I found this essay pretty interesting, although confusing at times. I liked the fact that Rubin related her work to other authors such as Levi-Strauss, Derrida, and Marx, but at the same time I didn’t. The only reason I didn’t was because I didn’t fully understand all of the concepts that the past author’s we have read were trying to explain. So naturally, I was a little bummed out.

I really enjoyed the section on page 1665 where Rubin says, “The purpose of this essay is to arrive at a more fully developed definition of the sex/gender system, by way of a somewhat idiosyncratic and exegetical reading of Levi-Strauss and Freud.” I thought that was pretty cool how she basically just explained what her essay was going to be about. After some of the past essays we have read, I know that I would sit there after I read it and say “What was that about?” So it was a nice little change being able to know what we should get out of this essay.

It is really interesting how a lot of authors do tend to leave out theories regarding “oppression of women.” Under the Marx column, it says “It has been argued that women are a reserve labor for capitalism, that women’s generally lower wages provide extra surplus to a capitalist employer, that women serve the ends of capitalist consumerism in their roles as administrators of family consumption, and so forth.” It still holds true that many people today believe that women should be the head of the household while the men are out earning the money. Many people had that way of thinking years ago, and some even still tend to think that way. Women are cooking, cleaning, and raising the children.. they don’t get payed, yet they receive very little credit.

I also thought under Engel’s section where Rubin explains Engel’s passage, she says “This passage indicated an important recognition — that a human group must do more than apply its activity to reshaping the natural world in order to clothe, feed, and warm itself. We usually call the system by which elements of the natural world are transformed into objects of human consumption by the ‘economy.’” I think that is so true; you need to really push yourself in the world today in order to survive. It’s sad to say, but it’s expensive to live! Clothes and food cost so much money alone, so imagine supporting a whole family. In order to make it, you usually need two incomes coming into the home (mother and father). It was also interesting where Rubin says, “Hunger is hunger, sex is sex… but what counts as food/sex is equally culturally determined and obtained.” Meaning that is all depends on culture?

I’m a little confused with the whole kinship topic.. so naturally, I googled it looking for the definition. According to wikipedia, kinship is the most basic principle of organizing individuals into social groups, roles, and categories.” A lot of that is covered throughout the essay, but I’m still left in the dark– so hopefully we can go over that in class tomorrow. A lot of talk regarding the kinship has to do with the exchange of women? Women getting married, women taking the man’s last name and so on.

A lot of what I’m understanding is just the fact that men and women are treated or looked upon differently. Levi-Strauss goes on to say (1678), “But woman could never become just a sign and nothing more, since even in a man’s world she is still a person, and since insofar as she is defined as a sign she must be recognized as a generator of signs.” I’m not sure what exactly to take from this being that the whole sign concept lost me, but I think that women again are just viewed as the homemakers and that a lot of what they do in their homes, keeps the marriage going.

Bring Watchmen back, please!

Some of what Louis Althusser had to say was interesting, but some of his points I was of course, left confused. Althusser starts off by discussing “the reproduction of the conditions of productin” which leads into Reproduction of Labour-Power. On page 1484, Althusser says, “…since wages represent only that part of the value produced by the expenditure of labour power which is indispensable for its reproduction: sc. indispensable to the reconstruction of the labour power of the wage-earner (the wherewithal to pay for housing, food and clothing, in short to enable the wage-earner to present himself again at the factory gate the next day—and every further day God grants him)…” Well, I think what Althusser is saying, is that people don’t mind working (well maybe they mind but they don’t have much of a choice), because it brings in revenue. People work and continue to work to pay for things that they want and/or need on a daily basis. In order to pay the bills, buy items such as clothes and shoes, you need money. In order to have money in your pocket you need to return to work to earn more wages.

On page 1485 Althusser goes on to say “What do children learn at school? They go varying distances in their studies, but at any rate they learn to read, to write and to add–i.e. a number of techniques, and a number of other things as well, including elements of ’scientific’ or ‘literary culture’, which are directly useful in the different jobs in production. Thus they learn ‘know-how’.” He goes on and on explaining what types of techniques that students learn which are interesting, but I think we know a lot of the information he is informing us of. He also says “But besides these techniques and knowledges, and in learning them, children at school also learn the ‘rules’ of good behavior, i.e. the attitude that should be observed…” Althusser goes on to basically state that while in school, students are being taught ethics from an early age. Adults try to teach students how to act, and explain the differences between right and wrong.

On page 1486 Althusser says “Like every metaphor, this metaphor suggests something, makes something visable. What? Precisely this: that the upper floors could not ’stay up’ (in the air) alone, if they did not rest precisely on their base.” I thought that was really funny (I actually chuckled) because when I’m confused after I read something, I stop and say “What?” It’s like he realized his previous statement was confusing, so he went on to give an example in hopes that what he was trying to say would be more clear.

Page 1487 Althusser ties Marxist tradition and the State apparatus. He defines this term as “not only the specialized apparatus whose existence and necessity I have recognized in relation to the requirements of legal practice, i.e. the police, the courts, the prisons…” Also on page 1490 he relates the State apparatus to private and public schools. I really liked this part because he says, “It is unimportant whether the institutions in which they are realized are ‘public’ or ‘private’. What matters is how they function.” I really liked that paragraph because I think it’s so true. A lot of people believe that private schools are better or more advanced that public schools, but that isn’t the case at all, so I really liked how Althusser put all that.

Further on, page 1507, I started getting a little lost. Althusser began talking about how an ideology is centred..which brought my mind back to “the center is not the center.” Ahh.

So lots of things went on in the last few chapters of Watchmen, but for some reason I cannot get over Dan and Laurie. Laurie comes back from her little adventure with Jon and again, ends up in Dan’s arms. After they engage in their sexual relations, Jon walks in and sees them laying on the floor naked. What a slap in the face huh!?

I still find it really interesting how throughout the entire graphic novel and even in the last few chapters, “Nostalgia” is somewhat hidden in hopes that the reader will see it. I keep finding it and it just boggles me how it is repeated so much. And the fact that Laurie asks Dan on page 22 chapter 12, “What’s that you smell of?” And he replies “Nostalgia” is just weird! He smells of what they had done together in the past?

For a while I was a little confused when it came to Adrian. Throughout the last few chapters, he was watching everyone and paying close attention to every little detail on his little television screens.. sneaky. Anyway, after he killed millions of people, tried to destroy Jon, and kicked Laurie in the stomach, you see him on page 19 chapter 12 with his arms up in the air claiming victory saying “I DID IT!” He was so proud of himself for basically destroying the world.

I may have mentioned this earlier, but I can relate some parts of Watchmen to some of Saussure’s ideas. Language needs more than speech because it’s a lot more than just sound. Because this is a graphic novel, it is possible to get many different things out of it. You are able to read the little blogs in each box then look at the picture that goes along with it. It is open to interpretation, but it is also narrowed down in a way. By reading the words and looking at the picture, it is a lot easier to come to a conclusion about what exactly is occurring at this specific point in time. Hence, language that’s written down is valuable because you can see it.. the book itself is tangible. With Derrida and free play– I think free play is used a lot throughout this graphic novel because there are a lot of different things going on, but all within a basic structure. All of the super heroes are trying to piece together their friend’s murder, while their (past) lives are being explained. A lot of unraveling is taking place so the reader is able to get a better understanding of what each character is about. The world is also closing in on everyone because there is so much corruption, murder, sexual relations, and lies that everyone just wishes that things were different.. hoping that life would be more like it was in the past.

Any of that make sense?

After reading chapters 4-9 I found myself really intrigued with chapters 4 and 9, but found myself a little bored when it came to chapters 5-8. Interestingly enough, chapters 4 and 9 parallel each other. I really enjoyed how there was a lot more background given on Jon because when we first started reading Watchmen I was a little confused on his character. While Jon is just “hanging out” on Mars, he reflects back on his life. He gives us information about a woman named Janey that he seemed to care very much for. Jon was ‘normal’ at the time, no blue skin, and it seemed as though the couple were very much in love. He goes on to discuss his life and his relationship with his father; his father didn’t want Jon getting into the pocket-watch business like himself because there were a lot more important things going on at the time (such as the atomic bomb being dropped). Then Jon brings the reader to the lab where he gets stuck in the chamber and turns blue! I immediately thought that once Jon turned blue and was all of a sudden a super hero, Janey was going to leave him. Even though she was scared and didn’t know what to think, she stayed with him anyway. She went on to say that Jon was like God, that he has changed so drastically when in fact it was only his appearance and abilities that were different. I also found it really interesting when the whole super hero image was coming together. Jon had put together a “costume” (page 12 chapter 4) and put a symbol on his head to represent atomic power. Now that Jon went through all these changes, he was told and really had no other choice, but to fight crime. Shockingly enough, I got so into this chapter that I felt really bad for Janey when Jon left her for Laurie. Laurie was so much younger and more beautiful and Janey knew it. So basically it was pretty much a slap in the face, which is pretty crummy.

I also find it really interesting how the authors throw in words like “vigilantism” (wikipedia defines it as “trying to enforce the laws”) and “The Keene Act” and especially “Nostalgia.” It’s really cool to just focus in on the picture itself and see what the picture is trying to say rather than just reading the words. I found myself understanding what was going on better through the pictures than sometimes the words themselves.

I have very different feelings when it comes to Rorschach. I like him, but I don’t.. if that makes sense. He has done a lot of awful things to people, yet he is trying to piece together his friend’s murder. He obviously is really messed up in the head, but who wouldn’t be if they saw their own mother performing sexual activities with random guys? That’s just gross. I feel bad that he thought his mom and this guy were dancing, when come to find out, they were doing a lot more than dancing; she was a prostitute! He had seen prostitution in his own home.. that is just very awkward/weird. Oh and one thing I was curious about.. pages 29-32 chapter 6 the “New York Pyschiatric Hospital West Branch” sheets where there is a summary on Kovacs’ life– why are there so many typos? Is there a reason behind that? That just seemed odd to me.

Ok, so I don’t know about anyone else.. but umm.. Laurie and Dan!? What? Why!!? Only a few days after leaving Jon (which she was apparently very upset about), Laurie jumps into the arms of another man. I guess she got over that quick. But then, Jon appears out of nowhere and she leaves Dan for Jon. Head spinning yet? I don’t know, but she needs to make up her mind.

One last thing I found interesting was on page 3 chapter 8 there is a sign that says “UTOPIA — The day the Earth Stood Still.” After googling “utopia” the definition came up as “a place in which social, legal, and politicial justice and perfect harmony exist.” That just stood out to me because that all goes back to nostalgia.

I’ve never been a huge fan of comics. When I first started reading this comic book, I found myself suprisingly getting into it. It’s a very quick read and for the most part easy to understand; although I did get a little confused in Chapter 3. I have no idea why, but this comic book reminds me of the movie Fantastic Four. The characters in the movie get along better and don’t have as many issues towards each other, yet it still reminds me of The Watchmen. I don’t know, maybe because all of the characters are super heroes… well kind of. The characters in Fantastic Four are all super heroes and have their own powers, the characters in The Watchmen are all considered super heroes yet the only real super hero is Jon. I’m actually a little confused on Jon’s character, it seemed as though in the first two chapters his wife was not very happy with him, maybe even a little scared of him– but in chapter 3, she breaks down crying when she decides to leave him and in a way, “jumps” into another man’s arms.

Ok, so on to relating The Watchmen with a few of the past pieces we have read. When it comes to Saussure’s Speech/Language concept, it is easy to tie the two together with a comic book because ‘language needs more than speech.’ Saussure explains that language that is written down is valuable because you can see it (tangible = a book). This entire comic book not only has words, but pictures! How exciting. Language is a lot more than just sound which a comic book proves. You are able to get a visual understanding of what is going on throughout the reading, while comprehending the words that are written down.

Besides the whole biology relating to english metaphor (“body without organs..”), I think that Deleuze and Guattari may have made one valuable point that I actually understand. What I understood was that they believe society has a structure, but the world doesn’t. Throughout the comic book, it’s like the world is falling apart. People, such as the super heroes are all working together to save their society and piece together a murder, yet the world around them is just crumbling.

Throughout Jameson’s piece, he talks a lot about nostalgia. Even though I was able to understand a lot of his reading, I did get a little confused when it came to him discussing nostalgia. According to Wikipedia, “Nostalgia describes a longing for the past.” It was really interesting to see how on page 7 in chapter 3, there is a huge billboard that has a picture of a woman on it and in big letters it says “Nostalgia” and “Where is the essence that was so divine?” So apparently, people aren’t too pleased with how things are going in the near future, they miss the past? In chapter 1 on the first page it says “The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “save us!”… … and I’ll look down, and whisper “no.”" Back to the image that the world is falling apart.. it seems as though many people aren’t happy because there is so much crime and filth going on around them. Maybe that the world is taking a turn for the worse?

Yayyy for Jameson!

Jameson starts off his piece by saying “The concept of postmodernism is not widely accepted or even understood today.” After doing some research on postmodernism, I found that all types of people have a difficult time dealing with the term postmodernism because it basically means that the “modern historical period has passed.” There are advancements in the world happening everyday, and that holds true for even literature.

Jameson goes on to explain that literature has had its advancements, but when this piece was written he goes on to tell us that individuality has vanished. On page 1964 Jameson states, “The great modernisms were, as we have said, predicated on the invention of a personal, private style, as unmistakable as your fingerprint, as incomparable as your own body.” From what I understand, Jameson is explaining that when many of the first writers started out, they all had their own writings styles and techniques which made them unique. Because each writer had their own indiviuality, the readers were able to distinguish who was who. Also on page 1964 Jameson says, “… all are exploring the notion that that kind of individualism and personal identity is a thing of the past; that the old individual or individualist subject is ‘dead’…” Again, he is just reinforcing the fact that the writers today don’t have their own sense of style. A lot of the writers all just blend in by sounding the same, and not writing in unique ways which would set them apart from other writers. All of this information is found under The Death of the Subject, where he wraps up this particular section by saying “…in a world in which stylistic innovation is no longer possible, all that is left is to imitate dead styles, to speak through the masks and with the voices of styles in the imaginary museum.” It is unfortunate that all the writers today have to follow in the footsteps of writers who have passed away because there is no more uniqueness, everything is the same.

Another topic I found interesting was when Jameson described the fact that postmodernists are fascinated with mass media and not so much with poetry or literature. Many people today would much rather watch television or a movie before picking up a book, especially now that books are starting to turn into movies. On page 1961, Jameson says “They no longer ‘quote’ such ‘texts’ as a Joyce might have done…” I think he’s saying here that it’s not black and white poetry anymore, authors today would much rather write something more interesting or surreal, something more eye catching.

Unfortunately, Jameson threw me for a loop while discussing The Nostalgia Mode. I think he just goes on to talk about the past and how things were? I’m not sure, but hopefully we’ll go over all that in class.

So I really don’t even know where to start. All of a sudden, I feel a little depressed. After reading and being able to understand a lot of what Saussure had to say, I really believed that things were starting to look up. But unfortunately, I’m back to where I started, completely lost. The sad part is, is that I really don’t understand what he is trying to say here.

On page 915 Jacques Derrida says “The center is at the center of the totality, and yet, since the center does not belong to the totality (is not part of the totality), the totality has its center elsewhere. The center is not the center.” Wait, what?! I don’t know if he’s contradicting himself here or if he’s also a little confused with his own theory. He uses the same words over and over in one sentence (totality and center). Isn’t there some kind of rule that says you shouldn’t be so repetitive in one sentence?

Derrida is very fixated on the fact that everything that exists has a center. But how does that make sense if he says “the center is not the center.” ??? Yup, I just confused myself.

Derrida also focuses on the fact that society likes having a structured environment rather than free play. I think free play means that everything is just unorganized and there is no-one there to distinguish right from wrong.

On page 914 where there’s a little summary on Derrida’s life, it says “Derrida was very much the “bad boy” of the philosophic world, and his fame – or notoriety – in America…” I find this amusing because he was obviously such a rebel for writing and confusing people the way he did!