How I Was Taught to Do Literary Criticism

That’s the way I was taught to conduct literary criticism:

As feminists at odds with our culture, we are at odds also with its literary traditions and need often to talk about texts in terms that the author did not use, may not have been aware of, and might indeed abhor. The trouble is that this necessity goes counter not only to our personal and professional commitment to all serious literature but also to our training as gentlemen and scholars, let alone as Americans, taught to value, above all, value-free scholarship.

Forget about ideology, leave aside the actual meaning of the words, and concentrate on how nice they sound and how beautifully they are arranged into sentences.

I hated that approach.

Then Who Am I?

According to The Nation‘s Eric Alterman, this is the definition of a Liberal:

 The “larger message” for what Roosevelt called “the liberal party” was a clear and simple one: “As new conditions and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of the Government itself to find new remedies with which to meet them.” Add to this John Dewey’s precept that “government should regularly intervene to help equalize conditions between the wealthy and the poor, between the overprivileged and the underprivileged,” while acknowledging Reinhold Niebuhr’s prescient call for “humility” in all such undertakings, and you have a concise, compelling statement of what it means—then as now—to call oneself an “American liberal.”

I find the quotes Alterman includes here to be completely alien to my political position. Actually, they horrify me. This means I’m not a Liberal. Then who am I? This is not a rhetorical question. We all know I’m not a Conservative (just read the posts on abortion, housewives, religious fanatics, gay rights, etc.). And now it turns out I’m not a Liberal either.

Is there any group that shares my opinions? And please don’t say “Libertarians”, unless you can point me to the Libertarian activism aimed at keeping the government out of people’s uteri and their beds. Also, I don’t think that children are objects owned by their parents, which means I’m definitely not a Libertarian.

Who, then?

Who Needs to Get Rid of Older Academics?

Each day brings yet another completely bizarre and profoundly idiotic solution to the non-existent “crisis” in higher education. Instead of straining their brains and realizing that the calls for profound changes in our system of higher education are part of the anti-intellectual trend of peddlers of stupidity as a life goal, my fellow academics show just how servile they can be by inventing ridiculous self-castrating methods of pruning everything that’s of value on American campuses.

See, for example, the following disturbing article published at Inside Higher Ed. This online resource (which is supposed to be written for academics by academics) has turned into one of the biggest academia-bashers in existence. It is now proposing that colleges should get rid of scholars over the age of 65 because they cost too much and can easily be replaced with new PhDs:

First, these individuals are expensive. They are generally tenured, often hold endowed chairs, and are at the top of the faculty compensation scale. While they might be great teachers and/or researchers, they can often be replaced by a young faculty member at less than half the cost.

Most of us leading colleges and universities must consider the expense of those who continue to want to be employed after age 65 because of the national attention on the cost of higher education and faculty compensation is often the largest slice of that cost.

I have go to wonder whether the person who wrote this is simply dishonest or painfully stupid. This national obsession with the supposedly sky-high salaries of college professors is based on a myth that people like the author of this piece promote. Compared to the huge amounts of money wasted on college athletics, remuneration of useless overpaid administrators and the maintenance of silly fraternities and sororities, the salaries of experienced academics are a drop in the bucket. The benefits of having people with decades of experience in teaching and research on campus, however, are enormous. I have two 60+-year-old colleagues whose assistance in navigating the academia in general and my institution in particular has been incredibly helpful. A university simply cannot function without  constant interactions and exchanges of knowledge and experience between academics who are at the very beginning of their journey as scholars and more experienced, seasoned academics.

The reason why this completely fictitious concern over “hugely expensive” older scholars is being manufactured is simply that older tenured scholars fight for the rights of academics and students very effectively. At my university, I have witnessed several highly effective campaigns in defense of the rights of college professors spearheaded by 60+-year-old scholars whose decades of experience in conducting (and winning!) such fights were both helpful and inspiring.

The author of the article (who, as you might have guessed already, is a college administrator) makes the following suggestions aimed at squeezing mature academics out of their universities:

  • Give up tenure at age 65 — a move that ensures younger superstar faculty will have an opportunity to stay at the institution.
  • Relinquish endowed chairs or professorships. In this case, time is not on a younger professor’s side. If they cannot see a path to promotion they will go elsewhere.
  • Take a reduced salary based on a pay scale similar to incoming faculty. Yes, when you play with salary questions, you’re playing with fire, but in most cases living expenses go down as we educate our kids and pay off homes. And Mick Jagger solo makes less than the Stones. Much less.

The fake concern over the younger faculty members is especially offensive to me. Surely, this administrator is aware that what destroys tenure positions is not the existence of older academics but the creeping adjunctification of American campuses. Transform all adjunct positions into tenure-tracks and you don’t have to push out older scholars by humiliating them.

Americo Castro, one of the greatest scholars of Spanish history and literature, wrote his The Structure of Spanish History at the age of 69 and his Out of the State of Conflict at the age of 76. Benedict Anderson, one of my favorite historians, published Debating World Literature at 68. Fernando Lázaro Carreter, a great linguist, published his hugely popular defense of the Spanish language against those who torture it at the age of 74.

As a younger professor in whose name this administrator claims to speak, I can assure everybody that the last thing I need to happen for my career advancement is the massive removal of older academics from the campus. There are some dead-weights in academia, for sure, but I have never seen any connection whatsoever between being a dead-weight and being of a certain age.

Would You Forgive Somebody Else’s Killer?

Maybe it’s just as well that I don’t have television any more. Yesterday at the hotel, N. and I decided to use the rare opportunity to watch some TV. It took us all of 10 minutes to turn it off and go back to our books. What made us realize that this TV watching session was a waste of time was the following exchange.

During a late-night talk show at CNN, the host showed a clip of George Zimmerman’s testimony and asked his guests (who identified as some sort of legal and political experts), “If you were Trayvon Martin’s parents, would you forgive the killer?”

The answer of all three “experts” floored me.

“I want to say that I would be able to forgive. . .” one of them started saying.

“We all want to say that we’d forgive,” the second “expert” agreed.

“Yes, everybody wants to believe they’ll forgive in such a situation,” the third chimed in.

These people sound like they are from a different planet. What kind of a monster can come up with something like this? Who the hell do they think they are to forgive anything on behalf of a murdered person? The boy is dead. He is lying in a grave, rotting. How come anybody thinks they have the authority to forgive or not forgive the murderer?

If, God forbid, somebody murdered a person I care about, I hope I would have the presence of mind to remember that I’m not the victim here and it is not up to me to forgive a crime committed against somebody else. Unlike the CNN’s weird experts, I definitely don’t want to believe I’d become a holier-than-thou jerkwad who’d rack up sainthood points by forgiving a crime that robbed another person of a life.

P.S.

Since househusbandry is yet another topic that people love to misunderstand, here is a disclaimer:

A self-employed person, a person who works from home, a person of a creative profession (writer, poet, painter, etc) who might not be making any money with his art just yet, a student, an unemployed person looking for work do not equal a housespouse. I’m talking very specifically about people who refuse to look for work and spend the greatest part of their time waiting for their working spouse to come home and coming up with inventive ways to spend that spouse’s money. People who have absolutely no professional or social ambitions or plans of their own.

Who Can Value a Househusband?

Only a person who has never had an actual househusband could have written the following:

I get the feeling the Daily Mail’s solution is “men shouldn’t be househusbands,” when the actual solution is to get people to start valuing househusbands more. Part of that, of course, is valuing work that’s done inside the home equally to work that’s done outside the home.

It’s very easy to value something that you haven’t personally been cursed with. Easy to gush and be all politically correct and supportive when you haven’t had your life ground out of you day by day, little by little by a spouse who is too lazy to work but has enough energy to suck you dry for money, attention, entertainment, emotion, etc. Not sex, though. House spouses have no use for sex.

I think that unless you have personally experienced the following amazing bonuses of living with a househusband, you should shut up on the subject of how those of us who have had this great good fortune should “value” these parasites:

– Have you been coming home day after day for years to a hopelessly bored husband who’s been sitting there waiting for you to come and entertain you all day long?

– Have you had to apologize for not listening too carefully to their hugely important news of a spat with a neighbor when you know that you still have 3 more hours of work to do before going to bed?

– Have you been led to feel like a failure for not providing enough attention to said bored househusband because you work too much to keep him?

– Have you had to pay off the debts the househusband has made relying on your income?

– Have you had to give out an allowance to a grown healthy individual who refuses to earn enough money to pay for his own bus ticket?

– Have you had to deal with a sulky adult who is upset that you can’t buy them an expensive whatever they really really want?

– Have you been resented and sabotaged by a househusband who is annoyed that nobody admires and congratulates him on his non-existent professional achievements while you get accolades and compliments because you do work?

– Have you had the privilege of living with somebody who sits there at home all day long while you kill yourself to survive in a very harsh economy, yet he is always the one permanently exhausted, miserable, depressive, and whiny?

– Have you ever lived with somebody who feels perennially unappreciated and tries to squeeze out the acceptance that people normally get from many different people at work from a single person (you)?

– Have you gotten to the point where you are so terrified of disturbing the fragile mental state of the fatigued househusband that you don’t even ask him to take out the garbage because it’s easier to do it yourself than to exhaust him even further?

No? Not really? Then don’t ask me to value this kind of a moocher because I have experienced all this.

Now, I want to make the following completely clear: I’m not claiming that I’m any sort of a victim here. The unhealthy dynamic between the leech and the organism whose body feeds it is created and maintained by both of them equally. I do not expect anybody to “value” me for having been a willing participant in this sick dynamic. What I do want to achieve with this post is to get people to understand that sanctification of househusbandry is not a valid response to the glorification of housewifery. It makes absolutely no difference what the gender of the moocher is. When one person’s entire existence is dedicated to servicing the household needs of another person, when one of the partners has no social or professional realization of their own, there is absolutely no possibility that the relationship between them will avoid becoming monstrously ugly.

The idea that a househusband is the perfect accessory for a feminist is deeply misguided. Let’s just move past this insane belief that, in order for two people to have a relationship, one of them has to give up on a life of his or her own and become a household device.

As for the reason why housework is not valued (or paid for) very highly is that it’s extremely easy. You need to invest zero brain energy to vacuum or press buttons on a washer. A person who presses the microwave buttons and does nothing else in life should not expect to be valued and appreciated a whole lot.

At the same time, real work benefits many different people. A bus driver takes people outside of her immediate family to work. A firefighter doesn’t spend all day saving only relatives. A teacher provides education for children of complete strangers. In the meantime, a housespouse only cooks and cleans for his or her family members (if that). So why should society value this completely self-centered existence in the same way it values the work of those who benefit everybody? Making a pot of soup (something that I, a career woman, do better than the absolute majority of housewives and more often, too) only benefits a few and can be done by absolutely anybody without dedicating their life to it. The only “value” of this work is that it provides a lazy and immature person with an excuse to mooch of his or her miserable hard-working spouse. The funny thing is that, often enough, the bulk of housework in such arrangements gradually shifts onto the working spouse because the househusband (or wife) is too exhausted, depressed or unappreciated to do even these few and easy tasks.

Who Comes Up With These Idiotic Ads?

Sometimes, a company comes up with a great product and then just slaughters it with horrible advertising. See the following, for example:

“I’m not THAT OLD – 27”? A pre-emptive defense? Semi-decent skin?Why not just stick a notice saying “Olay, the product of choice for brainless idiots with semi-decent skin”?

I used to like the product but the chances I will purchase anything that is promoted with the line “27 is not that old” are non-existent.

Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion

On expressing one’s opinion son one’s own blog: “It doesn’t affect my ability to do anything. It’s just an opinion. Not a personal attack on anyone. An opinion. The only thing it could possibly affect is other people’s opinions of me. Other people may read about my opinions and take them personally. They may assume that I don’t like them–personally. They may assume that I’m a callous person. But these are their problems, not mine. If they’ve never learned not to make assumptions about others, I’m not taking responsibility for that. And I’m not going to stop writing, or “tone it down,” for the sake of someone else’s comfort.” Yes, yes, and once again, yes.

Wikipedia’s gender gap.

Many people enjoy dumping on Ayn Rand’s praise of selfishness. What they forget, however, is how many folks are robbed of having any sort of a worthwhile existence precisely because they have been browbeaten into a fer of selfishness: “According to conservative evangelicalism, thinking of your own needs is “selfish.” You’re supposed to spend your life sacrificing for others and ignoring your own needs. It’s selfish to want out of a failed marriage, selfish for a woman to want a career, selfishfor a couple to choose not to have children.” I say, let’t all concentrate on our own happiness and forget the idiots who want to rob us of agency by guilt-tripping us into servicing them with our lives.

I know we are all sick and tired to death of hearing about Arizona’s flurry of woman-hating legislative endeavors. There is one, however, that I just found about from a blog of a teacher from Arizona who resents the state’s meddling into her discussions with her students. Libertarians, hello? How come there is never a single peep out of you when the government intrudes into anything other than your right not to pay taxes and to abuse your children as you see fit? Huh?

UK’s David Cameron is getting criticized for the following suggestions  he made for school reform: “Pupils, he said, should “stand up when their teacher walks in the room”. He then catalogued – in a characteristically verbless paragraph – other attributes every school should acquire: “Real discipline. Rigorous standards. Hard subjects. Sports where children can learn what it is to succeed and fail.“” Other than the sports which, in my opinion, should be substituted by unsupervised running and playing outside, I don’t see what’s so wrong with this plan. We always used to get up when the teacher came into the classroom. The practice is useful and pedagogically sound. I think Cameron is onto something here.

You’ve really got to be a vile, vile jerk to dismiss men’s postpartum depression as non-existent or insignificant. I’ve had close friends of mine – both male and female – suffer from postpartum depression which is why it angers me more than I can tell you to see some poor excuse for a journalist dismiss their suffering because she can’t get over a bunch of ridiculous, offensive stereotypes.

It must be the spring avitaminosis that brings every wackadoo out into the open: “Republican U.S. Senate candidate John Raese compared anti-smoking signs in Monongalia County to a key part of the Holocaust, which killed millions of Jews. . .  “In Monongalia County now, I have to put a huge sticker on my buildings to say this is a smoke-free environment,” Raese said. “This is brought to you by the government of Monongalia County. OK? “Remember Hitler used to put Star of David on everybody’s lapel, remember that?” Raese said. “Same thing.””

In Story of Burqa: Case of a Confused Afghan, Brishkay Ahmed, an Afghan-Canadian filmmaker travels to Afghanistan with the purpose of unraveling the history of the garment and gauge the opinions of those in the country. . . No matter the real history, the stories generally point to the same end. Ahmed observes that the burqa has long been used to the benefit of those in power, and women consistently emerge as the losing party.”

Introvert’s definition of work: Being pestered every five minutes about something trivial, and not allowed to concentrate.” This is precisely why I refer to sitting in my office and eating pumpkin seeds as grueling work and to doing my research at home as a holiday.

And the post of the week: why proselytism is wrong.

Why Is the Lawn Not Perfect?

Aside for the beauties of nature, there were also some intensely funny things at the Botanical Gardens.

See, for example, the following announcement explaining why the lawn is not perfectly manicured.

One thing that somebody from my country notices immediately in North America is how much care and effort people put in keeping the lawns absolutely perfect. In Ukraine, we just let them grow over with weeds that get so tall they reach up to one’s shoulder by the end of August.

This is why it’s so funny to see how the lawn-loving American people feel the need to apologize when the lawn hasn’t been trimmed for a short while.

Venus Fly-Trap

Here it is! I could have bought one for just $7. It comes with a couple of insects for its next meal.

I was afraid I’d unwittingly starve it, though, so I bought a small cactus instead. I have always loved cacti and this one is really cute. I feel like a cactus is a perfect symbol for my personality.