Comments for Joy Palmer's Blog http://joypalmer.wordpress.com Being Online Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:14:35 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Thoughts about gender, technology, and mutha-bloggas by FCM http://joypalmer.wordpress.com/2006/08/18/thoughts-about-gender-technology-and-mutha-bloggas/#comment-3 FCM Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:14:35 +0000 https://joypalmer.wordpress.com/2006/08/18/thoughts-about-gender-technology-and-mutha-bloggas/#comment-3 Oops: my previous comment was meant to go to the first posting, not this one on cyborgs. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed this second one much better, and not just because I know who Bhabha is and have read his books. The idea of interstitiality and hybridity as necessarily a form of resistance is fascinating, and also works amazingly well with non-blog writers like Borges, who wrote to resist, who hid his messages because of a particular fascist dictatorship. Peter Childs in his book _Modernism_ has pointed out that Woolf and Mansfield, writing was a feminist act: an aesthetic movement that began as a rejection of Victorian mores and quickly became a statement to re-masculinize literature, simultaneously became a means whereby women writers could break the rules too and negotiate a space whereby they could identify themselves (even if it was a forged identity) and empower other voices. I see mommyblogging as you state it above as akin to such an endeavor, largely because motherhood is a problematic site in so many instances. Writing is always political, and the act of writing about mothering (and writing about writing about mothering) necessarily problematizes the overly simplistic designations of subject and object, not to mention creator and construction, and self and other. The ideal image of The Mother too often suggests one who remains passive, except when the care and nurturing of the child is concerned. The space created, regardless of its truth value, systematically disrupts normal understandings of the value of motherhood itself, as repeatedly touted by western thought. One only think of the backlash and continued dislike of someone like Hillary Clinton whose only real problem (early on at least) was that she was unapologetic that she was not a home-maker. Immediately when she made the comment about not having time to stay at home to bake cookies, it opened up a can of worms that polarized ideas about motherhood (or at least made the ideas manifest). By the backlash, the suggestion seemed to be that if one if a mother, one cannot have a successful career outside the home; and just as problematically, if one is a successful career woman, one is either not a mother or not maternal. Oops: my previous comment was meant to go to the first posting, not this one on cyborgs. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed this second one much better, and not just because I know who Bhabha is and have read his books. The idea of interstitiality and hybridity as necessarily a form of resistance is fascinating, and also works amazingly well with non-blog writers like Borges, who wrote to resist, who hid his messages because of a particular fascist dictatorship. Peter Childs in his book _Modernism_ has pointed out that Woolf and Mansfield, writing was a feminist act: an aesthetic movement that began as a rejection of Victorian mores and quickly became a statement to re-masculinize literature, simultaneously became a means whereby women writers could break the rules too and negotiate a space whereby they could identify themselves (even if it was a forged identity) and empower other voices. I see mommyblogging as you state it above as akin to such an endeavor, largely because motherhood is a problematic site in so many instances. Writing is always political, and the act of writing about mothering (and writing about writing about mothering) necessarily problematizes the overly simplistic designations of subject and object, not to mention creator and construction, and self and other. The ideal image of The Mother too often suggests one who remains passive, except when the care and nurturing of the child is concerned. The space created, regardless of its truth value, systematically disrupts normal understandings of the value of motherhood itself, as repeatedly touted by western thought. One only think of the backlash and continued dislike of someone like Hillary Clinton whose only real problem (early on at least) was that she was unapologetic that she was not a home-maker. Immediately when she made the comment about not having time to stay at home to bake cookies, it opened up a can of worms that polarized ideas about motherhood (or at least made the ideas manifest). By the backlash, the suggestion seemed to be that if one if a mother, one cannot have a successful career outside the home; and just as problematically, if one is a successful career woman, one is either not a mother or not maternal.

]]> Comment on Thoughts about gender, technology, and mutha-bloggas by FCM http://joypalmer.wordpress.com/2006/08/18/thoughts-about-gender-technology-and-mutha-bloggas/#comment-2 FCM Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:58:52 +0000 https://joypalmer.wordpress.com/2006/08/18/thoughts-about-gender-technology-and-mutha-bloggas/#comment-2 All interesting points, although I remain skeptical about why mommy-blogging would automatically be trustworthy; I don't want to suggest that the idea itself is absurd or that those who participate in the said activity are inherently dishonest, but the identities of those who participate in blogs remain a priori ontologically unstable (as all identities are, but even more so because of the medium). Now maybe I am taking too much of an essentialist perspective here, believing that when there is a body standing in front of me it necessarily means more truth, more honesty. That said, the pose of anyone writing out there in the blogosphere is always already problematically discursive: we have to trust largely because of the semblence of trustworthiness, which means little more than a person identifying him/herself as a mommy who wishes to share experiences and thoughts. Just as significantly is the possibility of someone choosing to put on the veil of a persona to participate in the discussions -- maybe to eavesdrop or maybe to disrupt. It seems unlikely in most cases; however, it is still there. The pose of so many Internet predators is specifically to pretend to be a teenager and thereby to ensnare a victim who takes the performance as truth and reality. In Margaret Atwood's novel, _Alias Grace_ the young psychologist begins to believe Grace's version of the story of two gruesome murders because her persona matches what he has read. His colleague warns him by saying that there is a distinct possibility that Grace, herself, has read the newspaper accounts and what others have said she is -- in other words, she is believable because her persona matches the descriptions of her person and her behavior. The same can be said here: we trust certain representations because they affirm what we believe should be there; the medium, however, keeps us even farther away from any kind of verifiability. It is (and I think this word may just about run its course) truthiness, a la Stephen Colbert: we believe mommyblogging to be a discussion with real people talking about real issues because it seems to be real people and real issues. Again, I am not trying to downplay its value nor suggest any malicious about those who participate in it. I have known it to be a very good thing in several instances (even when there are ads!). All interesting points, although I remain skeptical about why mommy-blogging would automatically be trustworthy; I don’t want to suggest that the idea itself is absurd or that those who participate in the said activity are inherently dishonest, but the identities of those who participate in blogs remain a priori ontologically unstable (as all identities are, but even more so because of the medium). Now maybe I am taking too much of an essentialist perspective here, believing that when there is a body standing in front of me it necessarily means more truth, more honesty. That said, the pose of anyone writing out there in the blogosphere is always already problematically discursive: we have to trust largely because of the semblence of trustworthiness, which means little more than a person identifying him/herself as a mommy who wishes to share experiences and thoughts. Just as significantly is the possibility of someone choosing to put on the veil of a persona to participate in the discussions — maybe to eavesdrop or maybe to disrupt. It seems unlikely in most cases; however, it is still there. The pose of so many Internet predators is specifically to pretend to be a teenager and thereby to ensnare a victim who takes the performance as truth and reality. In Margaret Atwood’s novel, _Alias Grace_ the young psychologist begins to believe Grace’s version of the story of two gruesome murders because her persona matches what he has read. His colleague warns him by saying that there is a distinct possibility that Grace, herself, has read the newspaper accounts and what others have said she is — in other words, she is believable because her persona matches the descriptions of her person and her behavior. The same can be said here: we trust certain representations because they affirm what we believe should be there; the medium, however, keeps us even farther away from any kind of verifiability. It is (and I think this word may just about run its course) truthiness, a la Stephen Colbert: we believe mommyblogging to be a discussion with real people talking about real issues because it seems to be real people and real issues.

Again, I am not trying to downplay its value nor suggest any malicious about those who participate in it. I have known it to be a very good thing in several instances (even when there are ads!).

]]> Comment on Thoughts about gender, technology, and mutha-bloggas by Her Bad Mother http://joypalmer.wordpress.com/2006/08/18/thoughts-about-gender-technology-and-mutha-bloggas/#comment-1 Her Bad Mother Mon, 21 Aug 2006 03:10:54 +0000 https://joypalmer.wordpress.com/2006/08/18/thoughts-about-gender-technology-and-mutha-bloggas/#comment-1 AM THE FIRST. Here's my well-considered thought: WOO HOO! WIll come back when headache isn't pressing to consider and remark further... (And will post link to my academiblog when it goes live! Again, after headache!) AM THE FIRST.

Here’s my well-considered thought: WOO HOO!

WIll come back when headache isn’t pressing to consider and remark further…

(And will post link to my academiblog when it goes live! Again, after headache!)

]]>