Potential 4th course for next semester.

[hermionesviolin]

[Votes or other thoughts are welcome. You have until 8am Eastern Time, Monday, April 14, 2003.]

ARH 101 (Frazer Ward) MW 9-10:20
Approaching the Body
The art, architecture and popular culture of different societies and historical periods have fantasized, described, implied, performed, repressed, even banished the human body, in widely divergent ways. What do these different approaches tell us, about the body itself, and about the artistic, historical and cultural contexts in which it emerges? Focusing on a series of case studies drawn from a range of contexts, from the medieval to the contemporary, and seeking appropriate methods of visual analysis, we will listen to what the body has to tell us.

CLT 229 (Ann Jones) MW 9-10:20
The Renaissance Gender Debate
In "La Querelle des Femmes" medieval and Renaissance writers (1350-1650) took on misogynist ideas from the ancient world and early Christianity: woman as failed man, irrational animal, fallen Eve. Writers debated women's sexuality (insatiable or purer then men's?), marriage (the hell of nagging wives or the highest Christian state?), women's souls (nonexistent or subtler than men's?), female education (a waste of time or a social necessity?). Brief study of the social and cultural changes fuelling the polemic; analysis of the many literary forms it took, from Chaucer's Wife of Bath to Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew, women scholars' dialogues such as Moderata Forte's The Worth of Women, and pamphlets from the popular press. Some attention to the battle of the sexes in the visual arts. Recommended: a previous course in classics, medieval or Renaissance studies or women's studies.

ECO 150 (Lewis Davis) MWF 9-9:50
Introductory Microeconomics
How and how well do markets work? What should government do in a market economy? How do markets set prices, determine what will be produced, and decide who will get the goods? We consider important economic issues including preserving the environment, free trade, taxation, (de)regulation, and poverty.

ECO 153 (Randall Bartlett) MWF 9-9:50
Introductory Macroeconomics
An examination of current macroeconomic policy issues, including the short and long-run effects of budget deficits and surpluses, the determinants of economic growth, causes and effects of inflation, and the effects of high trade deficits. The course will focus on what, if any, government (monetary and fiscal) policies should be pursued in order to achieve low inflation, full employment, high economic growth, and rising real wages.

Comments

[laynamarya.livejournal.com]

What is the drive behind taking econ? I am not quite sure how that fits into your life.

I find both econ and gender dull, so obviously I would vote for the art history course.

Of course, I am also fascinated by the human form, largely due to my friends who do self-portraits, and also due to my time spent in Hillyer and the imaging center. Cool stuff. Human beings are really beautiful. Especially women. I think that class might make you appreciate yourself more (though I know you are already further than most women, due to Bodywise and your own rationality and whatnot).

But really. You're not just all right. You're beautiful.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

I took economics once. Or rather, my transcript says I took economics but my memory says I slept in and skipped economics a lot.

If you like politics and literature, take the Gender course. If you're more interested in art and cultural trends, take the Body course. At any rate, I'd say it's likely the two courses will overlap in some way. Both sound really interesting; makes me wish I could go back and take all those courses I never had time for, just for the fun of it :)

[offbalance.livejournal.com]

DON'T TAKE ECONOMICS!!! IT'S THE MOST BORING THING EVER!!

*ahem* sorry. But I have heard nothing else from EVERY ONE of my business major friends.

And the body class sounds somewhat interesting, and may even be helpful with your participation in Bodywise. no?

[upsidown.livejournal.com]

take ren gen debate. it's the best ever. you know this because britta olsen and i and like 20348723904 other wonderful people took it and we very much loved it. you can't not love annie.

[silvermousepad.livejournal.com]

whatever you do, don't take microecon with lewis davis. he's a nice man, but a bad lecturer. he's prone to staring at the wall/ceiling during the middle of the lecture while he tries to remember what he's talking about (or at least that's what it seemed like he was doing), and he has weird speech patterns that can definitely grate on your nerves by the end of the course (i'd give you an example, but i can't think of the exact thing he says right now - momentary forgetfulness, yay).

[marginaliana]

Go with the Body, although personally I would rather sit around and stare at my hand instead of going to class about it, but it seems like the most interesting of your options. Especially given that I see the word "gender" in a class title and run screaming. Because just so you know, that means they're only going to talk about one of the two... I bet you can guess which.

Tra la!

[(Anonymous)]

It is important to know how the world works, if for no other reason than to not believe things that are not so (and it can even help with literature... You miss something in Gulliver's Travels if you think it is really possible to get sunbeams from cucumbers).

A good economics course would be at the foundation of that. Alas, too often they are boring and pseudo-scientific. (though to be fair, some of economics is inherently boring, because it says utopia is impossible, trade-offs are everywhere, and good intentions can have bad results. Actually, in a way, all that is interesting. But just as friction doesn't have the sexiness of perpetual motion machines, so economics doesn't have the same sexiness as all the social theory that has an implied utopia somewhere in the background. It just doesn't have the same sturm und drang of oppressor/victim narratives)

And economics seems to have an overrepresentation of boring professors. Why couldn't you have Diedre McCloskey as a visiting professor? She could teach the introductory micro- course (she actually wrote a text years ago when she was Donald), an economic history course, and an advanced course on "Knowledge and Persuasion, Con and Fraud in Social Science."

So my vote would be for a good economics course, if that's possible.

BTW, you could never be a clone of anyone.

RAS