While today, seeing a woman with tattoos isn’t particularly shocking, it was in the 1920s, when she began touring with the freak show. Artoria is an interesting case because she made the choice to join the show. The economy was tough, so Artoria allowed her husband to tattoo her so she could earn a living as a tattooed woman, earning up to $200 per week.
I think this is especially interesting when considering the conversation we had on Thursday about “freaks” taking control of their lives. While the onlookers and the show runners may be exploiting their “freakdom” the freaks take advantage of the looking. Artoria learned to use the culture of looking to her advantage, and was able to make a living through it.
Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) was a French artist who participated in the Dada and Surrealism movements throughout the first half of the 20th century. Marcel Duchamp the painting L.H.O.O.Q. (1919) parodying one of the most famous examples of the female form. In this piece he reimagines Mona Lisa holding distinct masculine characteristics in the image of his own face. From a modern perspective and in following the ideas of Judith Butler, we can interpret these works as a statement on the uncertain and constructed or performative notion of gender and the lack of boundaries in representing ones gender identity. The name of Duchamp’s piece is especially intriguing as it’s a pun on the French pronunciation of its acronym “Elle a chaud au cui” meaning “she is hot in the ass” or “she is sexually aroused.” This was a very strong and poignant statement to make seeing as how stigmatized sexuality, especially female sexuality, was at the time. It is also significant that Duchamp is implying that he himself is becoming sexually aroused at the prospect of being a woman, as it is his face being transcribed onto the work. This plays directly into the examples of drag or cross dressing and the empowerment of performing a gender that was not assigned at birth. It is also important to note that Marcel Duchamp created a female “alter ego” Rrose Sélavy that was often photographed. His works often challenged traditional gender ideals.
In applying ideas of remediation to this piece, we can see how an important cultural landmark is reimagined in the guise of a new piece of media. In order for Duchamp to portray the full impact of this commentary on gender and the way it is perceived, he must remediate something that exists in the classical canon of art. It forces those who view his work to think deeper on their preconceived ideas of both Mona Lisa and other images that they see in their lives. Making the familiar into something unfamiliar is paramount to creating new media and challenging norms.
“I’m not suggesting that “good work” hasn’t been done by white folks in the fight against white supremacy (it has), or that it should stop (it shouldn’t), but we can’t ignore the ways approaching anti-racism work with a white lens is inherently flawed. White people have a sense of entitlement that POC rarely develop, and they bring that entitlement with them everywhere. I believe that’s why so many white allies treat dismantling racism like they’re demanding to speak to the manager at Whole Foods. They want instant gratification, and they want to be credited for the inconvenience. But there is no quick fix to this problem. And if you’re doing this work so you can sleep better at night, I’d ask that you remove yourself from this fight“
I agree with this criticism of SURJ, as someone who has gone to a couple of their workshops when living in the United States. It’s largely white and views racism and racist issues through a white lense. The way in which this oversimplifies how racism manifests is astounding, in thinking that changing the narrative to “all races are equal” and getting all white people on board will solve this problem. Delgado discusses this white egoism, and that’s a major way in which it manifests. Additionally, patting oneself on the back for doing the ‘necessary’ work of creating a safe space for non racist white people is just another nail in the coffin.
What makes you happy? Have you ever wondered why? Join us as we take an experimental approach on what makes people happier. Behind the Scenes of the episode!...
Hello everyone, I wanted to this last post to be something a little different than usual. This post still pertains to leadership and communication as it is unquestionably essential for leaders to recognize and appreciate those around them, but I think this goes for us as people more than anything.
Again, just like my last post, I mentioned how this is a busy time for people, but I suppose it always is for a group like this one, isn’t it? All the more reason that we might get bogged down sometimes with how much is on our plates, and I know how much pressure lots of us put on ourselves to “achieve” and be our “best”. What I really appreciated about this video is that it is a chance for us to depart from “us” and visit what it means to be grateful for others. We all have people who have helped shape who we are, whether that be marketing masters, accounting aces, management maestros, or operations aficionados. Of course our majors don’t define us, but I went on a little bit of an alliteration spree that simply had to continue.
More than that, we all have people in our lives who have enabled us to push through some of our most daunting obstacles. If you watch the video, or choose to reflect on who those people are in your lives, you might start to realize those people don’t hear how much they mean to you as often as they should.
Maybe that’s not the case for all of us, but I thought this was a great opportunity for me to share a reminder about showing gratitude to those who have shaped you, rebuilt you, and strengthened you to be all of the wonderful people I see each and every Thursday. If not for you then for me, tell them how grateful I am to be able to learn from you and laugh with you each week.
I know this is long but I guess who is surprised, really. We’ll have time in class for this I know, but I still want to say thank you to all of you for making up what were easily my favourite classes this year =)
When discussing the different injustices that have occurred against indigenous people, it’s easy to think that these happened far away in places like Ontario where they mad first contact. Or long ago, before any of us were born or were able to speak out against it. The truth is, however, that some things are still happening today right in our own city. While the city of Edmonton and EPCOR itself claim that they did all that they could to avoid the areas in which human remains were found, this point is still heavily up for debate in the Aboriginal community (Dwayne Donald). The structures that lie just outside of the EPCOR fence in Edmonton is that of a circle, which will only be enclosed when EPCOR makes up for the injustices against the Aboriginal people which have been carefully buried by the Alberta government. The injustices? Taking Indigenous remains and dumping them in the North Saskatchewan River (whose real name is the kisiskāciwani-sīpiy) so that they may remain in a place that works the best for them in order to save time and to save money. This all shows the ways in which the government is in need of a serious improvement (or dismantlement) before the offenses can be repaired, which proves that things like the reconciliation bridges are just moves to settler innocence.
If one more person tells me that "all gender is performance," I think I am going to strangle them.
This article, as you can probably see from the title, appears to counter Butler’s main point of gender being performative. When I started reading it, I assumed it would be written by an angry cisgender person, probably male, asserting his confidence in his masculine gender identity. However, I was surprised to find out it was written by a transwoman, Julia Serano, with some very valid points about the reality of gender, its prevalence in society, and how our gendered experiences shape us.
As a cisgender person myself, I have no desire or right to argue with Serano on the points of gender being a performance. It is easy to do so when I have had no trouble with my gender identity, which Serano herself points out many times, reminding cis people to check their privelege when engaging in conversations about the “fictional nature of gender”.
Yet I am forced to remind myself that performance and performativity as Butler describe them are different ideas. Performativity is rarely a conscious action, and so does not serve to invalidate or fictionalise anyone’s gender. In fact, it highlights how our performance of gender roles are based on what we perceive they should be like, which is a circular argument and thus based on no original.
Someone in the comments section phrased it in a way that makes it easier to explain: “Perhaps living doesn’t feel like performance any more for the author, since she is now playing the correct gender role?”
Whatever the answer may be, I feel like this article is an interesting opposition to the assertion of gender being drag, because it comes from the point of view of one who has been forced to perform a gender they did not associate with, and were then accused of performing when they did come out in their true gender. As Serano points out, gender is a complicated mixture of social and biological factors and no one thing can be asserted as its true source. However, it is also important to remember the context in which Butler describes gender to be performative, and the complexity of its constant reiteration and repetition, despite having no original guide.
Standing proudly in the vast Peace River landscape, writer Helen Knott calls on PM Justin Trudeau to protect the rights of Canada's Indigenous population.
I don’t know what I can say that Knott hasn’t already said, in a much more informed and articulate way, but I’d like to share this video anyway. As an international student, I have to stress how very limited my knowledge of indigenous peoples and their issues is, to the point where I don’t feel qualified to even make this post, preferring instead to listen and learn. But having said that, I recognise my position as one of a settler, as one living and studying on stolen land, and the duty I have to educate myself on these issues so immensely saturated within Canadian culture and so central to the progression (or move towards it) of the society; I recognise that in learning I need to be active, and be able to have these discussions.
I have only watched one other collaboration between Savard and Knott, and I feel that they are vastly important works in understanding the injustices faced by Indigenous people, and the need for decolonisation. Unfortunately, as this video shows, the struggle for protection of Indigenous peoples and their rights is still ongoing, let alone the move towards decolonisation beyond the metaphor. In fact, the Site C dam project highlights the continued erasure of Indigenous voices speaking out against the injustices they face, and the continued stealing of their land, despite these protests.
Knott’s brave and powerful delivery emphasises the way settlers continue to exploit and benefit off of colonialism, and that it is not a thing of the past. As I said before, she says it better:
“So if you want real change, you can’t give half-measures and only kind of oppress, only kind of continue to violate treaties, only kind of continue to colonise. So please, don’t promise anything, if you’re not even willing to try”.