When did murder become a women's rights issue? (On the subject of abortion)

It's taken many years for me to reach this point. My view, however, is not informed by religious sentiment or politics; but my personal experience of a miscarriage I had in 2003.

I will be upfront, though, that I believe in God; but my relationship to Him is at best ambivalent, because it's easy to accept the idea of a super being. However, I belong to no religion, and suspect that less than 1% of all believers actually embrace what they believe - because saying you believe in something and living like you believe in something are two different things.

But when I talk about being against abortion, I'm often called a bible thumper, a right winger, etc. So I wonder if religion and politics are the main reasons people are comfortable being pro-choice, if that's why they refuse to see the topic as anything other than a women's rights issue.

It's relevant, then, to know that before my miscarriage I was pro-choice. I made those arguments: It's our right as women to decide what we do with our bodies. And what about cases of rape or medical issues - why should we suffer more by being forced to keep our babies if we don't want to? And why should adoption be the only option for us if we do get pregnant?

Okay, so that's easy when you've never been pregnant or known someone who had an abortion, when feminism has been telling us that we control our bodies, etc. Yet we make it illegal for people to take illicit drugs like cocaine. When someone threatens to kill him- or herself, we're supposed to call 911. Good Samaritans, too, are rewarded for saving people's lives. Etc.!

In other words, we don't give ourselves complete autonomy over our bodies. Or rather, our laws don't, social norms don't, parents don't, etc. Yet we fail to recognize that a developing fetus at every stage of its development is a human being. Sure, it doesn't start out looking remotely human; but you don't get to those moments when you first get pregnant, as the visible print of a person happens over time.

Unfortunately, miscarriages also happen; I knew it as an unmistakable loss I felt from inside me. There was, too, that feeling of certainty that what I had inside me was a life; it's nothing I can explain in words. But the circumstances of my miscarriage were unique; my ex beat me, and, I think, that, in addition to my state of malnutrition (I was practically starving as a first-year grad student away from home - enough so that I ended up in the hospital a few months later), is what led to my miscarriage.

But be clear: A miscarriage is not an abortion. Specifically, one cannot anticipate a miscarriage and, more, it can result from any number of things (hence, nonspecific). An abortion, however, is the murder of a human life, one who cannot protest and is at the complete mercy of his or her mother.

Yet there are only three main ways we can get pregnant: consensual sex; rape; insemination. However, they can all result in the maturation of a fetus which, yes, starts out as cells - but without those cells, you do not get hands, toes, a head, etc. - and then turns into a baby, hopefully one that survives to cry. So go ahead and pretend that before you begin to see the suggestion of a person, nothing of significance is happening; yet we're comprised of particles smaller than atoms.

An unborn baby, however, is the most defenseless of people, especially in its earliest stages. Women who choose to murder their babies generally must do so within their first trimesters - Why? Because it's least harmful to our bodies. Is that also the time when a baby doesn't yet begin to appear human, have a heartbeat that can be recorded, etc.? Because we seem to measure the value of a baby on those terms instead of grasping that the baby does not begin to look like a person without first being something else.

So, yes, abortion is murder. Yet we call it a women's rights issue. It's our body, we can do what we like - only it's not just our body when we get pregnant. A pregnant woman is, in fact, one body carrying a second, distinct body that, if it survives the process - and anything else (e.g. cancer, accidents, malnutrition, murder, etc.) - will grow taller over time.

However, we would arrest a parent who killed his or her child. At one point, however, children had no status; parents could do what they wanted, and their cruelties were answered by claiming children as protected animals. Sometime later we legally recognized them as people; but it wasn't until around the late 19th century that we began to feel a social impulse to protect them, especially those of the poor and working classes (in the case of Lewis Hine, by labeling images of middle class children as child laborers).

In terms of babies, however, I read about a recent attempt to legally recognize unborn babies as people; but it turned into a controversy about Republicans and their so-called war on women. I haven't been up on the issues, so I don't know what the war on women is about; however, I've heard many references to the women's rights issue, a rhetoric that defined the debates on Obamacare and birth control which, as I've argued in other places, should not be included in preventive care[1].

Except I'm not here to talk about politics. I gave that example only to point out that, if you don't support abortion, you're likely to be denounced as a bible thumper or a right winger - those even when you've made no reference to religion or politics. The word slut is the other reason I get called out on them; but my view on sexual behaviors is also not what I'm here to talk about. Let me just summarize my views on consensual sex and rape in terms of the abortion topic:

Consensual Sex
If you're a woman and not prepared to take responsibility for the possibility of getting pregnant - and that means keeping or giving up your baby - do not have sex with a man, as that's the only way to ensure you do not get pregnant. If you're that desperate, buy a sex toy, masturbate, have oral sex with a man (69 gets you both off)[2], etc. - just do not let a penis near your vagina, as even the precum can make you pregnant. In other words, there's no excuse to murder your baby because of your selfish choices.

Rape
If you're a woman and this happens to you, it's not your fault. It's also okay if you feel angry, violated, hurt, depressed, etc.; but you are a survivor. That means you're alive, and you can find the strength to continue your life. However, if you get pregnant, killing that baby does not justify what happened you - because that baby also did not ask for you to be raped; you have to rise above yourself and not murder a life as a substitute for your intense desire to kill the man who raped you. Wanting to kill and killing are two different things. In other words, there's no excuse to murder your baby because of your selfish choices.

What I wish for
- That unborn babies be legally recognized as people at all stages of development.
- That abortion be legally recognized as the murder of an unborn baby, thus making it a criminal offense for which both the mother and abortionist should be held responsible.

However, my view that abortion is murder is consistent with my feminism. Specifically, as I know unborn babies to be people, so, too, do I recognize that the issue of abortion is not a women's rights issue since no person should be able to murder another person. More, that a woman has the choice of whether or not to have sex which can result in the possibility of getting pregnant; if that happens, she has the obligation to attempt or to actually carry a baby to term because she has no right to decide if another person lives or dies.

Anyway, this is just where I am at present on this topic. But to be clear, again, with regard to where I stand on the abortion issue: I belong to no religion and have no religious motivation; I belong to no party and have no political motivation. I am, instead, a woman who experienced a miscarriage and became personally aware of what it means to be pregnant and lose a baby. This is where I stand, however; you don't have to agree with me.



[1] Preventive care is free and includes services like mammograms and postrate screenings which are meant to alert doctors to what may be wrong with women's and men's bodies. Birth control does not answer that need, and thus should not be free to women. This, however, is another issue.

[2] A woman can get pregnant from swallowing cum, but the chances of that happening are extremely slim. The risk of getting pregnant from precum, however, is much greater.

If sex isn't an act of desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction on your part, the word slut should have no power: Some thoughts

Yesterday, in a context that had nothing to do with me, two girls behind me were talking. One of them said something like, "If she calls me a slut, I will have to murder her" (yes, she said murder). Then the conversation continued in another language.

So, what were these girls talking about: A movie? Well, it doesn't matter; the word slut is what made me eavesdrop in the first place, especially because of a specific context that has involved me.

As a participant on various USA Today discussion forums, I've thrown around the word slut and had it become a focal point for other, mostly female, respondents. Here's how I've defined slut: Any man or woman who has sex outside of marriage with more than one partner (not necessarily at the same time).

Here's the simple concept: Slut isn't a new word. It's been around for centuries, and, in fact, has different connotations depending on where you are. In the USA, for example, we mean something along the lines of the definition I provided. In Turkey, however, my landlord said it denoted inappropriate or bad. Bottom line, though: Slut has no positive connotations attached to it, and it's almost always targeted at women.

Knowing this, thus, why the anger over the word slut? After all, this is the real world; people have negative and positive responses to anything from food, entertainment, work, on and on.

But being called a name doesn't make you that name, because words only have power - for good or bad - if you give them power. It's from this perspective that I think the word slut is saying something else.

Much like I told a Facebook friend (as a general comment), if sex isn't an act of desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction on your part, the word slut should have no power. Because there are people who will say something like: Call me whatever you like, it's my body and I can do with it what I want. In other words: You don't define me.

It was the idiot female yesterday, however, who made me realize that desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction must be a huge part of the anger. I mean, why would you want to kill someone over a word? Here are my thoughts:

- If sex is an act of desperation, you already feel bad about yourself;
- You feel bad about yourself because sex is empty;
- Sex is empty because you have no real connection with the person you're having sex with;
- You have no real connection because you've made your relationship hinge on sex;
- Your relationship hinges on sex because you're needy;
- You're needy because someone important said (explicitly or implicitly) you were a nothing;
- You un/knowingly believe you're a nothing because you've never learned to stand alone.

Let's be clear: I'm not presenting a morality argument, this isn't about religion, etc. However, while the various forms of sex (oral and otherwise) can be pleasurable, they also invite risks of STDs (no orientation is immune) - herpes, though, is one that can be undetectable on STD tests for years, if at all - pregnancy when the relationship involves a man and a woman (no birth control except abstinence is 100% effective), and emotional complications (intimacy is a kind of drug). More, these risks increase the more partners you have; in terms of your emotional health, this can lead to the inability to deeply connect with someone outside of sex. My personal view is: Don't have sex unless you're prepared emotionally, mentally and financially to have a baby - because abortion is murder, and no baby should die because of a woman's selfishness.

Anyway, back to my point: I think people for whom sex is an act of desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction, the word slut reinforces what they already feel about themselves. As a result, they lash out, focusing on the word itself when they're really talking about themselves. That is, they're offended at the word slut because that's how they see themselves: As a slut. And, since I think that most people settle for their marriage partners, this psychological suggestion of the word slut applies also to married people.

I mean, how hard is it to deny being a slut? Because the people who don't identify as sluts don't make a big deal about the word slut; for them, slut is just a word. For those who want to go so far as to kill someone over the word, they're obviously expressing desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction.

Oh, I'm sure there must be a literature on the psychological rootedness of words. But if you're going to give me power with a word like slut, well, all I can do is laugh.

On human and spiritual relationships: My take on *Perfect Sense* (2011)

Well, Perfect Sense (2011) is a high end movie - high end simply referring to the artsy types of movies that deliberate about something (obvious message), though often fail for one reason: there's no real point (incomplete expression of the obvious message). You get the idea, right?

Anyway, Perfect Sense (2011) kept me in my seat because the abstract parts are generally brief and work to push the story forward - unlike The Tree of Life (2011) which not only had bad audio, but also a significant interruption from what I guessed was a story of loss (I wouldn't know since I walked out early on). Perfect Sense (2011), however, doesn't begin to lag until toward the end when it's mostly visual (there is sound like wind, at one point a touch of instrumental).

Throughout the story, though, the lead female sets the script in voiceover aided by visualization which adds a sense of urgency to what's happening. While the main thrust begins with the loss of smell, everything accelerates starting with the loss of taste (spread is significantly quicker).

But of the five major senses, Perfect Sense (2011) never gets to the loss of touch, though sex is important to the story until the loss of hearing. The ending, however, allows me this interpretation:

(1) Of the five major senses, touch is the most important.
(1)(a) Smell matters less because future is past.
(1)(b) Taste matters less because it's about flavor.
(1)(c) Hearing matters less because people lie.
(1)(d) Vision matters less because of time (aging).

(2) Relationships are about intimacy.
(2)(a) Smell is analogous to first impressions.
(2)(b) Taste is analogous to dating.
(2)(c) Hearing is analogous to commitment.
(2)(d) Vision is analogous to death.

(3) Intimacy means being completely exposed (naked within and out)
(3)(a) Grief* anticipates loss of smell.
(3)(b) Insanity anticipates loss of taste.
(3)(c) Rage* anticipates loss of hearing.
(3)(d) Surrender anticipates loss of vision.
* I believe these were the exact terms used in the movie, not sure about the other two.

I'm suggesting this interpretation on human relationships because the last thing we see in Perfect Sense (2011) is the male and female leads moving toward an embrace. This is the point we know they'll stay together, no matter what else they might lose.

In Perfect Sense (2011), though, the cause for the loss of four major senses (smell, taste, hearing, vision) is unknown but experienced by everyone everywhere; as the visuals connect across cultures, so do the losses. Further, for each loss the next pre-loss - as there are spaces of time between losses - is amplified*: taste for smell, hearing for taste, vision for hearing.
* I believe this was the exact term used in the movie, but I'm not sure.

In the context of relationships, what this says is: As relationships deepen, the more intense they become. Relationships, thus - in the cycle of Perfect Sense (2011) - arouse, inflame, are tested, then bind with forgiveness*. Now consider the spiritual dimension:
* I believe this was the exact term used in the movie, but I'm not sure.

(1) Smell is human weakness.
(2) Taste is desire for Other.
(3) Hearing is being called.
(4) Vision is acceptance.

In this way, the black screens in the opening and closing scenes of Perfect Sense (2011) can be read as birth and death. Thus presents a cycle of death (of the individual) and rebirth (unity between individuals OR between an individual and Other).

What's with Other? Well, that depends on what you call God; since agnostics accept an Other but not necessarily God, I'm ignoring only atheists and anyone who doesn't believe in reincarnation.

For me, however, these parallels between human and spiritual relationships in Perfect Sense (2011) are highly significant. Let me tell you why:

(1) Marriage is an expression of surrender.
(2) Faith is an expression of surrender.

Marriage is surrender when love is unconditional (this again goes back to the idea of knowing someone at the core: no secrets/hiding, no need for secrets/hiding). Faith is surrender when belief is transparent (the greatest missionary leads by example, never insists that others believe).

Consider, too, that before the credits roll, the lead couple - again, moving to embrace - can NOT smell, taste, hear AND see each other; so their potential embrace can be seen as analagous to an act of faith. Marriage, however, is also an act of faith: When you know the core of someone, there's nothing more to know; while love deepens and strengthens over time, everything else is just layering (because the core of something doesn't change however differently it might be expressed).

Yes, I'm aware that my interpretations may be a stretch! But look at the title: Perfect Sense (2011). So if you think the ending doesn't make sense, ask yourself: What would it mean for the lead couple to lose the sense of touch? Alienation?

I don't think so! And that's why I'm sticking with my thoughts on the movie! lol


References
Perfect sense. (2011). Directed by David Mackenzie. Written by Kim Fupz Aakeson. Sigma Films, Film i Väst, Subotica Entertainment, and Zentropa Entertainments. [Retrieved this info. from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1439572/]

Tree of life, The. (2011). Directed and written by Terrence Malick. Brace Cove Productions, Cottonwood Pictures, Plan B Entertainment, and River Road Entertainment. [Retrieved this info. from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/]

Let's talk body equality - Again

Girls and boys enjoy public spectacle when they romp around topless. One day it's inappropriate; girls learn it's shameful to show their bare torsos, boys that it's shameful to see girls' bare torsos. I'm still talking about boys and girls here, not teens or adults. Scott Metzger's cartoon below illustrates today's reality, that it's unacceptable for women to be topless in public spaces:


© Scott Metzger (http://www.metzgercartoons.com)
Cartoon used with permission from Scott Metzger.

I have suggested previously that today's reality is partly the result of the sexualization of women's breasts, as well as the erasure of women's sexuality (the explicit desire for a man's body). Let's not forget the double standard given to women's and men's bodies: A woman loses her looks with the addition of weight and time, while a man loses nothing. This is not a situation unique to the USA.

Yes, feminism has a lot to do with some of the choices women make today. There are sexually active women, and women who aren't afraid to tell their partners what they want. Sure, both men and women can be common whores; but women choose it more often as validation that they are wanted.

Once girls begin to cover up, they are told many implicit things without understanding fully the impact it has on them for their entire lives. They are told:

(1) You have something shameful.
(2) Your breasts are an important definition of who you are.
(3) Your sexuality can only be measured by what's hidden.
(4) You are a sex object.

What are some of the results? Many teens and women want plastic surgery to enhance their looks; they have no appreciation for themselves as bodies. Women also continue wearing makeup (even the natural look) to cover up their so-called flaws; I have said previously that this can be partly understood in the context of relationships between themselves and their primary female influences (bonding creates a psychological hold on people; it takes first acknowledging it to face it). More, many women need to (1) negatively criticize other women's bodies to justify their lack of self-esteem about their own bodies (because they're not satisfied with them), or (2) constantly compare themselves with other women to reinforce their perpetuating self-views that they have something to be ashamed of.

I mean, I could go on and on about the self-destructive things women do! But that's not really my point.

As I've suggested previously, men's and women's bodies are both sexually exciting to members of the same or opposite sexes. And, yes, as I've said, more men today are getting plastic surgery or, in one case that I had the direct experience to discover, a heterosexual man wore heavy foundation as part of his daily routine (because he said, he was used to being in front of strobe lights).

So don't misunderstand; there's a LOT of scholarship on men's bodies, masculinity, etc. The difference is that men grow up being more confident about their bodies because they are given the freedom to enjoy their bodies. And I'm specifically referring to the inequality between men's and women's torsos.

Because, yes, men and women are equal ONLY in relation to fecundity (the tools that give and receive fluids), which is understood in the context of fertility, which is why the gay movement is an open contest to this claim - because they remind heterosexuals that fecundity is more about sexuality than birth. And fertility is the reason why women or men who can't procreate - though it falls largely on women - may feel debased, unworthy or that something's wrong with them; fecundity, thus, is simply the interaction between bodies designed to fulfill a sexual experience. (I say this because I knew a woman once who told me that she had some kind of vaginal dysfunction that made it impossible for her to feel penetration; in fact, her boyfriend raped her knowing that, unless he told her, she wouldn't know he was inside her.)

Over the years, however, women and men have started making more jokes about big breasted men. Big breats on men generally result from either too much muscle or too much fat. I have, I think, mentioned Seinfeld and the joke about the man bra. Yet, as Scott Metzger's cartoon illustrates, it remains unacceptable for women to go around topless in public while it's okay for men of any sized breasts to do so.

It really doesn't matter if you want to call men's breasts pecs; they're the same thing (just ask a doctor if you doubt me; or, better, read the medical articles about men's breast cancer[1]). The point is that we women are also sexual creatures, so we also get turned on by men's exposed torsos - just as men get turned on by ours. (Gay men, of course, get turned on by men's chests.) The difference is that we're normalized to want to hide our breasts; in fact, there are criminal law that proscribe our doing so.

But what's really different about women's and men's breasts? I'm talking about the outer structures of men's and women's breasts. We all have curves and nipples, though ours might be softer - but men's breasts get softer (and saggier) the larger they are. More, we're encouraged to get mammograms, while men aren't - and that's why when men get breast cancer, their survival rate is significantly lower (because they don't get to a doctor typically until they're in the advanced stages)[1].

Of course, men's and women's fecundities are different, as they serve different purposes. So why: Continue covering up our torsos? Accept our being oversexualized compared to men? Ignore our own sexualities which includes desiring after a man's body? Refuse to be ashamed of our bodies?

Oh yes, I plan to return to this topic! It's just not often I find an illustration that clearly expresses what I'm thinking! So thanks again, Scott Metzger, for your permission to include your cartoon here!



[1] Many years ago I volunteered for the American Red Cross - Greater Houston Area Chapter. It was doing research for the Protect Your Back Program that I did a lot of readings at the Texas Medical Center libraries; it was there that I chanced on an article on men's breast cancer, then followed up by reading other  case histories (because I was excited to find out about something I couldn't have imagined before then).

"'More Lights, Baby'": A Language Handicapped Response to *7Sex7* (2011)

Sometime in the last 1-3 years I heard or read about plans of the adult movie industry to make porn mainstream. 7Sex7 (2011), a Croatian movie with some English, may be the first of this kind.

However, I know from my own experience watching a Bulgarian movie last year - then talking with a native about it - how easy it is to misread a movie based only on its visual cues. I can say this, though: Regardless of its classification as an erotic film, 7Sex7 (2011) is just watered down (or soft) porn comprised of seven sex ("la penetracia") scenes.

Because different scenes share things in common, however, I thought an outline might be helpful. So here goes:


(1) The 2nd-7th scenes are in color.
(2) The 2nd and 4th scenes take place inside a business (photography studio; music shop).
(3) The 1st and 7th scenes take place outside (on top of a building; in the woods).
(4) The 3rd and 5th-6th scenes take place inside apartman/apartments.
(5) The 1st-2nd and 5th scenes show women's nipples.
(6) The 1st and 6th scenes include hearing women pee (behind little wall, on toilet).
(7) The 2nd and 7th scenes show vaginas (a partial shot that reveals a bikini line shave; a full view that shows an obvious fake, something like a patch of fur).
(8) The 1st-2nd and 5th scenes show men's asses (full shot).
(9) The 5th-6th scenes include smoking after sex.
(10) The 4th and 6th scenes feature a guy named Marko (as character in scene; as character off scene).
(11) The 4th and 6th-7th scenes name characters (Helena and Marko; Marko (see previous comment); Franjo (said in response to "Kako se zoveš?", but he answers his phone as Franje)).
(12) The 5th-6th scenes show men in only panties.
(13) The 5th-6th scenes show scantily clad women (wearing lingerie; in just panties).
(14) The 1st, 4th and 7th scenes feature men fucking standing up (backside, with woman also standing; frontside, with woman sitting; frontside, with woman also standing).
(15) The 2nd and 5th scenes add ambiguity to the sex (doesn't show consummation; hides women under a blanket).
(16) The 1st-2nd and 4th-7th scenes feature frenzied, deviant sex (deviant explained later in my response).
(17) The 5th-6th scenes don't start with conversations.
(18) The 2nd and 5th scenes include but show no consummation of same sex action (man on man; woman on woman).


That's most of what I remember, anyway. The 2nd scene, though, raises some interesting questions.

For example, the 2nd scene is the only one that expresses intimacy between two characters (as opposed to the threesome in the 5th scene). However, consummation of the sexual act is absent though suggested as the foreseeable outcome.

Did I mention that the characters in the 2nd scene are "gay" men? I highlight "gay" because it's part of the men's conversation, which includes references to Shakespeare and teatro/theatre.

It's possible, though, that the concept "gay" is something new for Croatians - or, if not new, little talked about; but I'm just a tourist, so I really have no clue. It's also conceivable that the scriptwriter's "gay" since the only evidence of intimacy is in the 2nd scene of 7Sex7 (2011) - because I think intimacy's an important aspect of normal sexual relationships.

Don't confuse me, as I have no interest in the politics of sex. As a heterosexual, however, I only really responded to the 2nd scene; had it not been paused, it's possible I would've been turned on - because, as I said, the only real intimacy shown in the movie is between these "gay" men.

However, the closest 7Sex7 (2011) gets to erotic (besides the 2nd scene) happens with the female on female action in the 5th scene, which, like the 2nd scene, suggests vulnerability in one of the characters. But the women - Lada and Stela[1] - make up part of a threesome with a man, and are likely prostitutes because the blonde says something to the man about "kompencacion"/compensation.

Of course, men are the obvious targets of 7Sex7 (2011). After all, the various heterosexual sex acts points to the failure of the man's imagination - generalizing here! - to recognize that women generally respond differently to sex than men. Now, this topic of sex is something I know - because these conversations are part of normal discourses in the U.S.

But I'm in Croatia. So here are two questions 7Sex7 (2011) raises:

- Is this kind of frenzied sexual activity normal for Croatians?
- Are Croatian women satisfied with their sex lives - that is, are they experiencing regular orgasms?

As an outsider, though, what 7Sex7 (2011) looks like is a bunch of strangers deciding to fuck at around the same time[2] on "Mon 9 Mar" - this date because the camera focuses on the clock at least twice in the 6th scene and, since all the scenes are thematically connected by sex, I'm guessing that it's significant. But if you also saw the movie, let me anticipate you by asking: Do you remember what happens in the 6th scene?

Let me tell you. In the 6th scene the guy turns out not to be the one in the photos of the couple; but the woman is. From what the camera does and the woman addressing her caller as Marko, it's obvious she's cheating (having an adulterous relationship). That's not the only thing to mark their sex as deviant, however.

So let me be clearer: Deviant sex is any sex that lacks intimacy. Healthy sexual relationships, thus, reflect intimacy because they're based on trust and open communication. Since I believe that real love is rare and happens only between two people at one time (I will comment on this further in another post), I obviously have a very strict view on how I define deviant sexual relations.

7Sex7 (2011), thus, bored me exactly because it presents extended performances of deviant sex. For me, an erotic film should tease and sensualize the viewer.

In fact, I once saw an excellent example of an erotic movie (just don't ask me the name of it) that inspired me to masturbate. Let me suggest, therefore, that if filmmakers want to succeed visually with eroticism, they should target women. Anything else is just porn - because it doesn't take much to excite men.


P.S. I think at least one of the three young couples sitting behind me in the auditorium yesterday were getting each other off - because I heard moaning (first from a female, later a male) during the 2nd scene. As for the other viewers, there was an older couple sitting below me and, also behind me, one solitary male.


[1] Their names can be found on the kitchen cabinet door.
[2] I'm saying this for two reasons: it's light out in the scenes where the sky's visible, while the 1st scene (in black and white) suggests light because the man appears to be working with building maintenance tools; 7Sex7 (2011) can be read as pieces of a slice of life vignette, which takes as its premise a particular time and place that's randomly chosen.


References

7Sex7 [Color - b&w]. (2011). Directed by Irena Skoric. Croatia: Artizana film. [I used http://www.irenaskoric.com/7_seX_7_EN.html for this information.]

Croatian MAVENA group making me think: The beginning of an idea...

While in Split, Croatia, I went to see "MAVENA 'PERFORMING TERRORISM'" at the Multimedia Cultural Center[1, color added], which is located in the Youth Center; from the phone conversation I had with Xontact Festival coordinator Nela Sisarič, I expected to see a dance or other art form based on what I understood of the word performance. When I arrived on 27 Studeni/November 2011, the title had been changed to All Ideas ®eserved; but, since the description in English included phrases like "balloons of the terrorist cells 40 years later" (n.p.)[2], I paid the 25kn to see it. In the end, I felt misled; none of the less than one hour presentation[3] had anything to do with terrorism as I understood it.

For Americans, terrorism generally refers to the violent actions of peoples with ideological agendas who often target political and governmental groups based on a concept of justice that's generally misunderstood or ignored by others (e.g., many Americans support the death penalty for rapists and murderers; jihad can be an appropriate analogy when, e.g., talking about the Palestinian response to the Jews who not only displaced them from their homes and killed them, but also created policies that resulted in things like water shortages and which have forced many Palestinians to remain in squalor living conditions and extreme poverty).

But why emphasize the word understood? Because I've had more opportunities living overseas to talk with non-native English speakers, while at the same time trying to pick up words and phrases in the languages of the countries I'm in. So I'm more attuned, as an English native speaker, to the incongruences in language communication. This recent experience, however, has also made me aware that meanings of words can convey very different ideas based on the cultures in which they're situated.

Like, I can't really say that terrorism or performance were the wrong words with regard to the Mavena performance. But they are impacting my responses, not because of what I expected to see [4], but because I don't know how to frame what I saw in terms of the Croatian experience. This is one example of cultural negotiation that I find difficult to navigate because I am, in the end, just a tourist.

I think it's natural for me to want to be critical. At the same, I keep checking myself.

For example, if we take terrorism as a core concept rather than a political one, what are some of the potential generalities? I hope these aren't just American ideas:

- justice: to stand up for what's right

- redress of grievances: to overturn harmful wrongs

- freedom: to express, interact and fully live our lives without relinquishing its control to others

If I relate terrorism to those generalities, the Mavena performance fits. Because have there not been conversations about this? I mean, I didn't come up with the above on my own. Terrorism changes meaning based on the talker. At one point, I believe terrorism was termed guerilla warfare which often involved smaller armed groups who were seeking to change their governments which enabled the elite and held the poor hostage (through fear, starvation, etc.) by disrupting the exchange of goods, etc. That calls to mind revolutionaries, freedom fighters, soldiers, patriots, etc.

The arguments still abound, though: An insignificant percentage of people control the wealth of the world. Poverty, joblessness, economic inequalities, etc. have yet to disappear.

Until the real problems are addressed, people will continue to fight to change things - and violence, more often than not, gets people's attention. Can hacking be considered a form of violence? In the end, however, it's also an insignificant few who make the decisions that affect an entire city, state or country, etc.

What Mavena attempted to show was how masses of people can change things, but you can't change anything if people don't care about what you're trying to change. Every person has the right to shelter (non-squalor), food (three meals a day) and a non-toxic environment (they shouldn't get sick because they can't afford to live anywhere but where the companies have dumped their chemicals, etc.); this means they need employment, a marketplace that responds to their wages, and nondiscriminatory practices.

Terrorism for me, though, has no meaning; it's another word that fails to reflect the reality of economic inequality. And the truth is, many people support the idea of terrorism: If you kill my family, I'm going to kill you. But I don't know anymore what people are fighting for; I'm not sure that violence changes anything.

What, exactly, will it take to make sure no one's starving? Revolutions have been around for centuries, and nothing of significance has changed; there are still poor people. How do you make people care? Many people are, in my opinion, too concerned about how they look and what they have; most of these people will do nothing but complain about how the world is.

So, is that what I'm responding to? I have a lot of thinking to do before I can answer that.

Notes

[1] That's how it was listed in the Studeni/November 93/2011 issue of visitsplit city guide, p. 10/11.

[2] The original Croatian reads "baloni terorističkih čelija 40tak godina poslije." Information taken from the Xontact festival program.

[3] Again, presentation as I understood it. According to the program, there were to be "Two people, two tables, two laptops, two projectors, two speakers." In reality, it was one screen that wasn't flat (this made words difficult to read), with information on two sides of the screen (but it wasn't continuous, as pauses were taken to retrieved files or switch Internet tabs), and only at the end did the audio compete with a live person (this created competing interference). It should be stressed that, as far as I could tell, none of the content was original; instead, the presenters seemed to have pulled various pieces of information together with a specific aim, but it had to do with a real (?) group of computer hackers called Anonymous who have taken credit for WikiLeaks and are about the free flow of information unhindered by censorship.

[4] Because expectation doesn't inform anything, as I've several times been happily surprised with something (e.g. a movie or food item) that I thought would be a waste of time (or taste bad, in the case of food) - and vice versa. But it also depends how strict your attitude is; in general, I'm a very open person and take even things like my perspectives at face value until they've been validated or something else presents to reject them. In general, though, our experiences inform our flexibility.

On "'loving, conscious sexuality'"

Gordon Wheeler, president and CEO of Esalen Institue, was quoted as saying: "'It's loving, conscious sexuality ... everything in one: deep love, deep pleasure, deep communication, and spirituality all at the same time'" (Matlack, n.d.). This is definitely a view of sex that I agree with.

I think sex in and of itself is boring. The unnecessary risks with unknown partners also outweigh the benefits of sex, which I believe go beyond the physical.

In many cases, people jump into sex on the first night or early in the relationship. Some decide later without really knowing how they or their partner(s) feel about each other; I think a meaningful relationship has a strong basis in trust and communication. If a connection is missing between two people (that is, if what you know of your partner doesn't extend beyond the superficial), it's too early to engage in sexual frolicking, however tempted you might be; disintegration is almost inevitable.

But let's take this point by point. What is meant by:

deep love: more than friendship, more than physical; knowing someone as a root person

deep pleasure: sex based on partnership and trust that's more than just physical but mental as well

deep communication: this is about dialogue and interaction, of being heard and the ability to listen

spirituality: core values and beliefs

This kind of sex is powerful. It's not a relationship built on friendship with benefits, because, without passion, there's no connection. Friendship love is not the same as real love; real love is rooted in core commonalities and an appreciation of differences, while also being invested in sexual energy - because sex is a communication tool that answers the unknowable (what language fails to express).

What is at the root of marriage is the concept of inseparable union: fidelity based on love of the root person whose sexual attraction is not just physical but intimate (the need to express what is limitless: love at the core). Doubt has no role in real love; marriage is a tangible commitment on which fidelity and trust are based – and these are easy to offer when you love fully and not partially.

We can't look back on history and claim that's how marriage has always been. It never really has been except in fewer cases than most. We still see it today: marriages that have less to do with real love than with pleasing families, personal interests like starting a family, etc.

Yes, more and more people choose to live together; for too many people, it's because marriage is a joke to them. In fact, they fear commitment and have become too jaded with themselves and others; they are also afraid to be alone, or want to assuage their doubts (but can't because they don't really love), etc.

Real love has no affectation, is not hypocritcal or something one grows into. Here's the difference between real love and friendship love: real love extends from the root person, friendship love from comfort. One feels safe with friendship love, real love exposes you.

References

Matlack, T. (n.d.). "Sh*t guys do, The: On guy rituals: Disgusting and divine." The Good Men Project Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/35040444/Sh-t-Guys-Do#source:facebook [1]

[1] Thanks to L.B. on Facebook for sharing this article.

Quoting Béla Hamvas

Zoltán Danyi praised Béla Hamvas (2006)'s trees as an "essay form [or] organic fusion of philosophy and of poetry of the highest order" (p. 11), which contradicts Hamvas who claimed, "This is not an essay/this is a poem" (n.p., italics added). So how does one read the following:

"The lime tree of Koloska is a heroic tree. It is not beautiful. But it is a glorious thing, the strength of life ... It never knew happiness, not for a moment, but laughs at anyone pitying it for that ... It does not know, except in dreams, what tranquility might be ... It is ... possessing the viciousness of the evil-doer and the circumspection of a sage" (pp. 30-31).

(1) Beauty is an image concept, though it's also been claimed as an internal construct. From a religious standpoint, which Lady Gaga exemplified in Born This Way, "God makes no mistakes" (quoted in "Lady Gaga," n.d.); but this is true only for believers or those whose self-worth doesn't revolve around beauty.

(2) We are not, in the end, the product of other people. Yes, we are influenced by things external to us; but we mold ourselves despite them. For example, the best parents can't teach their children to be good; their children must want it for themselves, and that, I'd accept, can only arise from an internal construct.

(3) Life is struggle, from whatever position we might entertain it. The more adaptable of us learn from it, and failure is only a stepping stone. As Edgar Allan Poe (n.d.) wrote, "From childhood's hour I have not been/As others were; I have not seen/As others saw." Meaning: Our experiences define our relationship to the world. Ask yourself: What moments of inspiration would I have missed if I'd had a different life?

(4) If you are unafraid of who you are, you fight - because people who are afraid of themselves will always see you as a threat. In reality, there's no win or loss record; you must choose to survive; no victim is alive. Survivors must learn to speak in whatever form (because some are artists, others writers and musicians), and not back down in the face of contempt or ignorance.

The more open we are to ourselves, the more we understand ourselves. You should question, listen, and live different boxes; but know that you will never really know more than you are.

Here's what you do: Break the mirror. For too many, the mirror offers a false acceptance of their worth.

Are you the measure of someone else? Because if you accept God, beauty has no meaning; he's already accepted you. Even without that, what does beauty mean for people?

So here's why people went with the internal construct of beauty: Too many people hide themselves. They put on makeup (even men), risk their bodies for high heels, concealers (e.g. corsettes), needles, and knives (e.g. plastic surgery), etc. The only natural is what you wake up with without having put anything on.

The concept of the good isn't new, and has long been associated with beauty. This beauty is a concept: an unexplainable allure to something for which words exist beyond the periphery of the langauge(s) we know. Those of faith might call it seeing the hand/work/whatever of God, but people have corrupted that by suggesting that only the beautiful have been touched by God, which negates anyone who fails to inspire for whatever reason (different class, race, gender, status, etc.).

I've long rejected beauty. Ugly, however, isn't a criticism for me; I am ugly, which I mean in quite a different way. Ugly as in not perfect, as in not aspiring for perfection, as in accepting me for me and not what other people think or want me to be. I know how people use ugly to describe me; it was easier to laugh it off before California, and since California I wonder at the lack of intelligence. No, I'm not afraid of ugly.

I've also said: I'm not a quitter. The thorns aren't always easy to push through, but I manage. But I also see small wonders, have loved fully and continue to smile. Am I unhappy? lol I'm just me.

References

Hamvas, B. (2006). trees [Fák]. Trans. by P. Sherwood. Szentendre, Hungary: EDITIO M.

Lady Gaga: Born This Way Lyrics. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.metrolyrics.com/born-this-way-lyrics-lady-gaga.html

Poe, E. A. (n.d.). From childhood's hour. Retrieved from http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~richie/poetry/html/aupoem69.html

What is marriage but a commitment of real love?: Some thoughts

Marriage is the real commitment of love; the problem is too many people have married for the wrong reasons, so now stupid people are scared to get married because they think that divorce is an inevitable result. In reality, most people don't know what real love is; it's not something that happens over and over again, and it's more than just friendship.

Every marriage needs sex and friendship; both are important communication tools. But sex has no meaning today, which is why it's lost its value as a communication tool; so people are, of course, more disconnected which makes marriage less attractive since it requires constant communication.

People living together get a sense of it, but the door's always open; a marriage is a closed door, which is why divorce is traumatic - because you don't just leave a marriage, you fight over things like property (house, cars, etc.), children, pets, material asssets, etc. When you leave a lived-in situation, it's the same as breaking up; yes, it hurts like shit, but it's easier to move on from that than an actual marriage. Some states in the U.S., though, recognize the lived-in situation as something like a marriage, which is why if you live together for x period of time, you can claim half of the material goods in the house if the relationship ends (just another reason to be careful when you decide to move in with someone).

So what does it take to be married? An honest search inside to find out who you are and what you want. It's recognizing that you feel as much passion as you do friendship for the person you're with. In the end, you have to be able to distinguish between the feelings that develop as a result of friendship and those for a spouse; real love isn't something you have to think about.

Love is and has always been a gift. If you believe in God, sometimes it's about learning a lesson (especially if you're someone who's destined to never marry), a reward (for those whose destiny was to serve others first), because your future child is meant for something (a link in a chain that leads to a great person or a great person him- or herself), etc. It's a feeling that takes up the whole core of who we are as individuals; you are never the same once you've been touched, and your heart will never close as a result.

Marriage isn't just a legal contract, but one with God (whatever your beliefs). What a marriage recognizes is that you are genuinely in love with each other and ready to give up anyone else (what we call fidelity, trust, etc.) and grow together through all of the twists and bends that come with re/discovering who you are (because we all change, and marriage includes the exercise of letting go).

In other words, marriage isn't just about two people. The ideals of marriage are what make it greater than any two people. But you have to know who you are first; if you're a mask even to yourself, your marriage will break, whether or not you stay together. Real love happens when both partners are completely naked with each other in the figurative sense. There also needs to be desire that extends beyond the physical; bodies age and change, but sex is communication between souls.

If you don't really love someone, yes, you're going to lose interest in sex. A marriage is more than friendship; if all you have is friendship, it's an unbalanced relationship, and that will lead to affairs, breakdowns in the relationship, etc. Communication is the most important part of a marriage, but 50% off it is sex. If you have to overthink what you're feeling, it's not love. If you really love someone, marriage is the inevitable end; otherwise you're just scared, or don't trust or know what you're feeling.

It's about owning our bodies: A tentative outlook

Okay, so the other day a Facebook friend invited me to the April 26, 2010 Boobquake event. Sure, the whole thing's silly, and it's not like the Islamist critic was the first to demonize women by suggesting some association between us and calamity. We've been demonized for centuries, after all; but I was, like, of course I'm doing it! And I did by cutting a tank top so I looked scandalous.

But I'm thinking: One day isn't enough! Sure, I'm fat and ugly. But these are the issues:

1. Traditionally - and there are exceptions; we know history included female leaders - men have exercised more power than women. To maintain power, so-called weaklings must believe they're inferior. We were weak, which resulted in our need for protection. We bled, which attracted predators. We were stupid, which meant incapable of an education. Of course these are generalizations - and the list can go on. But who defined us? Us or men? So if men want to hold on to any kind of power, yes, they need to blame us for their inability to control themselves - because guess who sexualized us? Did you notice it became so dominant we participated in our sexualization? As a result, we were made to fear our bodies, to believe that we held so much power over men that they couldn't control themselves. If men are so intellectual/higher than us, impulse control should be easy; but we fed the bs and spat it out.

2. Art recognizes all bodies as beautiful: the ugly and the pretty. Why do women who cover themselves up complain about women who don't? Because they're insecure with their bodies. Why do women who don't cover themselves up insist that fat women should? Because they're prejudiced. That's all it comes down to; but, more, the only reason too many of us buy it is because of the above: sexualization. You know what? Screw you. I'm a body - yes, a fat body - but I own my body.

Yes, let's talk about that: owning our bodies. By going out dressing scandalously, you know what I'm saying? This is my body; deal with me. I'm saying: own your prejudice - because I won't respond to you. I dare you to come up to me; you'll see I'm bored. (Oh, I've said that California broke me because of my body; but when you pull yourself together after an experience like that, what ties you is more malleable. I can stretch with hurtful words about my body, but they get pushed out because I know why: sexualization.)

But you want a conversation? Sit down with me and talk.

You can't look at my big breasts without getting a hard on? Let's talk about why.

You're a woman who thinks I'm going too far? Let's talk about the history of our bodies.

You need to act out with juvenilia? That's on you. (Believe me, where I live, this place is full of juveniles. I'm just, like, yeah, it's the very reason I'm more committed to what I'm doing.)

Let's talk about fear. Like, why do men fear our curves? Really, besides being lumps, what's so special about them? Oh, right, there's the whole milk thing - should they not be honored, then? Should a man not be able to look at us and see the potential for future generations in our breasts?

But we've given men authority to be selfish; it's about satisfying their needs. We've told them we recognize their sexual appetites, while ignoring ours - has that really changed? We've accepted their view that we have something to hide; we've given in to the idea that we should be scared of ourselves. Etc.

Uh, no! I refuse to make myself sick trying to fit a definition of beauty that meets someone else's standards. I refuse to cover up my fat because you think it's ugly. Etc.

You want to deal? Face me as a feminist. But I already know most of you are cowards. So, go ahead, insult me; when you're ready to engage with me, then - maybe - I'll pay attention.

The issue of toilet paper use is an eco-feminist issue

Life has a way of forcing change on you.

I grew up knowing about toilet squatting women who wouldn't sit on a public toilet, but position themselves over the seat, pee, then get up and leave. I never mastered the technique, however; I'd always end up having to clean up the mess that was left behind, including wiping the floor. (If you're a man and think that women's public toilets aren't nasty, then you've never been in one.)

After my surgery recently - when it was painful even to sit up - I was introduced to the bedside toilet. It's a makeshift toilet with a pan underneath it to catch the pee. Later, the nurses would empty the pan in the real toilet. However, the nurses didn't leave me any toilet paper next to the bedside toilet. So I'd sit on it, pee, then wait a few moments before getting up and crawling back into bed.

That bedside toilet habit carried over in my home life. Now I sit on my toilet seat, pee, wait a few moments, then get up. This method's still new to me, so I haven't figured it all out yet; but I still wash my hands when I'm done. Sometimes, however, I get up too quickly and have to wipe the seat clear of the pee drops. Even then, I only use a square piece of toilet paper.

When I'm doing the other business that isn't pee, I have no issue using toilet paper. Once I start bleeding, I'll be using significantly more toilet paper since it's a good vagina plug; that's how I manage not to stain other people's furniture. One day, I'm going to try to see how it works to use rags that I wash; but I'm not at that stage yet.

If you're thinking this is disgusting, allow me: Men pee all the time without using toilet paper. Why do women need to?

Both genders have openings that pee shoots out of. More importantly, urine is clean. I don't think the same can be said for poop; also, men use toilet paper like women to wipe the hole feces pump out of.

But, in terms of the environment, there's a strong argument against women using toilet paper to wipe themselves after they pee: It's more stuff that gets mixed into our environment. If we're really serious about protecting the environment, as well as committed to the idea that little things can make a big difference, then we have every obligation to use less toilet paper.

Yes, women, that's what I'm saying: We're contributing more pollution to the environment than men are in terms of our toilet paper use. I don't even remember how I learned that I needed to wipe myself with toilet paper after I peed; I just know that I've been doing it for most of my life. Yet, the more I learn in my Environmental Management program, and the more I start to pay attention to the media in regards to the environment, the more I ask: What can I do to lessen my burden on the environment?

That's right, the issue of women's toilet paper use is an eco-feminist issue. It's time we stop talking about what we're going to do to protect the environment, and start doing. I'm just beginning to learn what I can do. I'll return to this subject later.

My video response to Jenny Craig commercial with Phylicia Rashad

Is veganism compatible with motherhood?: A question

I have no idea why this question popped into my head the other day. However, it's been troubling me, really compelling me to write about it. It should be clear, too, that I mean nothing against vegans; it's just the concept of veganism and motherhood that intrigues me.

Like, I think I get the position of vegans regarding things like milk. It's the production aspects of commercialized dairy products that's bothersome. Of course, you should know that I'm a self-proclaimed carnivore; I eat ground beef, steak, pork chops, and chicken, and have tried alligator (or crocodile; I can never get this straight) and emu sausage (absolute best). I also enjoy breaded shrimp and fish, and I've experimented with fried squid (didn't like it) and clam (wasn't thrilled by them). These are my informed choices; I've seen documentaries of slaughtered beef, as well as images of dead chickens - and I still eat meat.

The point of this post isn't to debate the issue of whether one should or shouldn't eat meat. It occurs to me, however, that if vegans - and be aware that there are different kinds of vegans, so keep in mind that I'm speaking generally - don't eat or drink anything that comes from an animal, do they apply this limitation to breastfeeding?

We are, regardless of what anyone might say to the contrary, a mammal species; that is, we're animals, too. Breastfeeding is the best milk option for newborns and older children (like I remember hearing about a woman who still breastfed her child through at least six years of age). It's also a byproduct of pregnancy; that is, it's a natural part of our female processes. (Now, this is ignoring the man who gave birth, and is currently pregnant again; I remember catching something about this on television a while back. I just didn't watch the show or whatever.)

What does it mean, therefore, for a female vegan who takes an orthodox view of animals to breastfeed? In my view, doing so represents a complete contradiction. Like, you can't say you're against animal products but also be the source of an animal product. On the other hand, if you refuse to breastfeed, then you're denying a baby important nutrients and antibodies. (This is, of course, ignoring all of the issues associated with HIV/AIDs infected babies, drug babies, etc.)

Anyway, I plan to explore this further in a later post. I'm just putting it there as something to think about: Is veganism compatible with motherhood?

Live the world like a dream and break the rules: A Memoir

Years ago, as a wild child of a different era, I danced in a cage shirtless, ran naked around a neighborhood, stood outside as the rain soaked me in ... - all one time experiences. Did you really think I'd change so much in ten years?

By my late twenties, I tried new things: being public in panties and shoes, nude modeling, shaving my head hair ... Then I let go of bras, deodorants, hairbrushes.

I've never hid behind conventions, pretensions - that is, when it came to who I was, I've always taken risks. I know what real love is, but also the differences between crushes, infatuations ...

Even more personally, I've known what it feels for an egg to drop, when I came into my sexuality ... I haven't compromised myself despite the pressures.

Feminism isn't who I am; it's an expression of it. I don't break rules just to break them; I do it to test myself. There's no limit to the individual, but the sanctions imposed on by society ...

Are you so sure of yourself? That depends, I suppose, on how much you are outside of yourself as you are in. Be who you are when no one's around and when they are, and the world is yours; it's called disinhibition. My suggestion: Don't be afraid of it; the more you constrain yourself, the more you lose yourself.

Addressing Radicalism: What Feminism Means

So my women's studies professor, on Thurs., used the word "radical" to describe my feminism. (It was the first time she directly addressed me; until then, she offered indirect hints - and understand that this is going on during class times, not in private). Of course, I have no idea how to read her; I just assume that I discomfit her. Regarding a class in Fall 2008 that she's co-teaching, I told her, in a one on one meeting that same day, "The only relevant issue is whether you'd be uncomfortable with me in the class." She responded, "I'm very comfortable with you." I said, "Okay," which is the same as saying: We'll see how true that is. Seriously, you can't offer me a challenge like that and expect me to walk away. It's not like I plan to be any different than I have been; rather, it has to do with seeing how well her actions back up her words. Of course, some people are very good at distancing their professional and personal selves, but since she's already slipped in this class...Personally, I suspect that if I'd said that I wouldn't be offended or angry if she were uncomfortable - followed up with, Are you sure? - she might've said no.)

As I said in class, however, "I don't consider myself to be 'radical.'" But I wasn't really paying that much attention. I mean, I've been thinking about it a while before then, but I don't believe I knew where I was going with that statement until this weekend. So while I had the opportunity to explain what I think is at the core of feminism - which by itself makes feminism a radical concept - I didn't take it. What I shared instead was that I didn't claim feminism until 1999 because I'd associated it with lesbians/bisexuals; that is, I believed that you had to be a lesbian/bisexual to be a feminist. That veil of ignorance was lifted as a result of a professor who not only gave us readings from feminists who weren't lesbians/bisexuals (though we also read a few excerpts from lesbians/bisexuals), but also introduced this radical concept: Feminism, at its core, means acknowledging that women are equal to men (and vice versa).

If you're a feminist, you might be thinking: Yeah, so what? (That is, the concept isn't new and, in today's world, women have advanced in almost every nation, including those we might be tempted to dismiss because we imagine that women are oppressed at every level. This may be truer in some instances, but too often, especially in countries like the U.S., the problem of ethnocentrism gets in the way of reading cultures otherwise; and there's really no excuse for it, given the scholarship that exists addressing the different expressions of feminisms that exist within particular contexts rather than within a globalized framework. Then again, as in my example, to get rid of ignorance, sometimes you need someone else to guide you when you wouldn't have (on your own) or haven't (because of your experiences, etc.) been exposed to information that disrupts your own knowledge base.)

It's not enough, however, for people to say: Oh, of course women are equal to men. I mean, sure, women still get paid less than men in many instances - and what would you say to the idea that if women (men) really are working less than men (women), then maybe, to make it equal, women (men) should be retiring later than men (women) to make up for the differences that raising children (biological or otherwise) may mean on women (men)? - but women can get a lot of the same jobs as men. It also used to be that women couldn't vote, obtain an education (even basic literacy), wear jeans (it used to be a legal offense in the earlier part of the twentieth century, based on what I remember a guy sharing with me), own businesses, receive any divisions of property and assets in cases of divorce or widowhood, etc. We can't, however, say that women never worked until the women's rights movement. Also, we can't ignore that those who most benefited from the major changes in policy that followed were, initially, white middle/upper class women; now, it's mostly middle/upper class women regardless of race. The focus has since shifted to the roles of women in countries whose cultural norms and historical antecedents are different, requiring the sensitivity and appreciation that many (Western) feminists ignore. [And note that I'm mostly addressing a U.S. perspective.]

What makes the concept that women (and men) are equal to men (and women) radical is that once a feminist accepts it, she (or he) will begin asking questions. For me, it may be different because, as I've said, I grew up with a single mom, lived in apartments, etc., which means that in some significant ways I've become very individuated as a person. I was also, for thirty years, ambivalent about being Hispanic; I neither fit into white culture (though I was frequently around it) nor Hispanic culture (which I rarely experienced). The way I feel is aptly expressed in one of Edgar Allen Poe's short poems where he talks about what it is to be different: always a part of something in ways that set you apart from it. My traumatic experiences in Claremont, CA, however, also made me intensely aware of what it means to be an outlier in a pool of variables that are, on the whole, the same (exempting individual differences, what I'm talking about is class status); the strength I gained from that, however, is what's made it possible for me to be unafraid of taking risks as I continue to challenge what it means to be an American/U.S. woman in today's time (from shaving my head* to not wearing bras).

What I would've said in class, had I been able to articulate it, is this: I'm only "radical" to people who've never questioned the image of how a woman is supposed to act and look. My experiments - because you need to know that I'm not only aware of what I'm doing (that my choices are deliberate and directly related to my expressions of feminism), but I'm also evaluating other people's responses to me - are based on that premise of questioning what a woman should and shouldn't look like and act. For example: Does it make me less of a woman to not have hair on my head? Surprisingly, I received several compliments that I was "pretty": a term that was rarely used to describe me before then because of my fat body. It's only recently, however, that I'm wondering how much of that had to do with people's hidden assumptions that I might've had cancer; yet I'm also seeing (African) models with shaved heads (if you watch America's Next Top Model, you'll have seen one episode in which the competitors had to wear bald caps; however, I also saw a hairless model on a CoverGirl® commercial**, which seems to suggest a social acceptance of bald women).

However, I'm also aware of the implications for other people to comment (or not comment) about my choice to be bra-less. Ignoring that I'm comfortable not wearing a bra - in fact, I think wearing a bra is unnatural; not only do the straps cut into shoulders and leave marks under the breasts, but the design of the apparatus, over time, also works to constrict the circulatory system, etc. - let's not forget that I'm not breaking any laws by not wearing a bra. Two larger issues, however, potentially affect people's responses to me - which quite possibly has to do with the problems (and perhaps occasional benefits) of a social world that is overly mindful of political correctness - if what they fear is: that they will lay the ground for a sexual harassment claim (psychologically, this may have to do with acknowledging that I have breasts and that what's attracting their notice is the size or movement of my breasts); that they will be calling attention to my perceived class status (which assumes that I can't afford to buy a bra).

I am, as I said, a direct challenge to people, even if on an unconscious level. The problem, though, is trying to set the ground for a discussion about socialization. It's almost impossible to imagine that no matter how free one's choice seems to be, the choices concerning how we (women and men) look has a social context that's difficult to disentangle depending on your significant mother figure (biological or step- or other mother, aunt, grandmother, friend, etc.), significant father figure (biological or step- or other father, uncle, grandfather, friend, etc.), friends, etc. For example, a woman who grew up seeing her mom with makeup associates that in her choice to wear makeup. A woman whose mother put makeup on her associates that bonding/intimacy in her choice to wear makeup. A woman who grew up with friends who wore makeup associates that shared comaraderie in her choice to wear makeup. And on and on.

For the choice to wear makeup to be really free, the woman who wears makeup has to question the very basis for wearing makeup. She has to evaluate herself to know if she really likes the texture of wearing makeup, if she understands the consequences of where makeup comes from and how it affects skin (in terms of aging), etc. Without any of that, however, the decision to wear makeup has nothing to do with personal choice but the pressures she has grown up with and implicitly (unconsciously) naturalized in terms of the image she has of what a woman should look like. She also learns how to behave based on those models, and even when she rebels, it's often only temporary because she doesn't know how to contextualize her struggle: Am I doing this out of my own choice, as a rejection of values/influence I don't accept, or because that's all I've really known and not doing so may be cause for rejection? Etc.

So, first, one has to not just recognize that women (men) are equal to men (women), but also act on it. It doesn't just mean recontextualizing ourselves (women and men) in terms how we have responded to the pressures placed on us since we were too young to really understand what was happening, but also asking what it means to be a feminist. Working, for instance: It's only feminism to work if you have the option not to and you're doing something you want; then again, the decision to stay at home when one has the option to work is only feminism when it's an informed choice (and not automatic based on the models one has grown up with). But don't worry! I'll come back to all of this in another post!

* I shaved my hair twice in 2006. The only reason I haven't done so since is out of deference to my mom, who asked me not to shave it again. She's come a long way, too, though; as much as she doesn't like the idea of my not wearing a bra, she hasn't asked me to discontinue that practice because she understands that it has to do with me being a feminist.

** Corporations like CoverGirl® and Kellogg's® (in the marketing of its Special K® brand specifically), among others, are using different sized women in their advertisements. However, while they're challenging social norms concerning the ideal body type for women, they're also feeding into the social norms that continue to define how women should look. The problem is exacerbated by the socialization processes involving girls, who are fashioned through the models of the women around them. For this reason, I'm surprised that there hasn't been a lot of debate concerning the sexualized images of girls in commercials; for example, I recently saw a DQ® commercial in which a girl smiles at a boy and gets a free ice cream. The mother's reaction is shock when she hears the daughter say: "It's like shooting fish in a barrel" - yet she doesn't say anything. I'm reminded, too, of the commercial involving a male adolescent (in one of the gum commercials that talks about "dirty teeth") who hits on a friend's mom, but the woman does nothing to counter it. In both instances, the audience is being told something specific about relationships between men and women; women remain objects of desire, while men continue to be desexualized.

The Issue of Women's Burden: A Preliminary Grounding

It's so funny. In one class this semester, two female students attacked me for contributing a feminist voice to two separate discussions. It's one of those things: If you don't want to hear an opposing view, don't share anything that opens an entryway for it.

So, anyway, I replied to Tiffany and talked about the issue of burden I feared she might be carrying, given what she contributed. First, her jobs consume a significant portion of her time each week (I'd guess 50-60 hours). Secondly, she's carrying at least 12 hours of classes. Finally, even though she has a live-in boyfriend, she's responsible for the housework.

I would've been interested to see how she replied, but the female student who did (Christina) is married and apparently feels unexpressed resentment toward her husband who also doesn't contribute to "housecleaning." Obviously, if someone's married, there's not a lot you can say regarding the issue of women's burden.

By agreeing to that mutual contract voluntarily (as there are many women who don't have the option to choose - and I'd argue that it's extremely unfair to criticize them without considering the historical circumstances that lend the socio-politico-cultural structures through which ideas of marriage and women's place are constrained/defined by (including our American culture)), what we're saying is: This is the person I want to be with regardless of his (her) faults, which I'm well aware of and accept. And while I imagine that there might be some things a wife (or husband) wouldn't know about her (his) husband (wife), there's no way you're going to convince me that she (he) didn't know what he (she) was when she (he) chose to marry him (her).

For example, men (women) who cheat will more often than not do it again. The other giveaway is how men (women) treat women (men), and the expectations they share about what they expect in a marriage. And if you're not talking about this with your man (woman) before you commit (and I know a lot of people don't entertain the concept of marriage integrity, which means fidelity not just to each other but to the institution of marriage which is founded on trust, communication, and longevity), don't complain. Any commitment like marriage requires the seriousness of consideration and devotion; you can't have equality otherwise.

Women, to this day - regardless of how far we've come politically, socially and individually - are still expected to fulfill the traditional roles of mother and wife. What we often leave out of conversations, however, is that these roles come packaged with sets of expectations that include (but aren't limited to) housework (cooking, cleaning, etc.), behavior (including modesty and conservativism), and performance (basically, public vs. private*).

So what we as women (men) deserve is: a man (woman) who genuinely loves us, respect us as women (men), appreciates our contributions to the relationship, supports us in all that we do, etc. There's nothing wrong with a woman (man) who, having the option to not work, chooses to be a stay at home mom (dad) if it's really something she (he) wants (and not because her (his) family - inside and outside the marriage - or friends or other people have made being a stay at home mother (father) an obligation, expectation, responsibility, etc. that a woman (man) assumes as a wife (husband)) because she (he) has thought about it; that is, it's an informed decision based on an awareness of the options available to her (him) as a woman (man) in today's society. [Again, I'm talking about socialization - but I'm saving the discussion for later!]

Why the () with the opposite sex/pronoun? Because there are many men who experience the opposite reality: a woman who suppresses them; seriously, a lot of women have beaten, raped, and otherwise taken advantage of men. (Don't believe me? Do the research.) Let's also not forget that in several states (I think) men can marry other men - as can women - so the same rules apply, but then it's a whole other thing called femininity vs. masculinity, which, by the way, applies to all sexes. As I've said, I'm heterosexual, and that's where I primarily speak from.

So, you see, there was a lot of subtext in my response to Tiffany. Were we sharing a conversation, I might've had the opportunity to go more in-depth on the topic. This didn't happen, however. At the same time, it's interesting that Christina jumped in as she did. Think about it: Was there any reason for her to be scared by what I said? Did I really say anything new?

What I'm really talking about, however, is stereotype threat, which is essentially anything that forces you to step outside of your box; the less secure you are about who you are, the more radical/extreme/dangerous/crazy someone else seems who says/behaves/responds with any knowledge/opinion/experience that falls outside of your boundaries. But don't worry! I'll revisit this concept in another post. I just want you to start thinking about it.


* In other words, people often behave differently at home than in other places. We've already, as a society, seen the consequences of this duality. The most visible of them is domestic abuse. Less frequently discussed is the issue of rape within a marriage; I know there's been a lot of debate on it, but I'm not sure what (if any) policy changes have been implemented as a result. I'm sure there are other examples; I just can't think of anything else offhand.

Radicalizing Prostitution: The First Step in Dismantling Difference

I should warn you, first, that I'm at present still taking a women's studies class this semester. So in one book we read, I discovered that BarbieTM was originally a prostitute doll in Germany. Here we have this national icon that is known the world over primarily as a middle class white woman who's had her look and measurements revised several times, and yet she's exactly the kind of woman most parents today still don't want their sons/daughters involved with!

Why is it so hard then for us to recognize that street prostitutes - male and female - are no different from the rest of us? Haven't I already said that dating is, theoretically, about marriage, but in reality, as my landlord's wife shared, it's really about sex. You don't date, according to her, unless you're in it for the sex. I don't disagree with that; I think, ultimately, sex is the point. I mean, even if you don't have sex until you're married, you're going to eventually have sex. And just because you don't have sex with the person you're currently with doesn't mean you're not going to have sex with the next (or previous) person, etc.

More importantly, I've said that people who date/marry, etc. are paying for sex. (Even when married partners pay half and half on everything, they're still paying for something! - but at least the prostitution would be on terms of equality, which is saying something!) Whether the guy or girl pays for dinner, gifts, etc., the minute you enter into sex, you're giving what you've been paid to do (male or female). So, yes, I think the value you place on your body is what determines when you have sex. (And in both instances - legal and illegal prostitution - STDs are a real risk, along with pregnancies, beatings, etc.!)*

You can choose to ignore that you're putting in what you've paid into or what you've accepted as payment - whether you're dating or married or casual, straight or otherwise, etc. - but how many of you would be with someone who didn't pay for anything? Even if you were willing to experiment with that concept, how long would you be with that someone? Could you go without gifts, dinners out, anniversary/holiday celebrations, etc.?

Yet we, as an American society, claim to be against prostitution. After all, we regulate prostitutes, male and female, by making it a crime to conduct oneself in such a fashion. What about the men or women who have sex with sugar mamas or daddies? Those who do the do for the promise of money? (Uh, don't we still use the phrase gold digger?) How about those - and I've known women who said they do this - who use sex as an exchange for expensive items like TVs and other things? As one told me, Why not do it if you can get something out of it?

I like my new BarbieTM knowledge because it perfectly represents this schism we have in society regarding prostitutes: We say no, but our bodies say yes. We say no to some people, but yes to ourselves. We call it bad/immoral/etc. to others, but natural/obligation for us. Isn't this just another way of people being hypocritical without owning the hypocrisy?

I'll talk more on this another time! For now, I just want you to start thinking about this: Why does prettying up a prositute - ahem, BarbieTM - make her acceptable? More importantly, what does that mean about us that we are in love with an image of ourselves whose history most of us (generally speaking) would be appalled about? (We're talking about a primarily white image; I'm not sure when her new colors were introduced, but, historically, BarbieTM has been a white middle class phenomenon who, as far as I know, has never - since her days as a prostitute - been presented with a lower class or menial type job. Even as a person of color, she's always been in a position of privilege. Anyway, I think that's where we need to start.)


* Like I've said, I've already guaranteed that it'll never happen for me (aside from the obvious reasons that I'm a fat opinionated bitch - and I refer you to Bitch Magazine if you want to know where feminism stands on the word); no guy's going to pay $50,000 toward a trust fund, plus agree to regular STD testing just to have sex with (highly inexperienced not interested in sex) me. Of course, I'm hoping, too, that I'll never be raped again.

Reading My Choices: Reflection on a Conversation (Part I)

Don't we sometimes talk about ourselves as social agents? I choose to express myself as I do (braless) knowing that many people will receive it primarily in one of two ways: as a form of resistance (referring back to the concept, "the personal is political"), but this (I think) is harder to read without some knowledge/education/experience (but this is where I stand); as a reflection of ignorance, class position, etc.

One reason for this is that we're constantly told (through media, in person, etc.) that how we look tells people who we are; less frequently discussed is the issue that the image is always constructed - that is, it's generally a topic limited to academic circles. We do, however, talk a lot about masks and how we present ourselves differently depending on who we're with; but I don't follow this rule either. What this comes down to is: You can't really ever know someone without getting to know them - but this is a different discussion for another time!

So, anyway, this girl and I are talking on the bus one day; she's also a student at FCC. I'm explaining to her how my choice not to wear a bra is associated with my expression of feminism which I connect with the history of our (women's) sexualization. Before we develop breasts, I said, our upper bodies look like those of boys; yet by around the ages of five or six, we're told to start covering up our bodies. As a result, we're unconsciously being given a message: We have something to hide, and that what we're hiding is wrong (but there are lot of girls who aren't going to make the leap to their sexualities); a lot of girls question this, and parents/guardians/whatever often say: It's because girls are different from boys. Then later we're told to add another layer even when we're not yet ready for them; that's the joke I see played a lot on TV regarding training bras. So I'm essentially talking about the socialization of girls at this point, but the girl I'm talking to isn't ready to follow me there.

Instead, she tells me her mom had a mastectomy because she was physically uncomfortable with the size of her boobs. So she suggests that I should consider one. First, as I shared with her, I'm comfortable not wearing a bra; but, of course, I have big boobs and they sag - and this is what's bothering her; she can't imagine that someone like me wouldn't be bothered by them. I told her I was aware of people who made similar complaints about their breasts, and that the reason I don't think I have an issue with mine is because of my posture; good posture helps align your body the way it's meant to be. (Let's ignore the whole issue of trauma involved with our evolving to upright forms, assuming you accept the concept of evolution.)

She tries then to convince me that women need bras. Her first example - the corsets women had to wear especially during the Victorian era - was careless; I told her that a lot of women fainted as a result of how tight they were, and that this reified the view of women as helpless and weak compared to men, etc. She tries to tell me that, biologically, we need them for support, and that they otherwise cause back pain because of all the weight. I ask her about women who have firm breasts and don't need to wear bras. Would she have a problem if they chose not to wear bras? Also, I told her that women have different shaped breasts, and some actually have proportions that make them more like men's breasts, and that some men have breasts - what she insists on calling pecs - which look like they belong on women; but it's the same thing.

This is one of the problems: We're talking about women but also introducing men into the conversation. So I open another thread by raising the issue that men's bodies have been desexualized. I share that I like looking at men, and that when I see a good looking man with a nice chest, yes, I get turned on by that; I'm not going too much into this right now, but I would argue against anyone who claims that women don't respond the same way by pointing out that just because we aren't able to visibly display our attractions in the same physical ways that men do (and I'm not talking about orgasms, etc., but the immediate response to sexual stimulation that anyone can observe even when the person's covered) doesn't mean we don't get aroused by looking at men (with clothes on, partial or nude; I think it's very possible that if we had scientific instruments which could detect the buildup of fluids associated with arousal, we'd find that women and men respond the same). I mean, we're always talking about the sexualization of women - in music videos (uh, I see a lot of men in sexualized roles, but where's the literature criticizing this?; it's almost always been, from what I've read/heard/whatever, about women), pornography (uh, they get naked, too!) - because we've connected women with sex in ways that we've never really done with men, even if this is changing.

As for me, I've been around different states - Texas (home state), Montana (summer 1996), California (Aug. 2003-Dec. 2004), Connecticut (Aug. 2005-May 2006), Michigan (May 2006-Dec. 2006), and now Maryland (since Dec. 2006) - not to mention other places I've visited around the U.S. as a result of conferences and school activities; I haven't had many opportunities to travel internationally, but I've been to Monterrey and Puebla, Mexico; Manchester, England; and Ontario, Canada. So I've seen a lot of men in person but also through the media, and I know real men exist who could use bras (not just fat men, but also overly muscled men); in fact, Seinfeld played a joke on this by introducing "the man bra" in one episode. Yet men aren't required to cover up their pecs/breasts/whatever.

Women, however, are burdened with that. Even when it's the hottest day of summer, we have to put on that extra layer. I don't think it's fair, and I refuse to be sexualized. Even ignoring that I'm fat - and I tell people I'm fat and ugly; even if I had no excess weight, I'd be fat and ugly because our society has dictated an image of what a woman should look like that, because of how my bones are structured, even if I were at my least weight possible, I'd still be fat and ugly next to that image; so I don't bother - women are still seen in terms of their bodies, even when we have women in power positions who show that they're more than their bodies.

Before the conversation ends, she's telling me it's "not normal" for women not to wear bras. So I question her. I tell her that I'm aware of African women who don't wear bras and are able to function within those societies. Why, I ask her, do you think women have to wear bras? I'm comfortable not wearing one, and I'm comfortable enough with myself that I have no problems openly challenging the position of women as sexual objects. If it were not for images on National Geographic* - and I didn't see the connection until last night - would I have had that knowledge? Would I have been able to connect it, even unconsciously, with why I choose to continue doing what I started doing all the time since Fall 2007? (I'm braless wherever I go: stores, banks, etc. I mean, it took me about four years of experimenting before I went full at it.) The fact is, images don't just sexualize women. I understand the point, however; we're talking about showing only the women. But if we were to see them together (that is, the men and women), wouldn't we still be complaining and focusing in on the sexualization of women?*

That's something I'm only recently thinking about: this idea that it doesn't matter what the object of criticism is, even when there are men involved, we make an issue out of the women within a patriarchal context. That's one of the fallacies, I think: We have so much of an entrenched view of women as sexual objects that when we are forced to confront both sexes in the same industries (uh, there are gigolos, or male prostitutes), we too often narrow in on women and stigmatize men as the culprit behind the successes of those products. Why aren't we ever looking at men? So, yes, I'm coming back to this idea later!


* For my PSY 209 class, we were assigned textbook readings; of those we addressed last night, the discussion concerning the selection from Catherine A. Lutz and Jane L. Collins' book, presented in the section as "Excerpts from Reading National Geographic" (from Grewal and Kaplan's An Introduction to Women's Studies, 2006), sparked today's post. I'm really starting to think more now about the problematic nature concerning the sexualization of women that also stigmatizes men as the primary culprits behind it.