GSA #6: Conference (and) Abstracts

To this day, I've never had an abstract accepted to the MLA conference. It's a funny feeling—a part of me is like, "Who cares? It's just a giant meat market with little regard to Asian Lit anyway...why should I go?" But another part of me is like, "Dammit, why won't you let me in?!?!" It's like Virginia Woolf (er, Nicole Kidman) says in The Hours: Even crazy people like to be asked.

But the last few months have been abstract season, which means I've been churning out a lot of abstracts—and reading a fair amount, too. I usually follow the advice from The Professor Is In on how to write conference paper abstracts, and it makes me feel better about what I submit. I understand that there is both some amount of formula to these things, as well as the need to be original and true to your own style/scholarship. But there are certain necessary ingredients for a good abstract, and the advice is a good place from which to start.

Especially in organizing conference panels (third time's the charm?), I always get a little confused when I read abstracts without an argument. You tell me what you're going to study, you tell me why it's significant...but for crying out loud, are you going to have anything interesting to say about it??

We know that conference abstracts are a guess at best: that when it comes time to write the actual paper (two weeks before the conference), it'll look different from what you proposed six months before. And I think that's good—it's a sign that, even in those six months, you've learned and thought about more things to make you write a better paper. But without that initial guess, how will you know which direction you're headed?

Book Renewal Fetish

This morning I went to the city library to return some books and check out some more. But when I got there, the sign on the door said...CLOSED. Apparently I'd missed the memo that today was the day for the library to sort out its materials. ::sigh::

Throughout my Ph.D. program I constantly had books upon books checked out of the library. During coursework it was for writing my seminar papers, which meant that at the end of finals week I could return most of them and bring down my checked-out books count to a single digit. While writing my dissertation, I constantly had books on hand I needed to read, more books for which to procrastinate on my writing, more books to fill up my desk space (or two). I'd read through them and take notes, or I'd read parts of them, or I'd read none of them and just gaze longingly at their spines—with a promise that I'd read them after I wrapped up whatever draft I was working on.

What I couldn't get enough of was renewing books. All I had to do was log into my account online, click a couple of buttons, and voilà! I could keep all of those books sitting on my desk for another six months! (Was it? I forget.) It was like proof that I was working: Look at all these books I have checked out! I must be making progress on my dissertation!

Yeah, right. When I moved to Japan I didn't bring that many books, knowing my stay here was temporary. And now I have this lovely office with (count 'em) EIGHT floor-to-ceiling bookshelves, and I only have a handful of books sitting on them. Nowadays I check out just as many (or more) books than I did as a grad student, but I actually read them all, and I read them a lot faster.

I'm taking up a "no renewal" policy, kids. No more clicking online buttons for me. I check out the books I need, take down the notes that are useful, and return those puppies to their homes. I feel a lot more efficient, and I feel better (in my own little world) that if there are others who need the books, then they don't have to wait a long time to get to them. It's like a strange form of "recycle, reduce, reuse"—it's up to you! Even if my bookshelves do feel a little lonely.

Ah, money.

Last night I read a book on budgeting and saving. Its gross bourgeois assumptions aside, I really enjoyed reading it. (This, of course, has much to do with the fact that it had lots of pictures…I love books with lots of pictures.)

Growing up in a modest household, saving money became a habit, then a perverted kind of love. That love served me well, though, when at 23 I had saved up enough money so that I could quit my day job and work at my beloved retail job instead. (So what if it didn’t let me pay for much aside from my $1,125/mo studio in the Mission? It was for less than a year, until I started grad school…though it’s funny to think that “grad school” presented a more stable financial option for me back then.)

The problematic* nature of this post (and the book) will be addressed later; for now, as a single woman pushing middle age, I want to review the things that I know are good financial planning practice, even if I don’t always do them. (*Stuff like living off of a TA salary, having kids in grad school, etc.? That’ll be included in the “problematic” post to come.)

1. Review your spending. Where does all your money go? Does it leave your wallet for good causes, or does it just gush out into a big money hole? Track it for a month and be pleasantly surprised (or not).
2. Budget. No no, don’t budget like UC Regents does—because that’ll make you shrink the size of your library and pay too much to administrators and sports coaches instead. But do figure out what percentage of your income should be going to what. For Ph.D. students aspiring to be middle class, that starts with 25% for rent, 10% for utilities (Internet and phone included), 20% for savings, etc. (Um…right.)* Once you have a (realistic) budget, actually try to stick to it.
3. Build up an emergency fund. I’m not talking about emergencies like the Next Great California Earthquake; I mean the “3-to-6-months” worth of living expenses that’s often suggested by folks who apparently know better, including things like monthly loan payments. This is why Steps 1 and 2 are important. 
4. Plan five years ahead. Moving? Getting married? Spawning another human being? Account for that in addition to your earthqu…I mean, emergency fund, and set aside. (Or at the least, start a separate "fund" or two.)
5. Invest. What? You have money leftover?! Holy cow, it’s time to visit a site like ShareBuilder and start reaping the benefits of the capitalist market! (No, I'm not advertising for ShareBuilder...though it isn't a bad idea to invest even if you haven't totally prepped for Babies #1, #2, and #3.)

I also figured out last night that, to send a kid to UCSD for four years of undergrad, I would have had to have saved $580 every month for the last 18 years. I wonder how much I’d have to start saving if I were to send my kid to UCSD in 20 years. ::shudder::

「ぜいたくは敵だ！」

友達が斎藤美奈子の本を勧めてくれたので、何冊か図書館から借りてきました。読みたかった『文壇アイドル論』は他の学科の図書室にあったので、まず『戦下のレシピ』から始めてみました。

今の食べ放題の社会には分かりにくいかもしれないけど、やっぱり戦争って厳しい。（日本語って all caps ができないから残念。）ウチのばあちゃんは農家だったけど、ヤミで大根とかをマッチやら何やらに換えてたってよく聞きました。大変。

On Beauty, or, a Followup to Makeup

[What the...I just did a search on Pinterest for both "beauty" and "beautiful", and I'm kind of confused by the difference in the results...]

Last week I mused about makeup, and some of the reactions to that post made me think a bit more about beauty and what makes someone attractive to someone, and in what context. 

For example, in thinking about Jay-Z and Beyoncé, and how...different...they look, I remarked on male privilege via money and power in heterosexual couples, to which my partner replied, "Actually, Jay-Z has different experiences that make him an interesting person." 

That makes sense. And for someone who has her own life experiences and passions, who can be more attractive than another who is driven and works to make the most of his talents? Isn't that something powerful, something that makes a person attractive to someone else?

Clearly I don't need to wear makeup to look like a "white person". Nor do I need to wear makeup to look like an "attractive Asian (or Japanese) person". But I'm still curious about untangling those threads that link up changing the way we look to feeling happy, to being and feeling more "attractive".

I'm not talking about Japanese makeup and haircare practices from centuries ago. I'm not going to shave my eyebrows or put white powder on my face. I'm not talking about skin whitening creams that became popular after the turn of the century, with the modernization/Westernization/militarization of Japan. And I couldn't really speak to practices in uses of cosmetics in other countries, because I just don't know.

But when I say "look like a white person", I'm not talking about—and other people aren't talking about—people who don't fit the bill of the assumed attractiveness that is de rigueur. We're not talking about people who are short. We're not talking about people who are overweight. We're not talking about people without long, shiny hair (or people who are balding). We're not talking about people whose nails are short and dirty from working with their hands. We're not talking about people with rough skin or sock tans.

We may be talking about people who aren't white, but who are tall and thin and sufficiently-breasted (or whatever). We may be talking about people who are transgender or transsex who are then commodified because they manage to flabbergast the audience by looking so much like a beautiful version of [insert preferred binary category here]. But we certainly aren't talking about "real women" that a company like Dove would use in its commercials. We're not interested in real real women, because that's just too much; we're interested in fake, Photoshopped real women. Does that difference make sense?

When I hear "beauty" and "whiteness" I assume we aren't just talking about race or the shade of our foundation. I assume we're talking about power and (cultural) capital. I assume we're talking about the complexities that come from being hapa and therefore you have your dad's curly hair and your mom's flat nose. I assume we're talking about the trend among men in some societies who get talked about for their metrosexuality or for wearing makeup to get job offers. That's what we're talking about, no?

I do sometimes annoy myself for overthinking things...but then again, I'm not sure where "thinking" becomes "intellectualizing" becomes "overintellectualizing". I'm not fool enough to think that I'm the only one who thinks this way; I'm also not fool enough to think that everyone else thinks this way, too. But I feel too uncomfortable just siting here doing whatever my instinctual preferences tell me to do—after all, where did my instincts and preferences come from? I sure as hell wasn't born with them.

Writing vs. Editing vs. Revising

The other day I was giving comments on a job application cover letter written by a friend of mine. It was a solid letter to begin with, discussing her research interests, teaching experiences, and intellectual trajectories.

What I ended up doing to it, though, was not only giving it comments, but also EDITING it to smithereens. I mean, cutting words here, moving things there, combining paragraphs everywhere, etc., etc. I took a step back after I was done and was like, "Shit, that is a great letter." (Maybe my friend prefers the original, but.)

One thing I've known for some time is that I'm a much better editor than I am a writer. So I love editing what other people have written (and also, I guess, what I've written), but it's so painful for me to write that first draft. And even though I enjoy revising a lot better than I do writing (once I have that first draft), I still end up doing a lot more nitpicky editing than actual, substantive revising.

Help. I don't think people make it as academics being mere editors of their own work. Research, write, revise...but so little emphasis on editing. I know editing is important—but how can I get some balance here?!

「エロティシズム」とは

とか言っちゃって、「エロティシズム」って一体何なんだろう・・・とか考えてます。

先日読んだ本で、上野千鶴子が結構分かりやすい「エロティシズム」の定義を述べていましたが、忘れてしまいました。（忘れちゃったら、何冊本を読んでも元も子もないのに・・・）

（最近ちょっと「壇蜜」にはまってます。いやいや、色々と事情がありましてね。ちょっとした私的な研究対象になってます、はい。）

でも、本当に、「エロティシズム」とか「エロティック」とは何なのか。見た目の問題？感情の問題？物理的／生物学的な問題？基準は、一人一人？それとも社会が決める？文化？男性と女性はどう考え、どう相手が考えていると思うのか？異性愛者、同性愛者との間では、どう考えるのか？

やっぱり、個人的な好みですかね〜、何がエロくて誰がエロくないかって。

（画像は京都駅の天井です。全然エロくない。）