So do the Jewish or early Christian sacralized writings actually say
it's all that bad to cross-dress? both ways? and why would the
matter even come up?
Did they have pink rags for girls and blue ones for boys?
Poor Joan, but she probably knew, as we all do, that no governing
authority in history has ever cared about justice, just about
appearances. Including our own today.
And speaking of justice, why is it that homosexuality is said to be
immoral, rather than unjust? I think there's something deeply
revealing in this, and perhaps relevant to xmca's continuing trouble
with figuring out what a concept is.
Personally, I don't believe anything is a concept. It's kind of a
silly notion, frankly. With no disrespect to LSV, who was operating
with the language and ideas available to him. But I think we've
since worked out a little more thoroughly the consequences of
materialism for the deconstruction of the Cartesian divide, and with
it, all things "mental".
Nonetheless, one can ask, are there "moral concepts"? Are they
different from, say, scientific concepts? everyday concepts? Is
"justice" a moral concept? Is it the only moral concept? On what
grounds other than being unjust can something be said to be immoral?
Absent God.
As he seems to have been when Joan was burned alive for her
disobedience to the principle that gender-conforming men alone shall
wield social power and authority.
JAY.
Jay Lemke
Senior Research Scientist
Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition
University of California - San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, California 92093-0506
Professor (Adjunct status 2009-11)
School of Education
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
Professor Emeritus
City University of New York
On Mar 30, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Jenna McWilliams wrote:
Here's a nice analysis of our Great Christian Hero, Joan of Arc, by
recovering Catholic and awesome feminist Sady Doyle. She writes
about her girlhood fascination with Joan of Arc, which led to her
desire to look again at her hero through adult eyes. She writes:
"[W]hat a lot of people don’t realize – what I didn’t realize,
until I read up on it – is that they didn’t actually kill her
for heresy. Her answers, when they tried to trip her up and make
her say or confess something heretical, were typically-yet-
shockingly smart and charismatic and convincing; she did so well,
and won so many people over, that they had to stop questioning her
in front of an audience. What they killed her for was cross-dressing.
As soon as Joan got away from home, Joan started to wear men’s
clothes. It started well before she joined the army. She referred
to herself as “The Maid,” and refused to answer when they asked
her if “she had wanted to be a man,” but the men’s clothes
were very important to her. And she refused to stop wearing them in
prison: She said, at one point, that it was to deter rapists (they
were much harder to take off than women’s clothes, it was harder
to get at her crotch, even aside from the image thing) and at
another point simply that God told her to wear them. She told them
that even if they killed her for it, she couldn’t and wouldn’t
stop cross-dressing. So, so much of the trial and imprisonment was
focused simply on trying to make her stop. At one point,
exasperated, she snapped out at a captor, “give me a woman’s
dress to go to my mother’s house, and I will take it.”
But cross-dressing was against Biblical law. And Joan couldn’t
read. So they got her to sign a paper saying, in part, that she
promised to stop wearing men’s clothes – a paper she could not
read, that most everyone agrees they misrepresented so that she
would sign it – and they shaved her head so that she wouldn’t
have a boy’s haircut, and they stripped her and put her in a
woman’s dress, and then, the next time she dressed like a boy
again, that was when they killed her.
Because she was a bitch: “Master Jean Le Fèvre, doctor of sacred
theology, declared this woman to be obstinate, contumacious,
disobedient.”
Because she was a slut and a queer: “[Her actions] are contrary to
the honesty of womankind, forbidden by divine law, abominable to
God and man, and prohibited under penalty of anathema by
ecclesiastical decrees, such as the wearing of short, tight, and
dissolute male habits… it is notorious that when she was captured
she was wearing a loose cloak of cloth of gold, a cap on her head
and her hair cropped round in man’s style. And in general, having
cast aside all womanly decency, not only to the scorn of feminine
modesty, but also of well-instructed men, she had worn the apparel
and garments of most dissolute men… [This] is blasphemy of Our
Lord and His saints, setting at nought the divine decrees,
infringement of canon law, the scandal of her sex and womanly
decency, the perversion of all modesty of outward bearing, the
approbation and encouragement of most reprobate examples of
conduct.”
Because she thought she was so fucking smart: “Master Denis
Gastinel, licentiate in civil and canon law, gave his opinion in
the following form… ‘[This] woman is scandalous, seditious, and
wanton, towards God, the Church, and the faithful. She takes
herself for an authority, a doctor and a judge.’”
And then they burned her alive."
(full post here: http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/01/09/running-toward-the-gunshots-a-few-words-about-joan-of-ar/)
~~
Jenna McWilliams
Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
~
http://www.jennamcwilliams.com
http://twitter.com/jennamcjenna
~
jenmcwil@indiana.edu
jennamcjenna@gmail.com
On Mar 30, 2011, at 1:39 PM, Jay Lemke wrote:
I thought I should add a bit more here, because in the xmca
context Jenna raised the attention-to-sexualities issue in
relation to learning and learning communities, while in the blog
it's all a bit more about political strategy in relation to the
wider digital media and learning community.
I've recently written a Forum piece for Cultural Studies of
Science Education responding to a paper from two Canadian authors
detailing ideological bias concerning sexualities in a standard
biology textbook. To be published relatively soon.
I made some points there about our educational responsibility to
address students sitting in front of us every day in our
classrooms who otherwise never hear issues of gender complexity
and sexualities addressed anywhere in our rather outdated
curricula. Matters that are of far greater concern to them than
most of what is in our curricula, especially if they don't
identify as normatively heterosexual, and even if they do.
American culture (and we're not the only ones, though among the
worst) is ridiculously reticent about anything concerning
sexuality and is preoccupied with moral anxieties about the
subject. This would be laughably Victorian (including as Foucault
notes the associated hypocrisy relative the the general cultural
obsession with sex) if it weren't for the fact that a lot of young
people are seriously in need of informed intelligent discussion
and sophisticated knowledge about the diversity of real-world
sexualities, as opposed to the reductionist fantasies of one
dominant normative mode and a few marginalized Others.
As I noted in the blog, we are all queer in our sexualities in one
way or another. The number of different sexualities is truly
staggering, sexualities intersect and interact in complex ways
with various aspects of gender identity, social class, age, ethnic
culture, and certainly childhood and adolescent development. How
could they not be critical factors in learning? Even without going
as far as Freud did in seeing sexuality as pervasive throughout
culture (though to some extent he was probably correct in this),
and just as we more or less accept today that pretty much
everything is "gendered" (i.e. stereotypically more associated
with masculine vs feminine identities, themselves entirely
reductionist notions), it follows that these matters are also
sexualized (because sexuality and gender are one system so far as
identity is concerned). In my Forum article I note that Science
(as a cultural phenomenon) and science education (as a
professional identity) are not just masculinized, they are hetero-
normatively masculinized (i.e. in common language, male and
straight).
A biology course that pretends there are only two sexes, in one-to-
one correspondence with two genders, and mentions neither same-sex
activity among numberless nonhuman species, nor the biologically
significant frequency of intersexuals at birth, nor chromosomal
combinations such as XXY and XYY and their phenotypes, nor the non-
reproductive functions of sexual attraction in humans and other
species -- and a host of other matters -- is not preparing
students to deal intelligently with a primary aspect of human
diversity. A history course that omits to mention the non-
normative sexualities of important historical figures (while being
obsessed with every other detail about its Great Men) or the
history of oppression of sexuality minorities is likewise doing a
disservice, first to students who don't feel comfortable with
normative sexualities, and then to every student who lives in a
world filled with sexuality diversity. A literature course that
does not point out how many canonical writers (especially poets
writing in English) had non-normative sexualities, while adducing
every other detail of their lives to "explain" their writings is
disingenuous at least and intellectually fraudulent at worst. But
all this is taken for granted as business as usual in 21st century
"education".
It may already be enough of a leap to require some intellectual
honesty about what we think of most immediately as "non-normative"
sexualities: i.e. gay men and boys and lesbian women and girls.
But what I mean by saying we are all at least a little bit queer
in our sexualities encompasses far more. Non-normative attractions
to those younger or older than we're supposed to desire, to those
fatter or thinner, to those of other races and colors, to those
with physical disabilities or deformities, even in some
communities to those of the wrong religion or social class. And
beyond desires, to modes of expression of sexuality, in dress and
manner, in practices involving the "wrong" kind or degree of
pleasure or pain, flexibility of movement or bondage and
restriction, non-genital sexuality and a whole host else. How can
there not be, in real fact, a queer majority with respect to the
diversity of non-normative feelings, desires, and practices?
And how can our sexualities not be omni-present in the development
of identity, and so in the critical contexts of learning? If this
is not an obvious fact, I think it can only be because for
generations our dominant culture and our academic disciplines have
deliberately refused to pay attention to it.
JAY.
Jay Lemke
Senior Research Scientist
Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition
University of California - San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, California 92093-0506
Professor (Adjunct status 2009-11)
School of Education
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
Professor Emeritus
City University of New York
On Mar 29, 2011, at 9:37 AM, Jenna McWilliams wrote:
Several members of this listserv attended the recent MacArthur
Foundation-sponsored Digital Media & Learning Conference in Long
Beach, California. During and since the conference, I've been
involved in conversations about a notable lack of queer studies-
focused work in this year's program. Some of this conversation is
accessible online, on danah boyd's blog and on mine. (Links: http://www.jennamcwilliams.com/2011/03/28/some-thoughts-on-queering-dml
and http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/03/24/the-politics-of-queering-anything.html.)
Most of the people I've talked with about this issue come from
the "digital media" side of Digital Media & Learning, and I've
been wondering about folks who fall more on the "learning" side
of things. It seems to me that there's a general lack of
attention given to integrating queer studies work with learning
theory and work in educational research, though with a few
(extremely notable) exceptions. I wonder if xmca folks have
thoughts on this issue that might help me figure out the true lay
of the land in this respect.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have. (And, of
course, if you WANTED to visit and comment on my blog and the
conversation I've been having with danah in the comments section
there, I would certainly not be offended by this.)
best to all,
jenna
~~
Jenna McWilliams
Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
~
http://www.jennamcwilliams.com
http://twitter.com/jennamcjenna
~
jenmcwil@indiana.edu
jennamcjenna@gmail.com
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca