IRL

“I’m going to the bakery. Would you like anything?” I asked.

“You’re going out like that? You look homeless,” he said.

No, I thought.

It’s nearly 11:00 am.

I look like a woman who has changed a diaper, had a coffee, tended to emails.

I look like a woman with a Ph.D.

I look like a woman who preps her university lectures and graded a few assignments all before noon.

I look like a woman who produces a podcast, just having scheduled a guest, and researched more material.

And those spots of food on my sweatshirt? Those are badges of honor.

They are the signature of precious tiny hands reaching for me after having been nourished. They are evidence of my response to an embrace from a beautiful little blessing. I go by the name “mama.”

I look like a woman who didn’t prioritize fashion on a Tuesday morning because more important tasks await.

I look like a woman who provides, nurtures, and works.

I look like a woman comfortable in her own skin.

I look like a woman who invests her energy in ideas and creative endeavors.

I don’t look Instagram ready.

I look like a woman with ambition.

“So, did you want the usual from the baker or…”

The Film I Couldn’t Stop Thinking About

Have you ever watched a film and then begged others around you to watch it just because you couldn’t wait to talk about it?

That’s exactly how I felt about Ex Machina, the 2014 sci-fi psychological thriller, directed by Alex Garland.  A wealth of ideas bloomed in this movie, and I found myself thinking about its implications for quite some time.

Quite fortuitously I came across a podcast called Two Philosophers Drink Beer & Discuss Film.  The hosts, Dr. Gregory Jackson and Dr. Daniel Murphy, do an amazing job employing philosophical ideas to dissect themes in movies.  I invited them to be on Good Is In The Details to lend their expertise for an episode on Ex Machina.  We went over notions of beauty, consciousness, and the ethical questions relating to AI.  For anyone who enjoys philosophy and film this’ll be a treat.  I also highly recommend this for anyone teaching philosophy.  This episode highlights how working out the ideas of a film can bring greater understanding of key philosophical theories.

Click here for iTunes.  Click here for Spotify.

Feel free to leave comments here or get in touch on IG: @GoodIsInTheDetailsPod

Gwendolyn · Examining Ex Machina

 

Challenge Accepted

In my Instagram DM I received an invitation to post a Black and White photo with the caption “Challenge Accepted.”  The point of the invitation was for women to reach out to other women as a way of saying “I respect you.  I see you.”  In addition to posting the photo one is then to pass this on to other women.

So, yes, I was delighted and flattered to have received the message.  And then I read a NY Times article that rained on my delighted parade by calling the challenge vague and not really with purpose.  It was a mindless means for women to post their most flattering selfie, the article claimed.  Hmmm….

I think that’s a rush to judgement.  We are often so busy and in the throes of our life that to take a moment to acknowledge someone else, their work, positive impact on community, their presence, or valuable friendship seems like something worth pausing for and passing on.  I was genuinely happy to extend the invitation I had received to other women I know, some of whom I have admired but haven’t necessarily said as much during conversation.

Is it really so vague to DM a person and let them know you appreciate them?  Is it wrong to respond by posting a photo?  Are we so tied to sexist ideas about women that it’s automatically met with suspicion for them to highlight a nice photo of themselves?  Or, that to say it’s about women supporting women is somehow unclear?  Support comes in many forms.  It can be a hug, financial, a referral, a podcast review (wink wink nudge)…

or a message to participate in “Challenge Accepted.”

What We Can Learn From Batman

I’ve often invited students in my Philosophy classes to use our course material to analyze something from film and/or pop culture.  This has yielded thoughtful term papers and course discussions.

It was a delight to have Professor Mark D. White on the podcast to talk about his book The Ethics of Batman.  In his work he explores the moral dilemmas Batman faces such as, can Batman be happy?, should he kill the Joker?, and does his extraordinary wealth hinder his moral position?

This episode was a lot of fun and brought about a nice intellectual inquiry into the complications of this superhero.  Feel free to leave feedback here or get in touch GoodIsInTheDetailsPod@gmail.com

Gwendolyn · The Morality of Batman

 

Literature as Reflection

The latest podcast episode was something quite special.  It was a conversation with a lawyer, an activist, a philosopher, and an English teacher.  The topic flowed from the role of race and culture in the classroom, to the dynamics of Los Angeles, to the way in which literature ushers in discussions about society.

Do you have a favorite dystopian novel?  We take a look at how that genre in particular allows for reflection.  We then reviewed part 1 of The Raffle, by Randy Smith.  I highly recommend this read, and after listening to the show you’ll want a copy.  Feel free to leave your thoughts here in the comment section or email GoodIsInTheDetailsPod@gmail.com

It was a joy to be part of this, to produce it, and to now have the opportunity to share it.  For my fellow educators and bookworms, I think you’ll find a lot here.

Gwendolyn · The Crossroads of Literature and Politics

 

On Being Explicit

Can a discussion about biological functions be deemed explicit? If I were to explain the workings of your lungs, for instance, would I need to be on guard and warn you that this  may not be appropriate?  How about circulation?  How about telling you the intricacies of an eardrum?

For the past two years I’ve been teaching a course called Philosophy of Sex and Love (you can click on my course readings tab for more information).  In researching for the class and preparing sub-topics one area has stood out to me as being a central issue worth pursuing underscoring assumptions: sex education.

Unlike the aforementioned functions of the body, the reproductive system is either not discussed or partially mentioned or fraught with misinformation.  It is tied to moral presuppositions and caution laced with notions of shame.  Proper names like vagina, vulva, and clitoris (gasp!) are treated like Lord Voldemort.

Silence around these terms are rooted in a failure to see the woman’s body (or people with vaginas) as important.  She is demoted due to her biological reality (thought to be merely a vessel) and that demotion is apparent when a deficit of basic language exists in education.  A lack of knowledge here has concrete consequences for both boys and girls.  It hinders honest conversations about intimacy, health, and most significantly, exposes one to harm if one cannot even understand this part of the body.

This weighed on me as I uploaded my latest podcast episode dedicated to a discussion about reproductive health, and because we use terms like “vagina” I found myself marking the episode “Explicit.”  That in and of itself is problematic.  There is nothing derogatory or pornographic in the conversation.  Yet, providing a platform to learn about how the reproductive system functions needed to be presented with a warning.

The vagina, vulva, and clitoris should not be a mystery.  Employing proper education reduces abuse, unsatisfying or painful sexual experience, and a tool for recognizing if a health problem exists.  This is not an immoral dialogue and I am pained to treat it as such by adding “E” next to the conversation.

Historically the woman’s body is simply meant for carrying a child.  Indeed that essentially described her worth.  How this functions or how her body responds to sex and pleasure (or desires for pleasure) is not part of the conversation.  By not considering this she becomes object.

I know what you’re thinking…you want to hear the episode, right?  I won’t keep you in suspense. Click below for the show on iTunes.

Good Is In The Details episode 35: “Naming Parts, Reproductive Health, and Sex Positive”

 

Private Conversations on Race

In the late 90s I had the opportunity to attend a lecture given by Maya Angelou.  I remember the packed room and the hush befalling the audience the moment she stepped to the microphone.  No one dared utter a sound or disturb the experience.  Her brilliance filled the very air we breathed.  It was undeniable.  We were in the presence of history.

“I will not stay in a room where there is a racist joke or word,” she said at one point.  That stuck with me.  Silence is agreement.  Silence is participation.  She closed her lecture with reciting Phenomenal Woman and I felt complete.

In the last few days I’ve had conversations with two of my friends (all of us are white) about painful confrontations with someone close to us regarding racism.  We shared nearly identical stories with the following theme: explaining to the person close to us that they held a racist position/opinion only to be met with denial, anger, defensiveness, and a terrible misunderstanding of the essence of racism.

All of us were emotionally drained and wished desperately that the outcome had been different.

No minds were changed.  No one will know of the exchanges.  Was it important?

I think the answer is yes.  At the heart of the misunderstanding was the assumption that racism consisted only of outward violence or use of derogatory language.  But that is far too narrow a definition.  Racism can be embedded far deeper.

I heard a clip from Tucker Carlson’s show where he described Black Lives Matter in the following terms: mob, riots, thugs, looters.  He then claimed that saying “all lives matter” is Christian and can even be found in the Constitution (“All men are created equal”).  It was an outrageous misreading of what “all men” meant when the document was written.   A simple glance and knowledge of history can illuminate that the “white” is presupposed here, and that women were not included and a slave was 3/5 a person.  Carlson’s attempt to justify his resistance to Black Lives Matter actually pointed us to the reason the movement exists, namely, because not all lives have mattered.

But back to my thoughts that the private conversations are worth the painful confrontation…

Yes.  It is important to interrupt racism wherever we find it, even when it is close. It clarifies one’s mind and there is always the hope that the words will sink in once the defensive attitude has time to dissipate from the interlocutor.  It is important, as Maya Angelou noted, to let others see you will not be present for racism.

It is also an act of love.  Holding a belief that all people are the same, and in a negative sense in particular, disempowers one’s ability to flourish in an authentic way as though the color of their skin were a virtue and the color of others is a vice.

Private conversations are another way to be an ally even if the end result doesn’t yield what you’d hoped.  It doesn’t come with a hashtag or a sign but it is valuable.

 

 

Podcast in the time of Coronavirus

I’m of two minds with respect to the social distancing:

1. It’s a joy to see the budding creativity in times of boredom.
2. A sense of anger over the delayed and general mismanaged response to the pandemic.  Perhaps the most upsetting for me is learning that because of the contagiousness of the virus people admitted to hospital with it cannot have visitors. Ultimately people are dying alone.

How is it possible to hold both 1 & 2 in my mind and heart?  Maybe it’s the unfolding of tragedy and comedy?  We are all feeling terribly human at the moment, aren’t we? Stay safe, wash your hands, and check in on your friends and family.

Suggestions for your Quarantine

Introverts are pros at the quarantine and social distancing.  It’s our thing.  Here’s a bit of advice to help you through:

1. The “Do not panic” approach seems rather unhelpful.  Instead, try taking stock of what you can control and work from there.  Make a list.  For instance, you can control how much media you are consuming.
2. That junk drawer (or closet) you’ve half-heartedly been meaning to clear out can finally get a nice dose of attention.
3. Call your friends and family.
4. Social Distancing doesn’t necessarily mean being cooped up inside.  Go for a walk or try a new area to explore on foot.
5. Delve into that one book you’ve been meaning to read.   
6. Try out a new recipe.
7. Journal.
8. Netflix binge guilt free.
9. Remember that economic downturns do eventually slow down and reverse.
10. Enjoy a podcast.

Improbable logic

I have no idea how this impeachment will unfold, but I have noticed conservative pundits and politicians banking on a few things that, regardless of the problematic logic, just might work in their favor.

1. Most Americans don’t know where Ukraine is on a map. This was spouted by Fox Five host Jesse Waters. While it is an irrelevant claim, it might resonate with viewers and voters.
2. Quid Pro Quo is done all the time. This is true; however, context matters. If I were to say: “I was driving and people do that all the time! Can you believe I was stopped?” And if one were to ask why I was stopped and I responded that I ran a red light, well, that information alters the banality of the notion that driving is done all the time. Moreover, to refer to point number 1, if I were to say it happened in Sierra Madre and no one knows where that is on a map, it would be irrelevant.
3. The Democrats have wanted Trump out of office since the beginning. This is true. Again, it does not follow that because it is true the president did nothing wrong. They are two different claims.
4. This is Russia hoax all over again. They (Right) are counting on people not having read or being familiar with the Mueller Report. And it might work to create this narrative. Anyone who had read the report (which is available for all and free of charge) would know that there were about 10 examples of obstruction and that Mueller said the president was not exonerated. In addition, the Department of Justice rules state that a sitting president cannot be indicted. There were over 30 indictments as a result of the investigation. Hardly a “hoax.”
5. The Ukraine president did not know of a problem. This assumes that the president of Ukraine is on equal footing with the president of the United States. They (Right) expect viewers/voters to not know the history of Ukraine or this vulnerable and new presidency. On another note, being unaware of being a victim of a crime does not mean a crime did not happen. This is how pickpockets function.
6. The notion of expertise is reduced to “someone’s opinion.” (Note Senator Kennedy of Fox News Sunday.) I suggest you read the book “The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters,” by Tom Nichols. The weight of opinion hinges on one’s background and experience. They (Right) are hoping people assume all opinions are equal.
7. This is a coup! They (Right) expect this language to not be checked. There is a difference between a violent overthrow (coup) and an impeachment (democratic process).
8. The Whistleblower and people who have testified are “Never-Trumpers.” Even if that were true, and it could be, it does not follow the president did nothing wrong. Back to my running a red light example: if I were to say the officer writing my ticket hated his philosophy class, would that mean I shouldn’t get the ticket?
9. Trump has allowed for more aid to Ukraine than Obama. Irrelevant to the crime.
10. Trump was after corruption! To begin, Trump’s history in no way reflects an interest in corruption. Trump University, Foundation, lawyer and campaign manager in prison, his current lawyer might be in serious criminal trouble…the list goes on. Back to my red light example: “But officer, I was chasing the car in front of me and I think the person is someone who should be investigated…I heard.” Still irrelevant. If asked why I didn’t notify law enforcement of my suspicion (because, after all isn’t that who should be doing the chasing?) and I responded, “They’re all corrupt!” it would not mean I had not run the red light. This is essentially Trump’s view of Hunter Biden (the car in front of me) and the FBI (the people who should be doing the chasing). They (Right) are hoping no one notices the recycled campaign tactic of calling the political opponent corrupt, crooked, and someone who should be in jail.