|
jill_again
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Jill
Birthday: 5/27/1983
Interests: various and sundry Anglo-Saxon things, English philology, neoplatonism and Augustinian theology, bluegrass music, bodhráns, hiking, West Virginia, concocting egg nog, reading biographies, Dutch Baroque still lifes, conifers, tall people, leaf patterns, Neoclassical portraiture, cold weather, the color green, making fun of things that don't deserve it... like Poland.
Expertise: sampling all sorts of British breakfast teas, falling asleep in the library, over-analyzing people, planning trips I will never actually take, talking to myself, being an "over-sharer," regretting.
Occupation: Student
Industry: Education/Research
Message: message me
AIM:  jilligan583
Member Since:
1/8/2006
|
|
| It almost feels like I am living on an alien planet this morning - like I woke up and the entire world, down to my own apartment, is completely different. Something mind-blowing has happened: an African-American man will be our president as of next January, and I think we have a lot to be proud of. This has been a long time in the making and (even though I was avoiding turning on the television or any other media outlet in which I will be forced to hear Meredith Vieira wax on unintelligently) it is really moving to consider how much America has changed with regard to race and acceptance since MLK's speeches forty years ago. Does this mean that the issue of race is now a non-issue? Hardly. If anything, it will be bantied about, analyzed, blamed, praised, and used as excuse even more than ever before. We have made a huge step, but it's important to realize that even when used in a positive light, race will continue to be on the minds of Americans--it will continue to be a way of categorizing our society. So what is the next step in that area? It is to have a president elected, or Academy Awards given, or NFL's star runningbacks announced WITHOUT mentioning that person's race.
To get back to my point: I am really proud of America because I do think that electing a non-Caucasian is an amazing step in the right direction toward America's color-blindness (perhaps a female will be next?--"electing a skirt" is another hurdle altogether, it seems). I only wish I could have actually participated in this making-of-history by voting for him. Unfortunately, I was not going to give my vote, the one right I feel that I must exercise without exception, to someone with whom I disagreed so completely on virtually all points. In other words, if Obama had been white, Asian, Cherokee, Eskimo, or covered with yellow and purple stripes, I would not have voted for him. You knew this already... it's nothing new.
The hope he has inspired in people with his speeches, his newly-found celebrity, is really breathtaking:** but my hope is that people realize that change comes from YOU, an individual American pulling yourself up by your bootstraps (as it were) and improving first yourself before attempting to "fix" everyone else's life. I have said this before (most recently in a lengthy facebook dialectic on politics):
"The ideas of "hope" and "change" and universal healthcare and 0%
unemployment and fairness and cars that run on sunshine and everyone
getting baskets of kittens are truly intoxicating. To be serious,
though, it is easy to buy into "change" when it seems that someone ELSE
will do the changing for us; as if a president
is some kind of magic man (or woman) who will "fix" America, make
everyone stop hating us, and ensure the health and wealth of all
citizens. What we fail to see is that change, if it is truly desired,
happens on a much more individual level. My friend Sam just posted as
her status this quotation: "Everyone thinks of changing humanity and
nobody thinks of changing himself"-Leo Tolstoy. In a world where people
actually put Ghandi's "Be the change you want to see in the world" on
bumperstickers, we seem reluctant FIRST to modify our own lifestyles,
become self-responsible, and (gasp!) self-governing before meddling in
others' affairs."
After speaking with a few Obama-fans in the last week or so about how they think Obama (coming off a messianic-like platform) will implement the ideologies and promises he's made for the last two years, I was told to hold my tongue: "He's just a politician, Jill. They say things during a campaign that don't come true -- that's nothing new." They're probably right, but you could have fooled me -- with the way people were buying into the rhetoric, it is tempting to think that they really BELIEVE that he embodies the change and hope they long for; and that he WILL do what he says. Alas, he is just a man. And that is news to me.
Now, lest those millions of ecstatic, face-scraping and clothing-rending fans of our president-elect become disheartened, remember: no matter what was promised, an American president is not a magic man. You will probably not get a check in the mail to pay off your house, or student-loan forgiveness, or a guaranteed retirement fund, or free and efficient healthcare, or a free polar bear cub ... but what you can change is YOU. You can make choices to manage your life better, to manage your money better, and to implement ethics and integrity in your business practices. Moreover, you need not wait until more of your income taxes are secured by the US Government to be given to help the disenfranchised, homeless, or unemployed -- if you really believe in helping people the way Obama says he will mandate, then start donating a percentage of your paycheck to local homeless shelters. Start volunteering to collect warm coats for winter and working regularly at a soup kitchen after you get off work. Start tutoring underprivileged school children and volunteering to speak to highschool upper-classmen about opportunities to go to college and secure a good job. If you think life has been unfair to those around you, then start leveling the playingfield and making personal sacrifices to help make sure life gives them a "fair shake" next time around.
I know this is going to sound awfully unpatriotic, but America is a cesspool of laziness. For decades people have been waiting for someone to come along, flying under the banner of fairness and just deserts, and zap the nation until it spins itself into a utopia of equality and sameness -- a world in which everyone has a job, wages are fair, the air is clean, and homes are warm and paid for by some great benefactor. No such person exists. Even a government that promises to "take care of us" and micromanage our lives is never going to issue you the treatment you feel you deserve.
...But you know what? You can work for yourself. You can earn a living and contribute to your community in a meaningful way. You can choose to not sit on your haunches and wait for "Change to come to America" -- if you wait for someone else to do it, you will be vastly disappointed.
Disclaimer: I hope none of you (and I knew where you folks stood politically when writing this, obv.) are affronted by a 'pep-talk' from a non-Obamanian... not that I need to vindicate myself, but you should know that I am not, and was never, a fan of the Ancient Centrist, John McCain. Had the tables been turned last night, I would have been only marginally less disgruntled with the results. This has been a difficult election season for conservative (note: not "Republican") thinkers, since there was really no one on that ballot I felt un-nauseated to vote for. Actually, the difficulty in the last several months came from losing friends who apparently valued the "idea of Obama" more than our friendship, and being belittled by my 'intelllectual' colleagues who--without even asking why I wasn't supporting Obama--called me an uneducated yokel who needed to get my corn pone ideologies out of the university. Hilarious? Hurtful.
Maybe what people want is a nation without dissent, with a single voice, one in which we "unify" behind Obama and toss diversity of ideas and backgrounds and worldviews to the wind. I know a few people's lives would have been easier this fall had I been an Obama supporter: (since I'm practically the only one here) they wouldn't have ever been confronted with the fact that there are people in this nation who disagree with them, who will have a rational discussion about political policy-making, who will always play devil's advocate to their pie-in-the-sky platforms, who will cynically question and need much-convincing on all their ideologies. All I want is for people to think, to think for themselves, to work for themsleves, and not to feel entitled to "change" -- but to work for change.
...and now I have to go write a paper on Kant. Blech.
**(edit/addendum): I forgot to mention something major that has been on my mind -- I especially hope that Obama's election will be energizing to the youth of the black community in America. To see an African-American, "one of their own" (the media makes much of this point) having made something of himself will hopefully make a lasting impression on a number of these young people, who will now go out and explore the opportunities for education, especially (a la McNair program at Truman State). While the election is indeed a historic moment, I hope people will move beyond 4 November 2008 let this be a milestone, rather than a monument in and of itself.
| | |
| As many of you know (and probably don't like, secretly), I am a tad more conservative than the vast lot of graduate students with whom I rub shoulders on a daily basis. Like you, however, I consider myself at least partially capable of making a semi-objective judgment with respect to politics -- I am not unreasonable (at least not on purpose). For those of you who hate "Republicans" or "Conservatives" at first blush, just bear with me:
A word of reflection, on the above (title) statement made by an NBC political commentator, who was grasping at straws to discuss why Sarah Palin is apparently a terrible mother, a shame to women everywhere, and on account of her daughter's unexpected pregnancy, unfit for an elevated political position:
I find it strange that as we approach an election that boasts a number of historical "firsts" in the United States of America, the rejoicing is allowed only to cross from one side of the aisle to the other. Let me cut straight to the point: I have seen a number of people everywhere applaud the great milestone we have reached in having an African American man on a ticket for the president of this country. No one can justly descry or diminish this event in our nation's history, and many rejoice and will go to the polls for skin color (one way or another) instead of policy. That's just the way it is. But in the last few days I have witnessed, with mouth agape, a number of my fellow women bitterly spouting hateful remarks about Governor Sarah Palin regarding her motherhood, her femininity, and her role as the only woman on the major tickets for November. I am shocked that so many WOMEN are unwilling to even recognize that another milestone could be reached in November with the election of a female to the office of vice president. I have to say, something doesn't seem right about this: it is highly unlikely that I will vote for Obama, but I have not come to this conclusion because "he's a minority" or because "he's black and I'm white." It is completely absurd to vote one way or another based simply on SKIN -- what shallow idiocy! Racism in this context is wholly inappropriate, and in spite of what Obama has claimed in dropping the "race card" in public speeches, McCain has avoided singling out Obama as a BLACK man. But on the other side of things, I have seen women, whom I know to have very strong views about women's rights and even supremacy in this so-called patriarchal society who are appalled by the fact that McCain's choice for VP was a woman -- as if it is a slap in the face to women everywhere. If I can applaud the nomination of a man whose race has never been represented by any president of the United States, why cannot women find it within themselves to also recognize this equally grand moment of having a woman nominated to such a position?
It would be one thing if these women I observed were hating on Palin because of her policies -- more of that should be done, in fact, in the name of voter education and truly analyzing the candidates. But last night during the RNC and again this morning on the news, the commentators and analysts seem helpless to stop questioning Palin on the basis of her quality as a "role model" -- not when the United States' chief (literally) scandal of the 1990s was the infidelity of our president with one of his own interns inside our nation's capital! And now, the issue of the hour is not whether or not Palin HERSELF is having a baby out of wedlock at 17, but her daughter. Let us ALL come to recognize this double-standard:
If Sarah Palin were Steve Palin (that is, a MAN), would this discussion be happening?
Would people wonder why "Steve" Palin kept working as governor a few days after giving birth to a special-needs child?
Would people descry "Steve" Palin's apparently loose morals at home (ie, would they blame his daughter's pregnancy on HIM, the parent?)
Would people speculate as to how "Steve" Palin could EVER juggle the roles of parent and VP?
Sorry, folks, but it's doubtful. In the half-hour I watched NBC this morning, I saw Gov. Sarah Palin called an anti-feminist, a bad mother, and (conclusively, based on these criteria alone) an unfit politician. And, looking at the statuses of some of my feminist-loving female friends on Facebook (quadruple alliteration!!), I am nothing but disappointed: "_____ wants you to know that Sarah Palin hates women."
Really? Regardless of how I felt about McCain's choice or desired impact of the announcement of Palin as VP, my sympathy has been thoroughly incited by how the media, and even my own friends, have received her. She is stuck in the saying "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
Let me explain:
If she hadn't gone back to work as governor after the birth of her special-needs child, she would have been called a flaky politician who is more interested in anti-feminist house-wifery than running one of the fifty great states of America. (But she did go back to work, and now they're calling her a crappy mother).
If she hadn't had any children, people would wonder "what kind of woman is she," and how can she even understand what it is to be a woman if she [obviously] hates children? (But instead she had 5, and now people are speculating as to how she will EVER be a mom AND the VP, as if no one has ever parented while being the President, Vice President, Chief Justice, Speaker of the House, Attorney General, etc).
NOTE: I speak for myself and probably a few of you other female professionals in saying that if anyone ever told me that I was "incapable" of doing my job because I was a woman and mother, I would be LIVID. How retrogressive is it for "women's rights" to state, outright, that she is unfit to do her job because she has children and "ought to be at home." Women have been working for ages to get OUT of the home if they so choose and, as the product of raising by an amazing stay-at-home mom, I can say that the CHOICE is OURS -- if you believe that your place is at home, then be at home. But NO ONE should tell you that you cannot do your job because "women--mothers--belong at home." Nothing screams "patriarchal" to me more than that, and the great irony is that this archaic notion is being suggested by a number of women in the media who have repeatedly preached--and benefited from--pro-women agendas in politics.
Can anyone--especially a woman--justifiably hate Sarah Palin because of her biological sex or her motherhood? To turn this around (since gender and race are BOTH properly ignored in politics, if we're going to be "fair"), I do not hate Barack Obama "because he is black" (actually, I don't HATE him at all!). I disagree with many of Obama's proposed policies, at least what he has shared of them. I have different views than he does about universal health care, taxation, drilling for oil, the war in Iraq [and its many, unannounced successes to the credit of the "evil" US military], amnesty for illegal immigrants, government regulation of environmental issues, and government regulation in general. We can argue about those issues separately ...but I would not say that I dislike Obama because of how he supposedly raises his children or the choices that THEY make (or will, after a few years) when they are basically adults making adult-sized decisions. Would these women--who are blaming the daughter's pregnancy on her mother--have have felt better about Palin's "femininity" if she demanded that her daughter abort the child?
I know a lot of people are bent out of shape about McCain picking a woman to encourage (or deceive) women voters into electing him, as though women are totally dumb and will vote for any woman they see (though a similar adage has been applied to African Americans, has it not?) ....and should we really call out McCain for making a "blatantly
strategic" choice? -- as
if Joe Biden were not chosen exclusively because his profile filled the
gaps perceived in Obama's profile: white, old, experienced. ALL of
this, as with EVERY ELECTION, is political: taking certain, measured
risks, announcing things at specific times, keeping Bush on a
television set and not on prime time coverage ... EVERYTHING is
strategic! On BOTH sides of the aisle -- let us not forget that!
Let's stick to the policies, people.
Let us debate their experience, their dossiers as executives, their proposed plans for the issues that face us: allowing people to spend more of their own money in this "economic crisis" by keeping taxes low for EVERYONE, and finishing the War and allowing the people of Iraq to squash their own terrorist insurgencies and finally govern themselves without a dictator or a dependency on a western military presence, and lowering gas prices (sorry,
kids, but inflating the tires isn't going to do it -- even if we run
our cars on hairballs and dryer lint, so long as our cars are made with
plastic parts and have rubber tires, we're going to need oil. It is a
temporary fix, but the technology for electric cars is not being
released to the public quickly enough for us ALL to purchase even
semi-affordable hybrids immediately. So many people now are saying
they "hate" oil and are disgusted by our "oil sickness" in the US.
...and then they drive home in cars with rubber tires and gasoline,
jog with rubber-soled shoes, cook dinner with plastic utensils, watch a plastic television for a few
hours, and slather Vaseline on their faces before going to bed. WE ALL USE OIL because it
is in EVERYTHING. It is not evil, itself -- it is a natural bi-product of this planet that happens to function as a multi-faceted fuel. However, our dependency on "black gold" may
cause shortages -- no, not ACTUAL, planet-is-running-out shortages -- but shortages from the
strained relationships in the near East that have placed a firm and
tightening grip on the rest of the world's supply. I would love to drive a car that ran on water and produced oxygen, or ran on electricity and produced water, or ran on sunlight and also lit up my house at night, but that technology -- while developed -- is not being marketed wholesale. We cannot simply decide next January that we will not drill for reasons of environmental preservation and "solve" the problem by a government mandate to take the bus together or ride bicycles. It is not that easy, and that solution may look great on paper but it is totally impractical and inexecutable. In a country where so many of us readily point out hipocrisy in others, how can we justify someone ELSE drilling our oil in their deserts while we work to "preserve" our own tundra as is and not litter its landscape with pumps, which are allegedly hazardous to the environment. If we must have oil to carry on while we search out and mass-manufacture new technologies---and, trust me, for awhile longer we MUST have oil---wouldn't it be better if we used our OWN? Of course the environment is important to preserve and the melting of the poles, which may occur on its own at a much-reduced rate, is a serious threat to be dealt with in a serious way. But if the solution is raising of gas taxes to $9 a gallon to discourage people to drive, I don't want to hear anyone who is against drilling in Alaska say a SINGLE WORD about how much they're paying at the grocery store for milk, eggs, produce, or canned goods, all of which must be driven--in trucks, that run on diesel fuel made from "evil" oil--across our country. I could say more... and maybe I will... later).
I'm sorry if some of you hate me now, but I've listened to enough people here in Illinois "give me a piece of their minds" and spinning the world around left-ward until I was dizzy, and I didn't say a WORD (yes, me! silent as the grave!) I have held my tongue long enough.
....And isn't that what America is about? Diverse opinions for a diverse people. Live and let live. Do your homework before you vote. That is all.
Also, I guess I should say "HI!!!" -- it has been awhile! I have moved, [mostly] settled, and adjusted to living in a new place for my English PhD. Classes are going well, working out and reading absorb my existence, and life carries on.
I had the priviliege of seeing Leslie and at last meeting her fiance-husband (who is totally charming!) in August, and I'm hoping that it isn't too long before I find myself wandering the streets of Philly looking for a certain SW and JCloud. I love and miss all you girls very, very much, and am looking forward to being back in StL in August for SW's wedding... I'm bringing Jason, too, by the way!
My classes began last Monday and have been, as I said, going well. I'm doing an Independent Study with my current adviser on Anglo-Saxon Identity and Nationalism, which will hopefully get me back into the poetry with a fully-bolstered view of how these medieval English people doled out identity in their laws (which I love and study). I'm also taking an Irish myth class with the other Anglo-Saxonist and a course on Critical Theory, which is both necessary and necessarily painful (it makes me glad that so much theory was encoded in my art historical education at Truman... otherwise, I am, as a medievalist, shoe-horned into being a New Historicist).
I love you guys. Thanks for reading.
-j
| | |
| Friends, the defense is over!!
Ahhhhh. I can't even tell you what a relief it is to have all of that behind me. In spite of serious technical difficulties (we had a difficult time keeping the committee member in London connected via voice chat -- apparently they were amidst the worst storm [gale force winds, power surges, hail] in 20 years), it was a shockingly enjoyable experience! I actually learned a lot from their suggestions, many of which were related to the certain potential of my turning this project into (a) publishable article(s).
What is left to do, besides getting rid of the absurd typos in my thesis and turning it in? ... well, determine where I will be going for my doctoral degree. I am not sure if I have ever struggled as I have in the last few days to decide where this next turn in my life will take me. The issue is manifold, really:
I visited Notre Dame immediately after my defense was over, expecting for it to be a total formality -- they had already left a bad taste in my mouth, and I figured that was not apt to change. BUT IT DID. I had a great time while I was there, and not because they were doing their best to wine and dine me. I met almost all of the medievalists in the program, which includes a number of Anglo-Saxonists, and they are not only very bright, driven people ... they are also approachable and friendly. I really didn't feel like anyone was trying to "sell" the program to me; they were just being themselves, and many discussions over drinks and dinner led me to the conclusion that the program is not a freakish generator of perpetual & blue-blooded high-horse-ness.... I think I could fit in very well there.
Meanwhile, Illinois threw a ton more money at me -- they are offering me a fellowship my first year, which will release me from my teaching responsibilities and allow me to get a ton of coursework out of the way. Now their offer is, money-wise, almost the same as Notre Dame's (at ND, it would be $19k for the first 3 calendar years--including summers--with no teaching in year 1 and 1-1 teaching thereafter; at Illinois, it would be $19k for the entire time, but the teaching load after the service-free year is 2-2... which feels like a LOT).
Furthermore: like Notre Dame, Illinois has two prolific Anglo-Saxonists, a number of student medievalists, and a good community of medievalist faculty members outside of English (I would be able to take non-English classes at Illinois, and receive a certificate of Medieval Studies). Their locations are also comparable -- midwestern, roughly the same cost of living. Their placement records are also almost the same -- both have amazingly good luck placing medievalists in reputable English Departments around the country. In terms of coursework, Notre Dame has rigorous distribution requirements (you have to take one class in EACH historical period of British lit., plus one American), while Illinois has NO distribution requirements (I would have to be disciplined, however; I'm not terribly well-rounded, having had NO CLASS in an area after 1400 AD since about 2004). Notre Dame also expects you to finish by year 6, and funding in that year is competitive. At Illinois, they will let you continue progressing towards the dissertation into years 7 and 8 and will fund you as long as you're willing to teach (1-1 for half the money, or 2-2 at $19k)---hopefully I would not NEED this extra time, but if you're in "job market purgatory," they will at least let you continue teaching until you land something suitable.
....I feel like I have asked all the questions that I can possibly ask, and the reality is that my decision about these programs will ultimately determine my academic trajectory: will I continue having Old Norse as a secondary emphasis, in addition to Middle English (=Illinois), or will I be beefed up in the highly-marketable Middle English with no option of dealing with the Scandinavian stuff again (=Notre Dame)?
Some people have told me to just "follow my heart" .... well, that's interesting, since I don't get a clear read on MYSELF from moment to moment. After an evening of serious introspection, I may fall asleep feeling confident in Notre Dame, but upon waking and reminding myself of this decision, I lean towards Illinois. In other words, I vacillate with the changing of the wind. There is no clear winner in this race, and it is really taking a toll on me. Not that there is a lot of pressure to decide this very afternoon, but I am exhausted from the stress of weighing all of this out. In the end, I have been comforted by faculty in BOTH programs that I will be in "great hands no matter which of the two gets me." ...but that doesn't eliminate the need for a decision.
I would REALLY appreciate the advice from any of you people who have been in this situation before. Are there factors that I haven't considered? What was the deal-breaker for you in choosing your path for graduate studies? Did you ever experience the panic of worrying you would (or did) make the wrong decision?
Thanks, guys. I've got a good problem... but a problem nonetheless...
| | |
| In the midst of collecting information/informed opinions in order to make a decision about the PhD offers I've received---which, by the way, is stressing me out to the point of daily panic attacks---the man-friend offers this advice (via IM): Jason (12:52:25 PM): its a matter of weighing the money, the responsibilities, the location, the academic freedom, the faculty and studentry, the apts with big stoves and garbage disposals in safe neighborhoods lcose to campus, the color and cuteness of the squirrels, etc. Jason (12:53:50 PM): and knowign that all but one program is going to hear NO from you, and dont think for a second that these places ever "regret to inform you" or think it at all "unfortunate" if they say you are rejected, if it were so regretful, they would have accepted you, so dont waste any of your life and energy and hapiness with guilt (about the program and silly ppl who are jealous of your opportunity) when you tell them no Jason (12:54:54 PM): pick the one from among the top tier that is the BEST FIT FOR YOU, for christs sake youll be there for a long time and you had better like it Jason (12:56:05 PM): the reason you are going is to get a PhD, yes, but your top schools are for the most part pretty equal, so it comes down to where you will be healthy and happy enough to do good enough work and make strong enough progress toward your degree, so that you do GET A PhD Jason (12:57:36 PM): for now, take a deep breath with your eyes closed, maybe a few (breathes not eyes), and resign yourself that you are going to make the best decision for YOU when the time comes, and no sooner. Jason (12:58:50 PM): you still with me, pretty lady Jason (12:59:04 PM): i remember when i would be able to give you life advice, before i decided to let you be the older one jilligan583 (12:59:14 PM): i am. Jason (12:59:16 PM): i think we should get back to me being the older and wiser one jilligan583 (12:59:24 PM): yes, Jason (12:59:33 PM): becuase, lets face it, i am [...] I adore this man. He can straight-talk me back to sanity like nobody's business.
...and any man who will list apartment-stove size and squirrels as factors in my decision *obviously* knows me extremely well.
By the way, here's an update for you on the whole scheme: This fall, I could be studying (more) Old English while receiving large checks every 2 weeks in ...... Urbana-Champaign, South Bend (IN), Minneapolis, or Storrs (CT). There is a (wait-listed) potential for me to live in New Brunswick (NJ), too. I'm still waiting to hear from four others.... sigh. Let the [political mind-] games [with ridiculous bluebloods and secretive plots for my demise] begin!
P.S. I defend my thesis next Monday. It feels very very weird to have all the work I've done since about March 2006 come down to a single set of about 2 hours in March 2008. How can I defend ideas I feel like I've barely even spoken? How can I defend un-tested methodologies and approaches that no one else has done? Why is doing even semi-original work in academia so scary, people? How will I ever survive this test? | | |
|
