So, I have drastically changed my Directed Reading course. Instead of doing Language and Sexuality as planned, I will be studying approaches to Discourse Analysis, particularly Critical Discourse Analysis (Norman Fairclough) and Conversation Analysis. And some other stuff. It should be good.

Why not Language and Sexuality? Well. I am already taking Language and Gender, which is (surprise!) largely the same subject matter. Also, there is a certain amount of stress in constantly re-considering your ideas and worldviews and such, and I've done way more of that in the last three years than I expected to (i.e. Jesus got the boot), and well... sexuality is a loaded topic, and I think I shall take some time to let it marinate, rather than plowing right into that bulk of literature. I am still interested, I am just taking a bit more time with it, and trying to wade my way carefully through the feminist side of it. While I appreciate where radical feminism got us... well, sometimes extremism is necessary to counter the opposite extremism, but perhaps it isn't the greatest idea in the long run.

I'm working on this Linguistics project where I listen to interviews and proof the transcriptions, and sometimes the interviews are really funny or bizarre, but today, the guy was talking about how this other guy raped a girl, but it was okay because she "wanted" it, oh, how funny... (!!) and there was another interview a while back where a woman talked about her sister being beaten to death for being attractive and her boyfriend (?) being jealous or something... It's either stories like that or long tirades about how the world is coming to an end because God is angry that "children today is wicked" and people don't go to church, and the last days are coming, and blah blah blah weird Christian eschatology. I have learned so much about the Bible! Like, did you know that John was suspected of being a witch because his prophecies came true, so they boiled him in oil for 24 hours and he survived, so they concluded that he WAS a witch and exiled him to the Isle of Patmos? Or that Satan fell from heaven in 1914? Amazing stuff. I have no idea where they get these stories from -- they're certainly not in the bible. Maybe missionaries back in the day got some stories mixed up? I have no idea.

My job is rather monotonous, and sometimes it's disturbing or irritating on top of it. Of course, sometimes it's wicked funny and I really like the people being interviewed, like the woman who had 10 children and insisted, "Me ain't sleep a night wi' a man yet!" because she always met with her 'baby-father' in the bush and came home before her mama caught her staying out late, beca' you will get licks for that! I'm finding it hard not to incorporate "ain't" into my vocabulary because they use it so often. When I was taking French, I would come home and be tempted to talk to everyone in French. Now I get home and want to speak a Caribbean dialect of English. Tha's what me day be like, man.

I'm sure I took more pictures than this. I'm not sure what happened to some of them, strangely... Anyways, this is the basic run-down:

First, biking around Stanley Park:

Chris inside a hollow tree:

Front of old Japanese boat:

Not a clue what these are, except pretty:


Melissa: This tree got married a LONG time ago:


Driving from Vancouver to Prince George and back:

Getting close to Whistler:


Ridge of dying trees infested with pine beetles:


Mike, me, Janice:


Me and Chris:


Lynn Valley Suspension Bridge and surrounding park:


Vancouver Aquarium:



Supplementary from Chris's gallery:
- house we were staying in in Burnaby
- view from balcony
- me biking in Stanley Park
- me in the hollow tree

From Sexuality and Society: An Introduction by Gargi Bhattacharyya:

Sex education is based on the premise that both knowledge and technique can be imparted through the machinery of mainstream education. There is a strictly informational moment in this - the approach that teaches the most biologistic account of reproduction through line drawings of body segments. In an era which has seen greater and more virulent appeals to morality in mainstream politics, with a corresponding anxiety about any public representation of sex that does not constitute a prohibition, it is this disembodied information that has survived as the heart of sex education.

... By inserting sex education into this model of education - 'this is what happens in the natural world, I tell you the facts of it and values do not complicate the process' - everyone attempts to side-step the far trickier questions of morality. Accounts of young people's reactions to this form of schooling reveal a variety of resistances. However early the induction, they always know all this already - there is no point at which the biological account of sex can be taught as interesting non-social mechanics, the whiff of the social is always hanging around. Equally, the strange depictions of sex education seem to bear no relation to young people's experience or self-narratives. As a result, what is taught has little impact on how people choose to behave.

... Sex education combines a number of genres of understanding - biology in its non-deterministic version has a role here, as does some discussion of the emotional experiences that surround sex and the wider social relations which impact on our cultures of sex. Many commentators also advocate that teaching about diversity should address and diffuse fears, and therefore encourage tolerance. in a more directly instrumental vein, moral panics around teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases demand a certain style of informational scare story. The difficulties of combining these modes of information and manners of learning into one coherent and useable understanding of the (sexual) world are not addressed.

In the end, we are left with the same old conundrum. Sexual knowledge demands and understanding of the body and its various irrational imperatives, with all their uncertain intersections between the biological and the cultural. But it also requires a far more complex form of understanding in order to place these strange drives in some comprehensible social context. Combining both forms of knowledge stretches the framework of existing forms of education almost beyond their limits.

... For all the concerned talk about feelings and emotions, and the whole messy human context of sex, nothing can be learned without fostering some level of antomical confidence. The feelings do not happen on some other plain, far from the dirty deed itself. Learning to negotiate pleasurable sexual encounters requires both kinds of knowledge, as well as an understanding of the ongoing tussle between mind and body, emotion and desire." (p.125-128)

So, that's a conundrum. It seems especially difficult when you consider who is teaching these courses and what sort of preparation they have for it. In my experience, it was the Phys. Ed. teachers teaching "health", which covered everything from eating habits to exercise to periods to stages of development of the fetus. Since most of the semester is spent on Phys. Ed. rather than Health, I imagine that most of these teachers come from a Kinesiology background or something similar, and there isn't much in that discipline about the social and cultural context of sex. I'm starting to think that one of the key issues in sex education should be how sex educators are educated in order to hold the position.

But how are we to teach students about the socio-cultural context of sex? Especially in a place like Toronto, where you can't assume anything about a person's background, religion, country of origin... There's such a mix here. It would be ridiculous to teach abstinence to one student, and offensive to teach anything else to another. However, then the issue of effectiveness comes in.

Abstinence-only programs don't produce abstinence-only. I have read that the pregnancy rate is sometimes higher in school districts that teach it, but I haven't got the citation handy, so you'll have to take that with a grain of salt. (It would make sense though, if people refuse to teach you about condoms, make them available, etc., then when you do have sex there would be a higher rate of pregnancy.) If schools taught safe-sex rather than abstinence, does that mean that more students would have sex? Personally, I doubt it. I didn't make my sexual choices based on health classes that I barely remember. There wasn't information in those classes about birth control (heck, we didn't even have the condom demonstration!), but I think I might have retained some of that.

I suspect that there will be a shift in sex education in Canada in the next few years, since we have recently legalised gay marriage, and the government will have to acknowledge that somehow. You can't legalise something and give it equal rights and then keep pretending that it's dirty and shameful and doesn't exist. Well, I suppose you can, but I hope we don't. Clearly, gay couples are here and vocal enough to get those rights, and they have sex that wasn't discussed in my health class. This might open it up to talk about various sexual practices, applicable for both queer and straight couples, other than "sexual intercourse."

It seems like sex education courses try to pretend that sex is just about human reproduction, which is strange to me, because it's targeted towards kids in high school, and you'd better hope they're not reproducing. That's not the sex they're having, so why not talk about something that's applicable to them? Reproduction too, of course, but don't just leave it at that.

When you get into the realm of the emotional aspects of sex... that's a whole bucket of worms. Some of us were raised in very sexually repressed cultures and have a lot of shame and embarassment associated with it. Others were sexually abused. Some people get off on domination or subordination. Some people like to mix pain with sex. Others are very vanilla. Some people are struggling with whether they're gay or not, and that brings a lot of complexity to it. How is a teacher supposed to negotiate that without leaving someone out, hurting someone, offending someone?

I'm just starting to think about this, so... yeah, I've got nothing.

I'll have to post photos of the trip to British Columbia later, since most of them are currently on Chris's computer (we dumped them there half-way through the week so I could have some room left on my camera to take more). It was good, very good, and I am tired. I saw a live octopus, and mountains, and my best friend, and I flew in a plane. We were almost eaten by a bear, and we got rear-ended by a redneck. I'm from the sticks, and this man was Hardcore Redneck Material. Anyways, it wasn't so bad, no one was hurt, etc. That's what you get for visiting Prince George, I suppose! :)

Anyways, more on that later. Let's talk about school.

At York, classes this year start on Wednesday, September 7th. This fall, I have Fridays off, and my earliest class starts at 10:00. That, my friends, is a fairly good deal. The fall line-up is: Psycholinguistics, Language and Gender, Sociolinguistic Variation & Change, Bad Girls in the Bible, Part One: The Hebrew Bible*, and my very own invented Directed Reading course, which will focus on (surprise, surprise) Language and Sexuality.

I'm also going to be working two jobs (just a continuation of both of the jobs I worked this summer, both on campus), and probably doing some tutoring on the side. In the Winter term, I have both Mondays and Wednesdays off... but I also have an 8:30 Friday morning class, and then another right after it so that I have class straight through from 8:30 to 2:30. Boo!

Oh, and a good opportunity for discourse analysis is being thrown around in the press right now. In a roundtable discussion, some reporters questioned Bush on the evolution/intelligent design debate over whether both should be part of the curriculum:

Q: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?
THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
Q Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.
Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

Newspapers are jumping all over this as if Bush has said that ID should be mandatory in biology classrooms everywhere, but he didn't even come close to this. Let's analyse the last question and response first. Bush says, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas," while the question was actually "The answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?" He never answered that question. He specifically backed away from it, though he broke off a sentence that might have been a negative answer ("I'm not suggesting--"). So, is Bush out-right supporting ID as a valid alternative to evolution? No. All he is saying about ID is that it should be "properly taught" and that people should be "exposed to different ideas." This might mean that it should be taught in a religious studies course, not in a science classroom, since ID relies on theological ideas rather than the scientific method. Likewise, evolution would probably not get a fair deal by being taught in Religion rather than, say, Biology. Now, Bush didn't even say this much, he simply dodged the question and answered a different one that fit his talking points better. By dodging it and also emphasizing that the decision should be left up to local school districts, people get the feeling that it's up to them, which is more comfortable for people on both sides of the fence.

By leaving it open, he keeps the religious right from getting their backs up, but also avoids saying things that will cause scientists everywhere to groan in embarrassment.

*Course description: "The Bible offers archetypal figures for Western art, music and film as well as literature. This course will analyze women in the Hebrew Bible in English (Old Testament) with a focus on sexuality, seduction, murder and mayhem." Methinks that Jezebel, Delilah, and Bathsheeba will figure prominently in this course.

So, today I am finishing packing and then meeting up with Chris and going to sleep early, because our flight is at SEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING tomorrow and we need to be there early. Also, I had a lovely conversation with a WestJet employee, who told me that I'm allowed to crochet on-board, "so long as I make scarves for the flight crew." Awesome.

Dani asked me to write something on Christianity and Sex Education, and I have done so. I'm warning you, it's long, but it's about sex, so it's interesting, right? And it features a list of sexual activities that are not sexual intercourse! Bonus!

Okay, some things on the agenda for BC:
- Tojo's Restaurant: The man INVENTED california rolls. I'm thinking this is going to be some goooood sushi.
- Capilano Suspension Bridge through the temperate rainforest.
- dinner with a former roommate, in Vancouver
- a few days with Janice and Mike, in Prince George
- Stanley Park in Vancouver

I'll be back on the 21st, with photos. :)

Crocheted Vulva Pattern now available.

I added some stuff about my crochet addiction, photos of finished projects, and the aforementioned pattern.

Went home for the weekend, and didn't manage to see any Brockville people, but I tried! I called! Everyone except Doug because I couldn't figure out which of the McKenzie's he was in the phone book! And, well, Chad because he doesn't have a phone.

Chris and I went horseback riding and I am HOLY HECK sore from it still. His horse was a darling and did everything he told him to, but mine was the ornery one and would tear off across the field galloping as I pulled back hard on the reins and said "whoa.. WHOA!" and was a pain in the ass. Literally. In fact, my ass is still in pain from that horse.

We hung out with my parents a bunch and they skipped church (!) and my littlest sister showed me her promise ring (!!). I think my mom was having periodic "my kids are so grown up!" freakouts throughout the weekend. She drove us home last night and got to meet a bunch of my friends over fajitas (yumm), and I took the day off today to hang out with her.

On Saturday, Chris and I are leaving for British Columbia for a week. It will be my first time out west, my first time on a plane, my first time seeing Janice and Mike's new place, my first vacation in years... The car rental is a bit more expensive than we had anticipated, but we are staying with friends the whole time and won't have to pay for any hotels, so that's a really good deal. We are spending our time in Vancouver (both weekends) and Prince George (during the week).

In other news, I am so addicted to this game. Boggle AND Scrabble AND competition AND community hints AND I CANNOT STOP.

Yes, Chris and I are headed for my parents' house today. My dad, having been a trucker for a year now, is picking us up from Toronto in his TRANSPORT TRUCK. It will be an adventure. A cheap adventure at that!

Things on the agenda so far:
- horseback riding
- seeing my 4 year old cousin, Erik
- meeting my youngest sister's boyfriend again, perhaps at more length this time
- perchance running into Doug/Holly/Chad/Trevor? pretty please?
- hugging my mom
- going for "tea" with my dad
- teasing Amanda, but also bringing her supplies for going to college for the first time

Yesterday, I picked up Going Nucular by Geoff Nunberg, a Stanford linguist and 'resident linguist' on NPR's Fresh Air program (which you can listen to online here). The book is a series of columns, and the title column is here: Going Nucular. An excerpt:

"On the face of things, "nucular" is a typo par excellence. People sometimes talk about Bush "stumbling" over the word, as if this were the same kind of articulatory problem that turns February into "febyooary." But nuclear isn't a hard word to pronounce the way February is -- try saying each of them three times fast. Phonetically, in fact, nuclear is pretty much the same as likelier, and nobody ever gets that one wrong. ("The first outcome was likular than the second"? ) That "nucular" pronunciation is really what linguists call a folk etymology, where the unfamiliar word nuclear is treated as if it had the same suffix as words like molecular and particular. It's the same sort of process that turns lackadaisical into "laxadaisical" and chaise longue into chaise lounge.

That accounts for Eisenhower's mispronunciation of nuclear, back at a time when the word was a new addition to ordinary people's vocabularies. And it's why Homer Simpson says it as "nucular" even today. But it doesn't explain why you still hear "nucular" from people like politicians, military people, and weapons specialists, most of whom obviously know better and have been reminded repeatedly what the correct pronunciation is. The interesting thing is that these people are perfectly capable of saying "nuclear families" or "nuclear medicine." I once asked a weapons specialist at a federal agency about this, and he told me, "Oh, I only say 'nucular' when I'm talking about nukes.""

It's an interesting collections of ruminations about language and why we choose the words (or pronunciations) that we do.

I also picked up a copy of Simon Singh's new book, Big Bang. He writes science and math books for people who don't have a clue about it, and manages to make it clear and interesting enough that I finish his books in a matter of days. (Previous books: Fermat's Last Theorem, The Code Book) He also enjoys horrible jokes, like this one:

Q. Why did the chicken cross the Moebius Strip?
A. To get to the other...er.. umm.

So, you take two smelly feisty kitties, and you put the kitten in the sink and run water over him and HOLD HIM DOWN, and he ends up like this. Not so bad, and he's still friendly. Metro, on the other hand, might be a little harder to get a photo of, since he won't stop wriggling. He doesn't really like being wet, and even though his owner will jump right in the shower with him, Metro will scramble with his back feet and leave scars. And also, some more scars. And a few clumps of hair in the bathtub. I think they're still convinced that nothing beats the traditional methods: