Update: There are some really good blogs on the list but, as alert commentators have pointed out, there are some very negative features. Thanks to those who are uncovering the problems.
Well, who knows how good any of these lists are, but this one has some interesting entries. People in the dark about feminism might find some light with #19.
Of course, #23, which is FP, doesn’t need describing here.
I’m glad we’re in the company of the blogs on the list that I know, but there are plenty I can’t vouch for. I expect readers will quickly know whether they want to return.
It’s Jeanne Dielman by Chantal Ackermann. At the Film Forum.
Some critical notices:
“A LANDMARK! A MAJESTIC MOVIE! Akerman fills her movies with patterns and textures of ordinary life, the stuff other films never even notice. Today the film’s observational strategies — its long takes and scrupulous framing — practically amount to a lingua franca of international art film, discernible in the works of artists from Todd Haynes to Gus Van Sant. Adapting to the pace of Dielman can seem like a matter of recalibrating one’s biorhythms. Nothing can quite prepare the first-time viewer for the force of Akerman’s concentration, for the film’s overwhelming concreteness or the horrifying logic of its ending.”
– Dennis Lim, The New York Times
Click here to read entire review
“FEEL THE URGENCY OF GETTING YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR NETFLIX QUEUE AND RUNNING TO THE THEATER!
Like Citizen Kane, not merely a masterpiece but also a landmark work.
A PRISTINELY RESTORED PRINT!”
– Amy Taubin, Artforum
Click here to read entire review
Showing through the 29th. At the Film Forum; you can buy tickets online here.
An eight-page article in the NY Times today addresses the latest research in what is said to be ‘postfeminist sexology.’ I’m not going to try to summarize the material, but I’d recommend reading and saving the article. It may be the research is at a very early stage and a lot may change soon, but it’s already addressing questions in a way that readers may find increases their understanding of themselves. At the same time, the research is to some extent involved in an idea of sex as a biological phenomenon, and some readers will think the most important questions hardly get a look in.
So let me take one example: it appears that women respond with increased blood flow to the vagina in response to a wider range of stimuli than men do, but that there also seems to be a far greater discrepancy between such arousal and experienced desire. There is a much closer correlation between arousal and felt desire in men.
Now I can remember somewhat similar results being taken to show that women are just not as self-aware, etc. That isn’t the kind of explanation this more sophisticated research is looking at. Here’s one alternative explanation: vaginal arousal has a protective function, since it makes penetration less likely to damage one. So vaginal arousal may be cued to the presence of sex, not the presence of desire. Importantly, this would mean that a woman’s body’s being prepared for sex is no indication of willingness.
Another hypothesis is that what for women sexual desire may be particularly reacting to is being desired, a feature whose erotic power may not have much longevity to it.
If you read the article, do remember that it’s written by someone who is himself an outsider to the research. And of course, thinking about different factors that may enter into the construction of women’s sexuality is enormously difficult. Still and all, there are new perspectives on the topics.
UPDATE: One of the leaders in setting these programs up has written in (see comments below). She notes that these programs are generally made available to ALL employees, so my worry below was misplaced. She also gives some useful links, and offers to help universities set this sort of thing up.
There’s a New York Times article on workplaces that allow employees to bring their babies (and sometimes pre-school kids) to work. There are a variety of ways that they manage this, and they’re interesting to read about. But two things struck me: (1) Of course (this is the NY TImes!), the focus was on well-paid professionals; (2) It’s presented as a “maternity leave alternative”– which is part of the story but only part. The actual article mentions (though doesn’t say much about) men taking up this option as well; and mostly discusses employees who do this well beyond common US maternity leave allowances. What are your thoughts in general, and what are your thoughts about the potential for this in academia?
A wonderful song by Chicago songwriter Amy Dixon-Kolar. Enjoy. (Thanks, lydia!)
Thinking about retirement and getting a couple of acres in some remote place? Want some company? If so, do continue…
Many thanks to JT!