 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I went for drinks with my favourite tutor last night (Sally Bayley) and it turns out that she set the Yeats paper and marked all of them (which is slightly odd since although Yeats is in her period, she's far from a specialist on him). Perhaps this should be reassuring: generally our critical principles are in line, and she told me that she and the other marker only disagreed over one of the essays, which she was sure wasn't mine. Sally said the standard was "reasonable", though some responses were too "fannish". I think I was exploring an interesting intellectual area, but I worry that I could have been clearer with my argument and my terms. I didn't give Sally any clues as to which was mine (she'd tried to find mine, but couldn't), since I don't want to know one result before the others, but it's just slightly unnerving to know who has been marking your finals. I just want to find out my results, I don't think I even care that much anymore, but it would be nice to have done well on Yeats, particulalrly as I have a huge amount of respect for Sally. I'm not stressed over this, but its just cropped up again, when I hadn't been thinking about it recently. Tags: finals, work
Current Mood:  contemplative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this Guardian article neatly sums up the dynamic of the election, though it is a bit over-optimistic. It contains good material about the effect of Clinton's campaign and a neat exposition of the problems of Oppression Olympics. Enjoy! On a side note, I am beginning to get really irritated by people saying "I want Clinton/Obama as President; it would be great to have a female/black POTUS". Of course it's a positive sign that a member of a usually marginalised group with regards to official political power could end up as President, but to couch support in such terms only serves to relegate the candidate to being merely a "woman" or "black". I'm not saying that this is why people support either Clinton or Obama, but by using such language they are implicitly stripping their preferred candidate of the very qualities (experience, grasp of policy, resilience in Clinton's case; charisma, judgement and being outside entrenched interests and power groups for Obama) that makes them worthy of nomination. I hate to bring up the obvious analogy, but I wonder if anyone thought that Thatcher would be a good ruler just because she was a woman? I'm sure there would have been plenty of bollocks spouted about how women are more consensual and that she would signal a new style of inclusive leadership, concerned with the right action rather than macho posturing. Perhaps such discourse even contributed to her hyper-confrontational style, a desire to prove that she was every bit as 'good' as a man not, as would have been best, by simply striving to be the best leader she could, but in competing in the manner of a Neanderthal caricature. Of course, I'm no expert on Thatcher, and this is just speculation. While I don't want to compare Clinton and Thatcher too much (since the former is much more intelligent, and is someone whose ideas I'm much more sympathetic towards), it is notable that Mark Penn devised the 'experienced' strategy because he thought that post-9/11, any Democrat would need to appear tough on security, and a woman doubly so. I don't want to get into the whole 'crying' incident (apostrophes because she didn't actually cry), but whether it was deliberate act or a genuine outlet of feeling, the coverage given and its effect on the primary reveal that gender politics is often being utilised instead of genuine political debate. The curious mixture of 'macho' posturing and more 'feminine' qualities is itself reminiscent of Thatcher. Of course, the same problems also apply to Obama, and I've read many articles and comments from African-Americans who appear to be supporting him simply because they want to see one of their own in power. The difference between the two (and I may well be missing something, so please point it out if I have) is that while Clinton has consistently presented herself as macho, Obama, initially at least, sought to be seen as "post-racial" rather than 'white'. Emblematic of this is his reluctance to cut himself off from Wright, calling him an "uncle", while still distancing himself from his comments was simultaneously an acknowledgement of his black identity while also seeking to move beyond it. Of course, some people feel that being "post-racial" is a concession to white demands of what he should 'be' while ignoring the problems and discrimination that blacks still face (certainly this was an early criticism of him by some black groups, and Jesse Jackson's initial support was hardly fulsome). It remains to be seen whether this particular style of triangulation will result in him acting 'white' once in office (something I genuinely fear, since most of the comments by black associates that he has tried to disassociate himself from are things I actually agree with). Perhaps I'm being overly lenient on Obama because I consider him the better candidate. I think they both face the same paradox, though. If one supports Clinton or Obama because of gender or race, then one denies their very qualities which if we recognise equal rights and opportunities are what qualifies them for the top job. It implies positive discrimination which is both patronising and counter productive. Yet if one simply says I support Clinton/Obama because she/he is the best candidate, then one inevitably implies that race and gender are irrelevant or unimportant, which they obviously aren't. Naturally, there's a middle path to be found, but I think that the language which the left has used over the whole campaign has aided the right by somewhat limiting the debate to the issues of gender and race. It's difficult to find a solution, and I certainly don't have one, but we need to start by at least recognising when our language use is misleading and unhelpful. Tags: american politics, clinton, gender, obama, race, thatcher
Current Mood: pensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
zed92uk's journal
Previous
tired
frustrated
anxious
