Okay, here's the three panels as I can currently figure it.
Fantasy Genres/Genre Fantasies -- Meron, Janet, and Aaina (I'm not intentionally making it all girls, but I just couldn't match up Sam or Dave's topics to this panel.
You've Got Male: Genre Machismo -- Ben, Sam and Noel
Keith, Alicia and Dave -- I haven't got the angle fully on this one -- I'll fit it together once I hear more from all three of you guys.
11 comments:
This is so unacceptable. I think I need to change my topic to monsters and class just to subvert the gendered panels.
I understand how I fit into this panel, but I should probably clarify that my paper will discuss quite a few example of female vigilantism--Coffy, Ms .45, An Eye for An Eye, etc.
Oh, and Jodie Foster's upcoming film The Brave One. I could practically make this a paper on women's film!
I have no idea how my topic qualifies as fantasy.
I agree with Janet.
And if it's going to be gendered, I think there should be a You've got (fe)-male panel to make it fair in that case!
I hope you could tell I was kidding. The last thing I want is a female crusade to top off a female panel. Although I now detect a suspicious predisposition considering the above comments.
Yes, Janet, i knew you were joking. And yes, Aaina, i knew that you weren't.I had you in fantasy because the other two panels were worse fits and heavily stylized romance as exemplified by many Bollywood films might fit.If nothing else, historically speaking,classic Bollywood was known for its fantasy films (even though that's not what you're doing, I thought it provided some linkage to the other papers all of which would have higher powers, etc.)
On Aaina's other point, the panel was not going to be "gendered," it just happened to have three women on it. The last thing I'd do is make one panel focused on women issues and one on male issues -- we'd have to call the conference gender matters.
Anyway, the secret motivation for my post was to get people to refine/explain their topics, as Sam just did. Janet went so far as to completely change her topic.On to round two
of course I wasn't serious, I was just annoyed, because I think studying women is really interesting and not focused on enough and pretty much just written off as feminist activism when anyone shows an interest in it. But I see my point was made for me.
I don't know if Aaina is referring to my class specifically or something more general when she says that "studying women" is not focused on enough. Aaina, I don't think anyone was "writing off" your comment as "feminist activism." More importantly, if something is judged as feminist activism, that should only be considered a good thing. I'm very much a feminist. That's why I am so careful to select films with strong women, even when I'm teaching male oriented genres. Think of Witherspoon in Freeway, or Stanwick in 40 Guns. That's why I encouraged students to see films like Volver and The Queen. It's why I feed the class works by Renee French, Linda Barry, and characters like Maggie and Hopey from Love & Rockets. It's why I assign books like Altman and Balio, and readings like Neale, all of whom address the history of "women's films" in classic Hollywood. It's why I devote an entire class lecture to Laura Mulvey's concepts of the subject of the gaze. It's why the archival research paper is designed to allow for such films. It's why notions of genre assumptions as to male/female taste has been discussed on this blog. It's also why the conference paper can be on anything you guys want(to some degree). I've had many feminist-focused panels over the years and I'd have no objection to one this year. (I'm not trying to be defensive, it's just that based on your recent e-mail to me and this post, I worry that you may have missed how much I try to address gender issues in class, readings and the field trips)
One other point. Meron's project will be studying a very powerful woman. Sam is also including many interesting women characters. If Keith sticks with Jackie Brown, then ditto for him too. Janet has Hedwig -- that's a bit complicated I guess. Alicia may be dealing with women of punk -- I don't think we've gotten that far on hers. Based on that, I'd say our class is definitely interested in studying women, and although I'd like to see more feminist activism in general (especially amongst college students your age), I think the conference will have a diversity of papers, even if no single panel is devoted expressly to feminist or female related topics.
Final point -- I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this, but let's keep it friendly at the same time.
I can't help but point out the excellent use of anaphora.
Sorry, that's the lawyer part sneaking in. I'll be rhyming before the end of the semester.
Jim,
I'm not referring to your class in particular-- it's a general tendency I notice in students and teachers. Really, I just think studying women is fascinating and not for any reasons relating to historical "male dominance"...in everything, (as is the case with most people claiming such points; people dubbed as "femininsts"). I just think studying women is really interesting and complex, on an academic AND social level. And I thought, if we were going to have a MALE panel, (a respectable idea in it's own right), that it would only be fair to consider the more emotionally fascinating sex ( a concept often misunderstood) as well. What I was saying, is that "feminism" has a negative popular connotation, because the genre is misunderstood. I was just saying that studying females in a certain right is completely amazing... and that there are many themes that can find the female as the dominant, and not just in comparison or conjunction with a dominant male role. The Bollywood film industry relies on a separate (not comparative) female respct/distinction.
Post a Comment