Thus the most valuable thing you could take from your education is the ability to learn. Close reading is a technique to maximize learning, one with wide application.” While I’m not disagreeing that close learning is a wide application, I don’t know that I give it the same merit as an English professor. I actually think this is some ways devalues the other ways that people learn- visually, auditory, etc.  And that in it of itself is unethical in my opinion, and in a lot of ways turns some students into “other”, the very thing she talks about close reading not doing. 

Additionally, I find arguments like this to be incredibly subjective, which is fine, except that contradicts some of the other statements about being a better, more open minded reader.  The problem with assertive, selfish statements is the lack of available resources to support such an argument.  My central problem with the article is the contradiction. It was repeated throughout the article that most readers are “big picture” kind of readers, while close reading allows you to become a “small details” kind of reader. It also states how we often project our own ideas, thoughts, prejudices and stereotypes into a reading because we look for what it familiar (pgs. 9, 10, 11).

 On page 11, Gallop argues that paying attention to the details can help us to avoid projection. I would propose that the same way general reading can reaffirms those ideas and stereotypes; close reading has the same potential. When learning how to close read you’re trained to look for things that are odd, or different. Is it possible that because you are continually looking for something else or a deeper meaning between the lines that you’re creating something that isn’t there? I don’t know for certain but it makes me think about film critiques. Sometimes movies are meant to purely entertain, and I don’t always believe have a deeper meaning. This can be said about reading as well. The only way to know without a doubt is to hear from the author themselves the context in which something was written.

While I did have issues with the article as a whole, there are some interesting arguments she makes that I did find myself agreeing with, but figured I shouldn't comment on it, because Gallop would just tell me I was "projecting" what I wanted to be there....

Intro

Just a tester for my blog for LGBT 200.

Hello! :)