A little late today, because I couldn't find anything that struck my fancy, until I stumbled on this little gem.
Wolfe+585, Senior
Okay, so there's this guy who was born near Hamburg, Germany. He's got the longest personal name ever used. His full name is...Adolph Blaine Charles David Earl Frederick Gerald Hubert Irvin John Kenneth Lloyd Martin Nero Oliver Paul Quincy Randolph Sherman Thomas Uncas Victor William Xerxes Yancy Zeus Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorffvoralternwarengewissenhaftschaferswessenschafewarenwohlgepflegeundsorgfaltigkeitbeschutzenvonangreifendurchihrraubgierigfeindewelchevoralternzwolftausendjahresvorandieerscheinenwanderersteerdemenschderraumschiffgebrauchlichtalsseinursprungvonkraftgestartseinlangefahrthinzwischensternartigraumaufdersuchenachdiesternwelchegehabtbewohnbarplanetenkreisedrehensichundwohinderneurassevonverstandigmenschlichkeitkonntefortplanzenundsicherfreuenanlebenslanglichfreudeundruhemitnichteinfurchtvorangreifenvonandererintelligentgeschopfsvonhinzwischensternartigraum, Senior.
A full translation can be found near the end of the article, which is rather amusing. Unsurprisingly, he grew up to become a typesetter.
Share & Enjoy!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
George Will and His Fashion Crusade
My friend and divining rod for everything that pisses me off, Warren, posted this link on Facebook last week. Unsurprisingly, I couldn't wait until all my weekly obligations were fulfilled to write about it here so, naturally, I put it off for a week. I'll try to restrain myself, but...
My initial reaction was to start with a cleverly subtle critique like "George Will is an asshole." However, when I forced myself to really reflect on why this article frustrated me so, I realized that the most irritating thing is to wonder how George Will manages to get paid (by a highly respected national newspaper, no less) to write this piece of crap which, although largely opinion, is based on some very basic fallacies.
His main and most general point is that wearing jeans all the time is wrong because they are either misappropriated or childish. This means that, in George F. Will's mind, there is some essential immutable quality that jeans possess that ascribes a certain meaning to their wearers. Why don't senators wear togas, because I feel that that is the most appropriate attire for democratic debate. You see, the roles people occupy in society are reflected by the clothes they wear, but those roles and the rules of fashion which signify them change all the time.
Then, the whole "don't blame Levi Strauss" craziness started. To George Will, there's something wrong with hippies and cubicle-workers wearing jeans (Fridays only for the cubicle slaves) when they were originally invented for burly frontiersmen who were panning for gold. Again, the togas thing. Original function means nothing, especially since his argument is about fashion, not utility.
And another thing...I take some offense at the implication that video games and cartoons are inherently childish. Just because most of the examples of video games and cartoons from the past are just for fun and are geared towards younger people doesn't mean that there's anything inherently "childish" about the medium itself. Also, neither of these things make something childish. Why, when something is just for fun, must it be childish? I will not feel bad when I am still playing video games at 50, because they're fun. I like to have fun. Doesn't George Will?
My initial reaction was to start with a cleverly subtle critique like "George Will is an asshole." However, when I forced myself to really reflect on why this article frustrated me so, I realized that the most irritating thing is to wonder how George Will manages to get paid (by a highly respected national newspaper, no less) to write this piece of crap which, although largely opinion, is based on some very basic fallacies.
His main and most general point is that wearing jeans all the time is wrong because they are either misappropriated or childish. This means that, in George F. Will's mind, there is some essential immutable quality that jeans possess that ascribes a certain meaning to their wearers. Why don't senators wear togas, because I feel that that is the most appropriate attire for democratic debate. You see, the roles people occupy in society are reflected by the clothes they wear, but those roles and the rules of fashion which signify them change all the time.
Then, the whole "don't blame Levi Strauss" craziness started. To George Will, there's something wrong with hippies and cubicle-workers wearing jeans (Fridays only for the cubicle slaves) when they were originally invented for burly frontiersmen who were panning for gold. Again, the togas thing. Original function means nothing, especially since his argument is about fashion, not utility.
And another thing...I take some offense at the implication that video games and cartoons are inherently childish. Just because most of the examples of video games and cartoons from the past are just for fun and are geared towards younger people doesn't mean that there's anything inherently "childish" about the medium itself. Also, neither of these things make something childish. Why, when something is just for fun, must it be childish? I will not feel bad when I am still playing video games at 50, because they're fun. I like to have fun. Doesn't George Will?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
PCA/ACA Conference: Day 3
I know, I know. Late post, blah blah blah. This one will be a little shorter because I went to more sessions which were outside my normal area of interest and I didn't feel like taking notes that I would understand later. In fact, I only have one paper to report on, then I'll move on to the conference as a whole.
“Beyond the Gaze: Eroticization and Identification with Lara Croft”
This was in the first Undergraduate session I attended and I was really glad I did. The only difference I saw, despite rumors indicating otherwise, was that the presenters were more timid and it was more like seeing a paper being read in class. More on this below. The first half of this paper, given by a student from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, was rather trite and went over all the ways in which the creators of the Tomb Raider series objectified women by making Lara Croft so sexy. She talked about how her identity is "obscured" because her face is rarely shown. However, this is a convention of third-person shooters and not intended to rob Lara of personality. She moved on to the curious phenomenon of Tomb Raider, being one of the first and certainly the most successful video game with a female protagonist, that is the user (almost always male) having control over the female avatar. This was more interesting because it conjured issues of "agency" which is a major subject of scrutiny in feminist theory. However, she still had a curious way of framing everything as abuse towards the character, as if exploiting a cheat code to make Lara Croft naked was equivalent to forcing a live woman to be naked. Finally, she questioned the kind of role-model Lara is with her body type and exploits being so unrealistic. For the most part, this paper made me question a lot of stock American Studies and feminist jargon. In general, I agree with the vague assertion that Lara Croft objectifies women, but if the only way to not do that is to give the player a realistic idea of what being a woman in our society is like, then it won't be in the form of a video game because earning 75 cents to the dollar in middle management isn't very action-packed.
I had a vague idea of writing some sort of wrap-up for the conference here. It's hard to say how I feel about it, seeing, as I do now, through the haze of retrospect. I don't know if I had any concrete expectations going into it, though I suppose if I did, then they probably weren't met. As I said back in the "Day Zero" post (linked above), I've spent a lot of time crusading for the kind of things that would've allowed me to present at this conference and I was happy to have other people who were more interested in doing it than I was. After it became clear that there would have been nothing to stop me from presenting had I just submitted an abstract to a different area, I became increasingly uninterested in the issue. Getting to just chill out and absorb information at the various sessions had its own perks, including many ideas for future blog posts. In the end, the conference just made me start thinking about my own future.
The real kick in the old crotch in this regard, though, was Facebook-friending a grad student from Delaware, who had given a rather brilliant paper on Stephen King's The Dark Tower series, and finding out that she was born in 1986 as well. I know, I transferred and only started in American Studies in my fifth year, and I'm cool with all that, but having been in a place where some people, at least, clearly valued the kind of work she's doing so much as to exclude the lowly work I'm doing made the difference seem that much greater. In the end, I'm grateful for the experience and New Orleans is always a treat.
“Beyond the Gaze: Eroticization and Identification with Lara Croft”
This was in the first Undergraduate session I attended and I was really glad I did. The only difference I saw, despite rumors indicating otherwise, was that the presenters were more timid and it was more like seeing a paper being read in class. More on this below. The first half of this paper, given by a student from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, was rather trite and went over all the ways in which the creators of the Tomb Raider series objectified women by making Lara Croft so sexy. She talked about how her identity is "obscured" because her face is rarely shown. However, this is a convention of third-person shooters and not intended to rob Lara of personality. She moved on to the curious phenomenon of Tomb Raider, being one of the first and certainly the most successful video game with a female protagonist, that is the user (almost always male) having control over the female avatar. This was more interesting because it conjured issues of "agency" which is a major subject of scrutiny in feminist theory. However, she still had a curious way of framing everything as abuse towards the character, as if exploiting a cheat code to make Lara Croft naked was equivalent to forcing a live woman to be naked. Finally, she questioned the kind of role-model Lara is with her body type and exploits being so unrealistic. For the most part, this paper made me question a lot of stock American Studies and feminist jargon. In general, I agree with the vague assertion that Lara Croft objectifies women, but if the only way to not do that is to give the player a realistic idea of what being a woman in our society is like, then it won't be in the form of a video game because earning 75 cents to the dollar in middle management isn't very action-packed.
I had a vague idea of writing some sort of wrap-up for the conference here. It's hard to say how I feel about it, seeing, as I do now, through the haze of retrospect. I don't know if I had any concrete expectations going into it, though I suppose if I did, then they probably weren't met. As I said back in the "Day Zero" post (linked above), I've spent a lot of time crusading for the kind of things that would've allowed me to present at this conference and I was happy to have other people who were more interested in doing it than I was. After it became clear that there would have been nothing to stop me from presenting had I just submitted an abstract to a different area, I became increasingly uninterested in the issue. Getting to just chill out and absorb information at the various sessions had its own perks, including many ideas for future blog posts. In the end, the conference just made me start thinking about my own future.
The real kick in the old crotch in this regard, though, was Facebook-friending a grad student from Delaware, who had given a rather brilliant paper on Stephen King's The Dark Tower series, and finding out that she was born in 1986 as well. I know, I transferred and only started in American Studies in my fifth year, and I'm cool with all that, but having been in a place where some people, at least, clearly valued the kind of work she's doing so much as to exclude the lowly work I'm doing made the difference seem that much greater. In the end, I'm grateful for the experience and New Orleans is always a treat.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
PCA/ACA Conference: Day 2
Alright, the new deadline for reports of a day’s sessions is the following morning, because I’m finding it hard to churn them out at 11 o’clock at night. Again, lots to talk about, so let’s get to it.
“’Hi, I’m a Mac and I’m Aristotle’: How the Ancient Rules of Rhetoric Influence the Mac Vs. PC Advertisements” and “iRhetorics: The ‘I’m a Mac, I’m a PC’ Campaign”
The first and last sessions I attended yesterday contained papers on the rhetoric in the “Get a Mac” advertising campaign. Both made pretty similar points, so I’ve combined them here. In short, both speakers confirmed that the commercial spots utilize classic Aristotelian rhetoric. The person representing the Mac (Justin Long) never belittles or insults the person representing the PC (John Hodgman). In fact, he takes a very Platonic and Socratic role, seeming to help the PC along in a way which, ultimately, reveals the flaws in his arguments and design. I spent a lot of these sessions thinking about the effectiveness of these ads. Clearly, they are very popular (and thus effective) and I think this is because of the simplistic nature of the ads which is partly because of the classic rhetoric. Additionally, Mac starts on inherently unequal ground because Mac is selling computers whereas “PC” is selling an operating system. The “Get a Mac” ads are directed at Windows, not Dell, HP, IBM or any of the other companies that make the actual hardware on which Windows runs. Remember that the next time you see “Get a Mac” advertisement. There aren’t many like this, but if they are talking about the short comings of hardware, they’re no longer targeting Windows.
“Spectacular Trash or Feminist Sport? The Mixed Messages of and Responses to Women’s Roller Derby”
This paper was right up my alley, so to speak, owing to my affinity for Roller Derby, thanks for which goes to my sister who first exposed me to the sport. I was glad to actually hear some new researched information (as opposed to analysis). I learned that Roller Derby started during the Depression and was originally just a race around a track featuring both men and women (the presenter didn’t say if there were separate leagues). Then, during World War II it became female-only, and this is the first time that reviews started calling it a “legitimate sport.” The first images many of us have of the beginnings of Roller Derby are of the televised leagues in the 70s which were more similar to pro wrestling. This was due to the influence of the shows’ producers trying to salvage poor ratings by scripting much of the action. Then, of course, the sport died out only to be resurrected as the semi-third-wave-feminist sport we all know and love. The speaker went over many criticisms of modern Roller Derby, but many of them boil down to the question of whether these women are merely a spectacle akin to mud wrestling. First, it's important to note that all televised sports are inherently a spectacle to some extent. Additionally, though, anyone who has been roller skating knows that this sport requires real athletic prowess. The ‘spectacle’ part of Roller Derby is a semi-parodic way of being able to question, enforce, destabilize, and poke fun at the norms of both femininity and feminism. Finally, the speaker asserted that Roller Derby is “not an imitation of men’s sports” but rather an arena wherein women can redefine athletic competition and teamwork instead of merely fitting in to sports which were created by men and in which men dominate. Also the athletes tend to fill the trope of the "unruly woman" and this persona, says some writer I don't remember, "breaks the unwritten rule that women should not make spectacles of themselves, and allows these women to gain back their ability to desire." I’ll probably write more about Roller Derby at a later date because I could go on forever.
“Wall-E Exploits Twentieth Century Sci-Fi Traditions”
More Wall-E! Everyone is doing a paper on Wall-E this year and this was the first I saw that actually expressed clear dissatisfaction with the film. The speaker did make it clear that she enjoyed the movie very much, but she also said that the ending almost ruined it for her entirely (the award-winning credit sequence saved it for her). Before I go on, although I feel that the ending of Wall-E cannot be “ruined” by knowing what happened because the satisfaction comes from seeing the whole film, I will say that I will be talking about the end of the movie and am therefore issuing a Spoiler Alert. Her basic problem with the ending was that it was too unrealistic and simple (the word ‘facile’ may have been said about a million times), even for a children’s movie. That these large, unhealthy and baby-like humans who seem to have almost no grasp of farming would never survive on an Earth which is still mostly ruined. She also drew many parallels to both Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Personally, I couldn’t help but think of Star Wars which, as my roommate said (I think), draws a lot criticism from sci-fi fans because it is actually a space opera and that the ‘sci’ part takes a backseat. Similarly, Wall-E is, to me, a story about love which also explores what it means to be human and thus the science takes a backseat and tends to be a little stretched or inaccurate. Even a great movie can’t be great in every way.
“’Hi, I’m a Mac and I’m Aristotle’: How the Ancient Rules of Rhetoric Influence the Mac Vs. PC Advertisements” and “iRhetorics: The ‘I’m a Mac, I’m a PC’ Campaign”
The first and last sessions I attended yesterday contained papers on the rhetoric in the “Get a Mac” advertising campaign. Both made pretty similar points, so I’ve combined them here. In short, both speakers confirmed that the commercial spots utilize classic Aristotelian rhetoric. The person representing the Mac (Justin Long) never belittles or insults the person representing the PC (John Hodgman). In fact, he takes a very Platonic and Socratic role, seeming to help the PC along in a way which, ultimately, reveals the flaws in his arguments and design. I spent a lot of these sessions thinking about the effectiveness of these ads. Clearly, they are very popular (and thus effective) and I think this is because of the simplistic nature of the ads which is partly because of the classic rhetoric. Additionally, Mac starts on inherently unequal ground because Mac is selling computers whereas “PC” is selling an operating system. The “Get a Mac” ads are directed at Windows, not Dell, HP, IBM or any of the other companies that make the actual hardware on which Windows runs. Remember that the next time you see “Get a Mac” advertisement. There aren’t many like this, but if they are talking about the short comings of hardware, they’re no longer targeting Windows.
“Spectacular Trash or Feminist Sport? The Mixed Messages of and Responses to Women’s Roller Derby”
This paper was right up my alley, so to speak, owing to my affinity for Roller Derby, thanks for which goes to my sister who first exposed me to the sport. I was glad to actually hear some new researched information (as opposed to analysis). I learned that Roller Derby started during the Depression and was originally just a race around a track featuring both men and women (the presenter didn’t say if there were separate leagues). Then, during World War II it became female-only, and this is the first time that reviews started calling it a “legitimate sport.” The first images many of us have of the beginnings of Roller Derby are of the televised leagues in the 70s which were more similar to pro wrestling. This was due to the influence of the shows’ producers trying to salvage poor ratings by scripting much of the action. Then, of course, the sport died out only to be resurrected as the semi-third-wave-feminist sport we all know and love. The speaker went over many criticisms of modern Roller Derby, but many of them boil down to the question of whether these women are merely a spectacle akin to mud wrestling. First, it's important to note that all televised sports are inherently a spectacle to some extent. Additionally, though, anyone who has been roller skating knows that this sport requires real athletic prowess. The ‘spectacle’ part of Roller Derby is a semi-parodic way of being able to question, enforce, destabilize, and poke fun at the norms of both femininity and feminism. Finally, the speaker asserted that Roller Derby is “not an imitation of men’s sports” but rather an arena wherein women can redefine athletic competition and teamwork instead of merely fitting in to sports which were created by men and in which men dominate. Also the athletes tend to fill the trope of the "unruly woman" and this persona, says some writer I don't remember, "breaks the unwritten rule that women should not make spectacles of themselves, and allows these women to gain back their ability to desire." I’ll probably write more about Roller Derby at a later date because I could go on forever.
“Wall-E Exploits Twentieth Century Sci-Fi Traditions”
More Wall-E! Everyone is doing a paper on Wall-E this year and this was the first I saw that actually expressed clear dissatisfaction with the film. The speaker did make it clear that she enjoyed the movie very much, but she also said that the ending almost ruined it for her entirely (the award-winning credit sequence saved it for her). Before I go on, although I feel that the ending of Wall-E cannot be “ruined” by knowing what happened because the satisfaction comes from seeing the whole film, I will say that I will be talking about the end of the movie and am therefore issuing a Spoiler Alert. Her basic problem with the ending was that it was too unrealistic and simple (the word ‘facile’ may have been said about a million times), even for a children’s movie. That these large, unhealthy and baby-like humans who seem to have almost no grasp of farming would never survive on an Earth which is still mostly ruined. She also drew many parallels to both Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Personally, I couldn’t help but think of Star Wars which, as my roommate said (I think), draws a lot criticism from sci-fi fans because it is actually a space opera and that the ‘sci’ part takes a backseat. Similarly, Wall-E is, to me, a story about love which also explores what it means to be human and thus the science takes a backseat and tends to be a little stretched or inaccurate. Even a great movie can’t be great in every way.
Friday, April 10, 2009
PCA/ACA Conference: Day 1
Alright, I know. In traditional academic fashion I requested (and received) an extension from myself for this report on the first day of the conference. My mom and I are sharing an internet connection (which, even in the Marriott we're staying in, costs fifteen bucks a day...more on that later). Anyway, a lot to cover, so let's get to it.
A great way to start a conference; I attended two presentations based on that most adorable of animated movies: Wall-E
“Performing Gender, Performing Romance: Pixar’s Wall-E”
I got to the room a bit late because it was on the mysterious 4th floor, to which the elevators do not go. However, once I got myself situated, I found this really interesting. The presenter focused on the way(s) that Pixar took two gender-less, inanimate objects (the robots, Wall-E and Eve) and imbued in them a gender for the sake of the love story. I'm not sure if she ever used the term 'hetero-normative', but that's what I thought of immediately. Though, I certainly don't blame Pixar, because a heterosexual relationship would probably be the simplest way to present a love story which abounds with various other confusing factors, such as the theme that Wall-E (a robot) shows the humans in the movie how to be human again. I wish I'd been there for the whole paper, but it certainly opened up a world to think about with regards to Wall-E.
“The Future is Fat: Wall-E and the Fear of a Fat Planet?”
This was in a fat studies panel and the other papers being given we're also very interesting. In this case, the presenter opened up the floor to comments and questions throughout her talk, which I really liked because it really helped to expand the conversation. In short, the focus of the paper was on the depiction of '"fat = evil" in the semi-dystopian future of Wall-E. In fact, the director, Andrew Stanton, said that the adults in Wall-E are supposed to be sort of like "big babies" and that they consulted NASA on the effects of long term space travel. However, inaccuracies abound, like the reference to "the effects of micro-gravity" having produced these large pudgy adults. It would seem, in the movie, that gravity aboard the Axiom (the spaceship) is roughly equivalent to Earth normal since Wall-E and other characters seem to fall at the same rate we would naturally expect. Even if you believe that there is less than Earth gravity, there's no reason that they would grow so fat. They passively accept food (such as cupcake in a cup) which I would imagine is a pleasantly flavored supplement filled with proteins and vitamins. I could write forever on this subject (and maybe I will, at some point), but the end result is that the people who produced Wall-E may have been tapping into our prejudice against fat people to set up the transformation from evil (idleness, passivity, sloth, gluttony) to good (an agrarian culture, activity, agency, etc.)
Finally, I attended a session on Internet Culture which focused, more or less, on Social Network Sites (Facebook, mainly) and Personal Media Devices (iPods, iPhones, etc.) and their possibly application in education. Each of the four papers had their merits, and there were a lot of interesting insights. For instance, encouraging students to use laptops and to google information and to look things up on Wikipedia and to roam the internet in a way that enhances the educational experience. The most controversial paper was, surprisingly, the chair of that Session and the only presenter over 30. He spoke about the "culture of illiteracy" on the internet. Basically, that people don't know how to "read" websites and that creators of websites compound this problem by ensuring no one has to read to understand their website. I found this to be "a load of hooey" (source unknown) because he seems to see everything in life as some form of text to be read. Why doesn't he get irritated by movie makers not including paragraphs of text to accompany their stories? How can he enjoy an opera that doesn't offer the libretto (script, kind of) for him to read at the same time? These are all different media and they don't work in the same way and people don't use them in the same way. For a person who, in his words, is the "tech guy" in his department, he doesn't seem to be very "with" the times, culturally.
A great way to start a conference; I attended two presentations based on that most adorable of animated movies: Wall-E
“Performing Gender, Performing Romance: Pixar’s Wall-E”
I got to the room a bit late because it was on the mysterious 4th floor, to which the elevators do not go. However, once I got myself situated, I found this really interesting. The presenter focused on the way(s) that Pixar took two gender-less, inanimate objects (the robots, Wall-E and Eve) and imbued in them a gender for the sake of the love story. I'm not sure if she ever used the term 'hetero-normative', but that's what I thought of immediately. Though, I certainly don't blame Pixar, because a heterosexual relationship would probably be the simplest way to present a love story which abounds with various other confusing factors, such as the theme that Wall-E (a robot) shows the humans in the movie how to be human again. I wish I'd been there for the whole paper, but it certainly opened up a world to think about with regards to Wall-E.
“The Future is Fat: Wall-E and the Fear of a Fat Planet?”
This was in a fat studies panel and the other papers being given we're also very interesting. In this case, the presenter opened up the floor to comments and questions throughout her talk, which I really liked because it really helped to expand the conversation. In short, the focus of the paper was on the depiction of '"fat = evil" in the semi-dystopian future of Wall-E. In fact, the director, Andrew Stanton, said that the adults in Wall-E are supposed to be sort of like "big babies" and that they consulted NASA on the effects of long term space travel. However, inaccuracies abound, like the reference to "the effects of micro-gravity" having produced these large pudgy adults. It would seem, in the movie, that gravity aboard the Axiom (the spaceship) is roughly equivalent to Earth normal since Wall-E and other characters seem to fall at the same rate we would naturally expect. Even if you believe that there is less than Earth gravity, there's no reason that they would grow so fat. They passively accept food (such as cupcake in a cup) which I would imagine is a pleasantly flavored supplement filled with proteins and vitamins. I could write forever on this subject (and maybe I will, at some point), but the end result is that the people who produced Wall-E may have been tapping into our prejudice against fat people to set up the transformation from evil (idleness, passivity, sloth, gluttony) to good (an agrarian culture, activity, agency, etc.)
Finally, I attended a session on Internet Culture which focused, more or less, on Social Network Sites (Facebook, mainly) and Personal Media Devices (iPods, iPhones, etc.) and their possibly application in education. Each of the four papers had their merits, and there were a lot of interesting insights. For instance, encouraging students to use laptops and to google information and to look things up on Wikipedia and to roam the internet in a way that enhances the educational experience. The most controversial paper was, surprisingly, the chair of that Session and the only presenter over 30. He spoke about the "culture of illiteracy" on the internet. Basically, that people don't know how to "read" websites and that creators of websites compound this problem by ensuring no one has to read to understand their website. I found this to be "a load of hooey" (source unknown) because he seems to see everything in life as some form of text to be read. Why doesn't he get irritated by movie makers not including paragraphs of text to accompany their stories? How can he enjoy an opera that doesn't offer the libretto (script, kind of) for him to read at the same time? These are all different media and they don't work in the same way and people don't use them in the same way. For a person who, in his words, is the "tech guy" in his department, he doesn't seem to be very "with" the times, culturally.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
PCA/ACA Conference: Day 0
Well, here I am in sunny New Orleans (it's 11:30 at night, so not really). I enjoyed a relatively relaxing 25 hour train ride down here and the proverbial shit has already hit the proverbial fan.
As, I'm sure, I didn't describe earlier, I had attempted to submit an abstract to the Internet Culture area chair and was rejected, ostensibly because the panel was "full" but probably because I'm an undergraduate student. Now, normally, I wouldn't jump to this conclusion, but there seem to be more than a few legitimate reasons.
First, although I'd been going back and forth via e-mail with the area chair for some time, she never mentioned that the panel was full until I mentioned that I was an undergrad. However, she did also inform me that my abstract "needs work in terms of writing style and clarity" and that I should "work with a professor experienced in submitting conference papers to prepare an abstract...for next year's PCA." Needless to say, I did the original research for a professor at UMBC and, naturally, had my mom (a professor) look over it again because I was somewhat anxious about submitting for the first time.
In the intervening time, I'd been put on the wait list for the undergraduate panel. However, when I arrived and my registration materials weren't at the table, my mom and I got the chance to talk to the registrar one-on-one. She claimed that it was PCA policy not to let undergraduates present papers in the regular areas. This seems rather suspect since (1) there are no such guidelines in the call for papers or anywhere else on their website, (2) my mother has had students who have given papers in the past without incident, and (3) I've noticed a group of four undergraduates (possibly freshmen) from Elon who are presenting in the very area (Internet Culture) in which I had meant to present. The registrar further explained that this policy was in place because some professors didn't want to hear papers written by undergraduates (the assumption being that they will be of worse quality). Finally, she agreed with us that the PCA is "very accepting" because they accept almost any paper sent to them (unless it's by a undergrad, apparently).
Now that you know the story, here's my subtle critique of the matter: Ridiculously arbitrary and discriminatory. Here are my reasons:
1. There are, as I said, no requirements stated in the call for papers.
2. Many other non-American Studies and non-PhD folk are allowed to submit papers and, since they don't ask for credentials of any kind, one could be an "independent scholar", which is to say, just some guy (or gal).
3. As far as I know, these alleged professors who don't want to hear student papers are under no obligation to do so. If they don't want to be at the presentation, they can find some other panel to attend at that time.
4. Since papers are not reviewed for quality, there's no reason to believe that any of the ones that are accepted are of any level of quality, better or worse than could be expected of an undergraduate.
In the end, maybe I'm just too "old and tired", but I've been doing things in the realm of youth empowerment for at least 6 years now and this is one of the worst, most arbitrary cases of discrimination I've seen. Especially since being an undergraduate student doesn't necessarily mean that one is between the ages of 18 and 22. The most frustrating thing about it is how illogical their reasons are. They accept, literally, almost any paper sent to them, but reject undergraduates because they might not be up to some unknown standard of quality.
This isn't the end, though. I'm going to be checking in with several other people in my area, both undergraduate and otherwise, and seeing how I can contribute, if they're interested. Also, I'll be attending many interesting presentations myself and I'll be writing about those starting tomorrow.
As, I'm sure, I didn't describe earlier, I had attempted to submit an abstract to the Internet Culture area chair and was rejected, ostensibly because the panel was "full" but probably because I'm an undergraduate student. Now, normally, I wouldn't jump to this conclusion, but there seem to be more than a few legitimate reasons.
First, although I'd been going back and forth via e-mail with the area chair for some time, she never mentioned that the panel was full until I mentioned that I was an undergrad. However, she did also inform me that my abstract "needs work in terms of writing style and clarity" and that I should "work with a professor experienced in submitting conference papers to prepare an abstract...for next year's PCA." Needless to say, I did the original research for a professor at UMBC and, naturally, had my mom (a professor) look over it again because I was somewhat anxious about submitting for the first time.
In the intervening time, I'd been put on the wait list for the undergraduate panel. However, when I arrived and my registration materials weren't at the table, my mom and I got the chance to talk to the registrar one-on-one. She claimed that it was PCA policy not to let undergraduates present papers in the regular areas. This seems rather suspect since (1) there are no such guidelines in the call for papers or anywhere else on their website, (2) my mother has had students who have given papers in the past without incident, and (3) I've noticed a group of four undergraduates (possibly freshmen) from Elon who are presenting in the very area (Internet Culture) in which I had meant to present. The registrar further explained that this policy was in place because some professors didn't want to hear papers written by undergraduates (the assumption being that they will be of worse quality). Finally, she agreed with us that the PCA is "very accepting" because they accept almost any paper sent to them (unless it's by a undergrad, apparently).
Now that you know the story, here's my subtle critique of the matter: Ridiculously arbitrary and discriminatory. Here are my reasons:
1. There are, as I said, no requirements stated in the call for papers.
2. Many other non-American Studies and non-PhD folk are allowed to submit papers and, since they don't ask for credentials of any kind, one could be an "independent scholar", which is to say, just some guy (or gal).
3. As far as I know, these alleged professors who don't want to hear student papers are under no obligation to do so. If they don't want to be at the presentation, they can find some other panel to attend at that time.
4. Since papers are not reviewed for quality, there's no reason to believe that any of the ones that are accepted are of any level of quality, better or worse than could be expected of an undergraduate.
In the end, maybe I'm just too "old and tired", but I've been doing things in the realm of youth empowerment for at least 6 years now and this is one of the worst, most arbitrary cases of discrimination I've seen. Especially since being an undergraduate student doesn't necessarily mean that one is between the ages of 18 and 22. The most frustrating thing about it is how illogical their reasons are. They accept, literally, almost any paper sent to them, but reject undergraduates because they might not be up to some unknown standard of quality.
This isn't the end, though. I'm going to be checking in with several other people in my area, both undergraduate and otherwise, and seeing how I can contribute, if they're interested. Also, I'll be attending many interesting presentations myself and I'll be writing about those starting tomorrow.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Fair Warning
Real content has been rather lacking here on Gratis and Libre in the past few weeks. This is due to several factors including (but not limited to) going to Georgia for Spring Break, being really busy with schoolwork, playing a ridiculous(ly fun) amount of Ultimate frisbee, and just being plain lazy. Hopefully, I will be making up for this lack of content by bringing you:
A Series of Blog Posts Documenting My Travels to the PCA/ACA National Conference in New Orleans!
Today, at 6:30, I'll be taking a train down to New Orleans to attend the PCA (Popular Culture Association) / ACA (American Culture Association) National Conference with my mom who, as well as being a professor of American Studies herself, is largely responsible for me becoming interested in this kind of stuff and thus becoming an American Studies major.
Due to one thing and another, I may or may not be presenting a paper on the politics of self-representation on Facebook and other Social Network Sites. However, I will be attending and writing about many variously themed presentations over the course of the week and generally schmoozing (read: shamelessly promoting myself) with people from all over the country who are even bigger nerds about this kind of stuff than I am.
This will also be the first time that I've been to New Orleans since I was 17. Now, if you've ever been there, you know New Orleans is a really fun and interesting place, but that most of the fun isn't accessible to people who are under 18. I'm not sure how much free time I'll have yet, but if I can get out and goof around in the city, you can expected a post or two about that.
Something for everyone!*
*As long as you are interested in popular culture, New Orleans, or the ramblings of a student/dork of American Studies who may or may not be trying to hastily fire off a blog post so he can get back to the hot tub. Enjoy!
A Series of Blog Posts Documenting My Travels to the PCA/ACA National Conference in New Orleans!
Today, at 6:30, I'll be taking a train down to New Orleans to attend the PCA (Popular Culture Association) / ACA (American Culture Association) National Conference with my mom who, as well as being a professor of American Studies herself, is largely responsible for me becoming interested in this kind of stuff and thus becoming an American Studies major.
Due to one thing and another, I may or may not be presenting a paper on the politics of self-representation on Facebook and other Social Network Sites. However, I will be attending and writing about many variously themed presentations over the course of the week and generally schmoozing (read: shamelessly promoting myself) with people from all over the country who are even bigger nerds about this kind of stuff than I am.
This will also be the first time that I've been to New Orleans since I was 17. Now, if you've ever been there, you know New Orleans is a really fun and interesting place, but that most of the fun isn't accessible to people who are under 18. I'm not sure how much free time I'll have yet, but if I can get out and goof around in the city, you can expected a post or two about that.
Something for everyone!*
*As long as you are interested in popular culture, New Orleans, or the ramblings of a student/dork of American Studies who may or may not be trying to hastily fire off a blog post so he can get back to the hot tub. Enjoy!
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Wikipedia Wednesday: Io's Flux Tube
Some of the alleged readers of this blog might think that I chose this topic just so I could use the phrase "flux tube" over and over again. Well, these alleged readers might be right, but this is also really cool, in my opinion of god-like humility.
Io's Flux Tube
You have to look all the way down at the last paragraph in the indicated section to find what I'm talking about. I'll try to make it more simple. Io (one of the moons of Jupiter) repeatedly crosses Jupiter's magnetic field lines. The resulting "friction", so to speak, creates a very large electrical current which flows from Io to Jupiter's poles. Also, the magnetosphere of Jupiter picks up 1 tonne (2204.6226 pounds) of gas and dust from Io's thin atmosphere every second. After that it gets a bit complicated, so I'll just let you read it yourself if you're brave enough.
Share & Enjoy!
Io's Flux Tube
You have to look all the way down at the last paragraph in the indicated section to find what I'm talking about. I'll try to make it more simple. Io (one of the moons of Jupiter) repeatedly crosses Jupiter's magnetic field lines. The resulting "friction", so to speak, creates a very large electrical current which flows from Io to Jupiter's poles. Also, the magnetosphere of Jupiter picks up 1 tonne (2204.6226 pounds) of gas and dust from Io's thin atmosphere every second. After that it gets a bit complicated, so I'll just let you read it yourself if you're brave enough.
Share & Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
