Rants, ramblings, and random thoughts

36 weeks...

2012-01-16T18:38:00.000-08:00

36 weeks until my sister's wedding, in which I will be maid of honor. I will have to wear a dress and stand in front of her fit, fabulous, funky friends. Right now, I am really not happy with how I look. I have Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS, for short), which causes hair loss, rampant midsection weight gain, and facial hair. Sounds like fun, doesn't it?

Well, I've been dealing with it since I was 13 years old. You'd think I'd be used to it by now, but I'm not. I'm finally gathering my resources and seeing an endocrinologist. Most people wait until they're trying to get pregnant to see an endocrinologist, but I'd prefer not to wait that long--I'd like to feel better sooner, rather than later. I know that one thing that helps me most of all is reducing my carb intake, but when you're on the road 50% of your day, that can be really challenging. I followed the Metabolism Miracle religiously for a while, and know that I really just need to power through the first four days of no sugar and I'll be ok. But now that I know what to expect--the headaches, the anger, the OH MY GOSH, JUST GIVE ME A CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE ALREADY--it makes it harder to "sign up" for it.

But I hate the way I feel right now, and I weigh more than I ever have in my life. So it's time to get on the ball, and start doing things differently.

Well, hello, 2012

2012-01-15T16:38:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I've written. I started my first REAL job, working as a family therapist with kids on the autism spectrum and their families. In the interest of confidentiality, I won't go into any of that here, but I will say that on most days, I love my job and am frustrated by it all at the same time. The frustrating part, of course, comes more from the bureaucracy and the "stuff" that people neglect to think about when they sign up for a full-time job. Eg: 40 hours a week is actually 45, once you've done your notes, and 45 is actually 60 once you factor in the travel time required of a community-based therapist (which means I go into peoples' homes, kids' schools, etc.).

I've gotten certified in TFCBT (Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), which is interesting since I don't work with abused kids any more. TFCBT has come in handy, though, since I have operationalized sex ed for a couple of concrete thinkers. I'm also working as an alternate instructor with a program that uses PREP, and I'm really excited about that, and hoping that I actually WILL get to be an instructor.

The biggest thing is that I'm trying to write more, and I have one beta reader already. I'm trying to write 5 pages a week, minimum, hoping that if I start there, everything else is a bonus. So my first novel is ready (why do I feel pretentious/ridiculous saying that?). It's a romance/suspense, and it was my NaNo project for 2011. If you want to beta read for me, send me a comment!

Coming Out: With Credit to PhDiva

2011-02-22T06:28:00.000-08:00

(deep breath)

Ok. Here goes.

In honor of National Eating Disorder Awareness Week, I am also coming out. From the time I was 8 years old until I was almost 24, I had an eating disorder. Like many girls and women, I switched back and forth between bulimia, anorexia nervosa, and EDNOS (Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified). Eating disorders seem to be unique in their fluidity. Times where I thought I was "better" because I wasn't starving myself, I was still making incredibly unhealthy choices. I would go weeks without eating any real meals, and then eat something that I thought of as "off-limits." I would then punish myself by binge eating, forced vomiting, and compulsive exercising.

At my thinnest (a number that, now, is not important and is better left unstated), I was also the unhappiest. My freshman year of college, everything began to fall apart. I couldn't use the starve-binge-vomit pattern to soothe myself, because I was afraid of what would happen if somebody knew. Now, looking at pictures from that time, I can see what everyone else (hopefully) saw--a hollow-eyed, sad girl, trying to "fix" herself by becoming an unattainable, unrealistic ideal.

Though I haven't binged or vomited in seven years, it's still a struggle. Some of the things that have helped have been therapy, and being honest with myself and others. I spent quite a bit of time being appalled by the amount of energy women expend on disappearing. I got angry. (Really, really angry.) Then I started to speak out, which made me less angry. I started to think about what I want, and who I want to be, as well as who I am. And I challenge other women to do the same.

Today, things are better. I remember that my worth is not weighed in pounds, and health is not indicated by the number of calories in versus calories out. I remember that while images of skinny women in the media didn't make me hate my body, comparing myself to those images doesn't do anything to improve my life, or the world we live in. I remember that I have only this body, and this life, and ask myself if this is how I want to expend my energy. I remember that I am not alone in my struggle. I focus on making healthy choices for myself, rather than for some ideal...an ideal that doesn't actually fit me, after all.

Specializations

2011-01-02T06:37:00.000-08:00

Recently, I've been hearing that I shouldn't worry about specialization in therapy until I'm actually licensed. (Which will be 2013, for those of you keeping track at home.) However, I know now that I DON'T want to specialized in CADC (chemical and alcohol dependency). Here's what I DO want to do:

- EMDR. Can't do this until I've got my preliminary license, though. (CSW, at least.)

- PREP training, especially Got Your Back and Strong Bonds. (Get to do this next week!!!)

- Play therapy certification (also needs licensure)

- FACE training--METT and SETT (I can actually do this now!)

- Narrative therapy

- Child Life specialist

- Certified Sex Addiction Therapist (CSAT) and, eventually, Certified Multiple Addiction Therapist (CMAT)

- Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TFCBT)

The trouble with book series

2010-10-03T07:28:00.000-07:00

I recently read two series of books by an author who wrote another series of books that I like. The first series that I read by her has only 4 books in it, and I enjoyed each one. The books have the same two characters throughout, and there's good plot pacing, dialogue, and characterization. I was really sorry to read the fourth book, especially when I learned that she didn't plan on writing any more in the series.

The second series that I read had 5 books. The first three were good, but the last two felt like a rush job. The plot was moving along, and then the ending just...happened. Now, I realize that writing probably has a learning curve, just like everything else, and this series ended long before she started her other two series.

So the question is, how long should authors hold on to a character? Some authors make their mark with one character and twenty-plus books, while others create dozens of characters. Is it more likely that a character will get "stale" and plot will suffer if the character appears in multiple books? In other words, is one's writing craft at risk just because one is using the same characters? Or is it more about the learning curve?

** Note: I'm not going to name the author, both because I don't think it's fair, and because this really could be about anyone. **

Hmmm...

2010-07-21T16:59:00.000-07:00

I haven't blogged in over a year. What have I been doing?

* Started (and finished) my first year of grad school in social work.

* Started (and finished) my first therapist job, working in residential treatment with kids.

* ...and...it feels like not much else, actually.

I'm sure that I probably HAVE been doing more than going to school and going to work, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. What I can say is that, day to day, I really enjoy what I'm doing, and I think I'll be happy doing it professionally.

Hi, my name is Jenny, and I'm fat.

2009-06-06T21:15:00.000-07:00

I am fat.

I'm not chubby. I'm not plump, zaftig, Rubenesque, full-figured, thick, a "woman of size," or anything else you might think of as a synonym for the three letter word FAT.

In our culture, it's generally frowned upon to be fat, much less to acknowledge it. After all, we live in a capitalist, consumer-driven society in which food is plentiful. In agricultural societies, or where food is scarce, fat is seen as a sign of wealth, of abundance. But the fact is, we don't live in those cultures.

I wish I could say that knowing that, I have made my peace with being fat. I have not. I hate being fat. I hate the way people stare at me--or don't. I hate that I think people are examining everything on my plate. I hate the Food Police, mostly because they only exist inside my head. I hate looking at pictures of myself and cringing. I hate that I "let myself" get to this weight without even realizing it. I hate having hope for a thinner tomorrow, yet it's so reassuring to think of the possibility that some day, I might not be fat.

I realize that the only person who can make me not fat is me, and I also realize that without making peace with my body, I will never be comfortable in it or happy with it, regardless of the number that appears on the scale. Realizing that and making it happen, however, are two different things.

What's the point anymore

2009-03-25T10:15:00.000-07:00

When I tell people that I don't know what I want to be when I grow up, and that I'd be happy to take their suggestions, they usually think I'm kidding. I'm not. Since I graduated from college seven years ago this May, I have done the following:

Applied to PhD programs in sociology at University of Notre Dame, University of Minnesota, and Loyola University Chicago. Got into Loyola. Maybe if I'd gone, I wouldn't feel like such a failure now.
Spent a year substitute teaching, mostly lonely and alone.
Applied to PhD programs in sociology at New York University, Boston College, University of Wisconsin, Portland State University, University of Chicago, University of Texas (Austin), Georgia State University, Arizona State University, and University of California-San Francisco. Got into Chicago's MA program; actually went.
Got my MA, then worked in a small law office, mostly catching up on reading and boring myself to death.
Applied to law school at Indiana University, University of Kentucky, University of Washington, Ohio State, Tulane, Georgetown, American, Northwestern, and Hamline. Got into Hamline, then discovered that it's a Tier 4 law school. Didn't want to go that badly.
Went to work at a job I hated, with people I didn't like. But it paid well.
Applied to the only PhD programs that accept mid-year applicants at Emory, University of Maryland, and University of Louisville. Got into U of L, am about to finish my second MA, this one in Women's and Gender Studies.
Applied to only one PhD program for the 2009-10 school year, University of British Columbia. Got rejected.
Applied for the Masters of Science in Social Work program at U of L. Will start Marriage and Family Therapy program in the summer.

I still feel like I've failed, because I've wanted a PhD for so long. (The law school thing was an ill-advised offroad adventure from that, I'll admit. Though I did like the law classes I took, and I liked the kinds of things I encountered at the law office where I worked, in hindsight it's a very good thing that I didn't get accepted to law school.) Doing the MSSW/MFT thing almost feels like settling, especially since what I really want to do is teach. (However, I don't know if that's actually what I want to do. It seems like something I'd want to do from the outside, but past experience has shown that what a job looks like from outside is usually pretty different from what it's actually like. I need a professor who will turn their class over to me for a semester. Then we'll see how I feel about it.)

So at what point do you give up on the dream? It's been seven years, and I'd estimate that I've spent close to $3000 applying for schools, not counting the sheer amount of work-hours I spent working on applications and the like. That's half a year's rent for a nice one bedroom in Louisville. Maybe I just don't have it in me.

Maybe I'm not cut out to get a PhD. It's getting harder and harder for me to find professors who were willing to write letters of recommendation for me. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that's a bad sign. It doesn't mean that I can't go back later and get a PhD, but for now, all signs point to 'stop.'

WHAT? INSIDE VOICE?

2009-03-21T18:31:00.000-07:00

While I was on a break at work today, I found myself suddenly missing England. This is weird, because I pretty much loathed every minute I lived there. I counted down the months, weeks, days until I got to go back home. (Sidebar: Within the past month, almost a dozen people have asked me where I'm from (or the variation, "Where's home?"). I find it difficult to answer this question, after moving around so much. Home is...wherever.) But what I miss about England is the people.

It's not that I dislike Americans, or subscribe to the idea that all Americans are ill-mannered and uncouth. There is, however, a big difference in the way Americans behave in public areas and the way the English behave in public. Some of it, I'm sure, has to do with the space available to Americans. There's simply not the amount of room available to the average Londoner that's available to the average person in Louisville. People in the Midwest take up more space, possibly because more is available to them. However, this doesn't quite explain the difference in volume.

The thing that I observed today is how LOUD American families tend to be. Rather than saying the child's name in a clear, audible voice, the American parent shouts across the room to the child. Whereas an English parent might expect the child to come over immediately, the American parent continues to deliver instructions or corrections LOUDLY and across the room. This could be a class thing, or perhaps I'm being overly critical of other people's parenting techniques. (As I tend to do, honestly.)

But I'm inclined to believe that the difference is cultural, at least in part. My only evidence of this is that when American parents pull their children aside as English parents do, people start visibly. Their interactions are considered to be intense, and passers-by look at them the same way they look at people who smack their children in public.

Aside from parenting techniques, I miss England because when two people were talking to each other at a table in a London coffeeshop, I couldn't hear what they were saying. In comparison, I've learned way too much information about a great number of strangers, including the state of their bowels, their marital problems, etc. So, people of America, I ask you: Please use your inside voice.

This American Life

2008-10-07T10:32:00.000-07:00

I have an addiction to "This American Life" on NPR.

At first, I was just a casual user. On Saturdays, I would be driving, and suddenly find myself listening to the melodic tones of Ira Glass. Soon, though, I started scheduling time to listen. Before I knew it, I was downloading podcasts every day and listening to them everywhere. It didn't matter where I was--in the car, before class, waiting at the doctor's office...I had to listen.

And now I find that I want to write my own segment for "This American Life."

The only thing is, where do I start? Should I start with some of my favorite episodes, like the one about how childhood misunderstandings carry over into adulthood? (Oooh, then I could tell my story about how I thought that fire trucks started fires.) Or about how "No One's Family Will Ever Change"? (Then I could talk about when I first realized that my family was a bit...unusual.)

Please, Ira. Call me.

Post Con update

2008-07-29T17:25:00.001-07:00

After Comic Con, I've become aware of all the tv shows that I should be watching. Now, I know what you're saying...who needs to become addicted to more tv shows? Well, after going to panels, I've become aware that there are some amazing shows out there that I've been missing. Like "Weeds," for example, which we watched on the plane there and back. I don't get Showtime, so DVDs have been a fantastic option. So here's a list of other shows that I need to start watching:

1. Pushing Daisies

2. Saving Grace

3. The Closer

4. (Not out until 2009) Dollhouse

5. Mad Men

6. Breaking Bad

7. Chuck

Geek-tastic

2008-07-28T17:37:00.000-07:00

We got back from Comic Con last night at about 10 pm, after having spent four days in geek heaven. We saw Kevin Smith, Judd Apatow, Frank Miller, and Zac Snyder, all in one panel, and I had my very own fangirl moment when I met Gail Simone. But that's not when the geek-o-rama started.

Technically, our geek fest started the previous sunday, when we went to see The Dark Knight (along with everyone else in the world). It's difficult to describe the experience of watching The Dark Knight, even when one is talking to someone who has already seen the movie. I've seen every Batman movie since 1989's Batman, and until the Christopher Nolan/Christian Bale Batman Begins, I saw all of them with my father. Seeing as how I was 9 when the first Batman movie came out, I shouldn't have been shocked that people brought their kids to see The Dark Knight. And yet, because I knew that it closely followed Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, I also knew that The Dark Knight was not "suitable for children."* It's not that the movie is particularly violent--300 and other recent graphic novel-into movie projects have had considerably more violence. (Hey, The Dark Knight isn't even as violent as the trailer for The Punisher, but I'll cover that later.) What would make me reluctant to take a child to see The Dark Knight is that it is deeply psychologically disturbing.

And for some children, the psychologically disturbing nature of the film would bring up interesting and difficult questions--about the nature of heroism, about hero worship in itself, and about the nature of madness. Hopefully, the same questions were brought up for adults who saw it. (I almost believe this, just based on the number of people who've seen it multiple times.)

This is why I read comic books. Because they're not just stories with pictures. They're not just for kids. (In fact, most of the authors that I adore--Frank Miller, Gail Simone, and Alan Moore, among others--are definitely not for children.) They're intense stories with cultural icons and archetypes, accompanied by illustrations that, outside of printed books, could be displayed as art work--if the stigma of being a "comic artist" didn't exist.

And this is why I loved going to Comic Con. It wasn't just the panels that we went to (which included Kevin Smith's "Zac and Miri Make A Porno," a panel that featured Frank Miller, Judd Apatow, Kevin Smith and Zac Snyder, "Battlestar Galactica," and "Doctor Who") or the people we saw (Jeff had his fanboy moment less than 2 feet from Ed Brubaker); it was the overall experience of the Con. People are committed to their love of the medium, and they're unabashed in their joy. More than that, everyone we met was genuinely nice. Despite the fact that there were over 200,000 people at the San Diego Convention Center and it was almost impossible to get anywhere without bumping into people or walking through groups of people, everyone apologized for bumping into one another and everyone was generally quite polite. Overall, Con attendees are awesome.

And the Con rocked.

---

* Note: Because, after all, children are different from one another, what might be inappropriate for one child might be perfectly accessible for another. I'm generalizing here, of course.

Knitting in public

2008-07-18T18:20:00.000-07:00

I'm going to try to blog more, particularly about my knitting projects. Right now, I'm making a scarf for my sister out of bamboo yarn, a lovely grey blanket for myself, and seafoam green socks. The socks are not going too well--I got the ankle part done, but have come to a full stop at starting the heel. Not good. Everything else is going well, and the blanket will probably be done soon.

My biggest concern right now is not being able to take my knitting on the plane with me. Must look into that.

I think I like blogger better

2008-05-23T13:06:00.001-07:00

I'm all but one week done with my first level of ASL. I've learned some new signs, and (more importantly) have had a lot of opportunities to practice. More than that, though, I've figured something out that I didn't know when I was an undergrad--what you do, how you behave in class, whether or not you show up prepared...all of it matters. Not just to you, but to your classmates as well. When you have a bad attitude, not only are you cheating yourself out of class, but your bad attitude affects everyone else.

I really don't think I knew this when I was an undergrad, and I'm certain that my attitude rubbed people the wrong way again and again. Sometimes I wish I could do it over again, knowing what I know now about personal responsibility and what one is supposed to get out of college. Maybe in a few years I'll have a better attitude about my college experience, too.

I haven't posted for over a year...

2008-04-29T17:41:00.000-07:00

So I thought I'd drop a little rant.

Two weekends ago, I was at a knitting group and was "awwing" over someone's baby. I mentioned that my godson was a very, very quiet baby, and that was because later they discovered he was deaf. Her reply was, "Oh, that's terrible."

Why is that terrible? He happens to be deaf. (He's not culturally deaf, because both of his parents are hearing, and he's mainstreamed as much as possible, with him also being autistic.) I realize that this is wrapped up in the audism that is omnipresent in our culture, but, really, what's so bad about not hearing? He's well-adjusted, happy, and seems to be pretty much ok.

What is the central tenet of feminism?

2007-04-11T09:01:00.000-07:00

"But it's hard not to wonder if those positions aren't just a beard, along with the term, "feminist," for the hard-core, misogynist agenda of the Vatican. The organization's no-exceptions anti-abortion position follows Catholic doctrine to the letter, a doctrine that has always demanded of women that they bear whatever burden men place upon them, and that they not soil the altar with the very bodiliness they represent by virtue of the means by which children are born."

(from the article "The Stealth 'Feminists' that Oppose Abortion")

Is a pro-choice stance necessary to calling oneself a feminist? Feminism is such a diverse collection of philosophies and beliefs that I don't think it's necessary to have any opinion about the right to obtain a legal abortion. There are so many things that (should) go into forming an opinion about abortion. For example:

The fact that comprehensive sex education isn't being taught in schools, so at the beginning of their reproductive life spans, students are ill-informed about the alternatives to abortion. (Abstinence-only is the only sex ed that is funded and approved by the government, despite numerous studies that prove that unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates have risen since the abstinence-only was mandated.)
Currently, abortion isn't available to all women because of financial and cultural restrictions. When you factor in lost pay, time off work, and/or daycare plus the cost of the procedure itself, abortion is cost-prohibitive for many of the nation's lowest income women. Additionally, most abortion clinics aren't prepared to deal with people from a non-English-speaking background, who are hearing-impaired or d/Deaf, or have other cultural particularities.
The number of people seeking a child for adoption is far greater than the number of healthy white babies available for adoption. But the number of non-white babies and children over the age of two remains steadily high.

As a Catholic, I'm disheartened that "the last acceptable prejudice" is alive and well in the feminist community. Part of the anti-Catholic comments made in the article are based on the essential misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. Say what you will, but the pro-life stance of the Church is at least consistent across all ages and circumstances. Yes, the Church asks women to carry the larger part of the burden when it comes to children, but "the bodiliness" of women isn't maligned. (In fact, if anything, the Church has strayed away from its Jewish roots, which really emphasized a woman's bodily uncleanliness. We don't have to have monthly mikvas any more, and there's no religious/cultural shunning of menstruation any more, either.)

One of the things that touches me most deeply about the Church is its long history of women's involvement. In the Church, I found a tradition of scholarship, of mysticism, of charity, and of ritual that filled in the missing pieces. I found a tradition where women were important to the life of the Church, as educators, as mothers, as mystics, and as saints. With the rich history of women in the Church, I can't believe that misogyny is as omnipresent in the Church as the article's author believes it is.

And for that, I am glad.

Rant: Fat and happy

2007-02-22T10:40:00.000-08:00

Ack. Where to begin...

descriptions of the way fat people, although occupying a great deal of physical space, actually become 'invisible' - to the shop assistants who stare through them to the men who pretend you don't exist - made me realise that the best thing I ever did to lose weight and keep it off was to stop beating myself up about it.

This just in: fat people have super powers! An extra ten pounds gives you the ability to become invisible!

Being overweight affected every single day of my life. It isn't easy starting the day with a smile when all you can pull on is a pair of size 22 stretch black trousers and a T-shirt that could shelter a dozen earthquake victims.

In all seriousness, I blame the fashion industry for not providing acceptable clothing for women over a size 14. Everything "plus" sized is shapeless, flower-covered, black, or overly matronly. Or all of the above.

If I had my life to live all over again, I'd re-direct all the time and money that I spent dieting toward learning how to create fashion for fat women. That would have been a productive use of my time.

You feel wretched. When you displace all the water in the bath and no towel will wrap around you, you feel utterly exposed.

Here's an idea: Get a bigger bath towel! People come in all sizes and shapes. I personally love the giant bath sheets, because I can wrap them around myself like a cape. (See above, re: superpowers.)

I used to look in the bathroom mirror and despair. Never mind shaving or waxing my bikini line - I couldn't even see it. Try painting your toenails when you have three folds of stomach in the way.

Sounds like a flexibility problem, rather than a weight problem. I know some other people who can't paint their toenails or shave their bikini line (side note: didja ever think that the hair "down there" is natural and performs a necessary function?), and they'd love to be fat. They have degenerative neuromuscular diseases.

I'd lost the same four stone four times. I'd spent most of my 40s yo-yo dieting. At 15 stone 10lb, I thought I'd never beat it and would become a fat old lady. I was beginning to have aches and pains generally suffered by the overweight: niggling backaches, swollen ankles at night, breathlessness and high blood pressure.
Was I going to develop diabetes? Was I increasing my risk of cancer? Would I keel over from a heart attack or stroke? Was I going to die before my time?

It's the old "See?! FAT=DEATH!" arguement!

Actually, yo-yo dieting decreases your life span more than carrying around an extra 50 pounds does.

That's when I realised how important your body is; it's your life. You can't be a mother, wife or career woman if your body is compromised.

And your body isn't compromised by spending all this time obsessing about your weight? What about all the time you spend hating your body? What kind of example is that setting for your children?

I stopped beating myself up about my weight and resolved to take action.

(Here's where I had a moment of hopefull-ness that she would "take action" by actually [i]stopping[/i] the "beating herself up" bit. As my best friend once said, "These people, they give you a little flicker of hope, so you lean in...and it singes your eyebrows.")

Recently, I also took a health and weight-loss show on tour - to pass on my message to thousands of men and women who are concerned about their weight.

And that message is: Get surgically-induced anorexia! Live with protein and vitamin deficiencies for the rest of your life! Have your hair fall out! Experience "dumping"!

Part of me wants to say, "Well, it's your life. Have weight loss surgery if you feel that's the best choice for you. It may be, as long as you have all the facts." But most of me just looks at my aunt, who had a gastric bypass three years ago and has lost around eighty pounds. But she's gained other things, too: three more surgeries to correct "side effects" of the surgery (a hernia, gallbladder infection & necrosis, excess tissue), repeated severe bouts with depression, debt from medical expenses and missed work, and a host of other common aftereffects of weight loss surgery.

I wake up every morning and say, "I LOVE MY BODY." Some mornings I believe it a little more than other mornings. But I do it, because in this world, loving your body as it is is a truly revolutionary act.

What do I do with all the time in which I don't obsess and hate? Only time will tell what my revolution will bring about--in me, in my family, and in our world.

Rant: What is child abuse?

2006-08-10T05:26:00.000-07:00

I'm disgusted by what is going on. Big Fat Blog, which I read regularly, is running a piece on another blog, purportedly written by doctors, that ridicules fat people, compares fat people to animals, and accuses parents of fat children of child abuse.

Where is the child abuse? Granted, feeding your child nothing but donuts and cheetos is neglectful--not because the food is "junk" food, but because it's not nutritionally sound. The thing is, people will gravitate toward their natural body types. This means that if your parents are muscular, large-framed people with the tendency to build muscle easily and gain weight in certain spots, you're never going to be Twiggy. We need to stop looking at weight from a willpower perspective and look at it from a genetic perspective, like height. And much like negative nutrition can negatively effect height, negative nutrition can negatively effect weight. Whether this means that the negative nutrition leads to emaciation or obesity depends--people can be horrifyingly thin with the same poor nutrition habits that fat people are supposedly all guilty of.

I'll tell you where the child abuse is. It's in putting a five year-old on a restricted calorie diet, attaching shame, guilt, feelings of inadequacy and of needing to "earn" food to an inanimate object that otherwise has no association. It's in teaching a child to hate his or her body. And comparing fat people to animals, referring to their "blubber" and expressing your disgust with what are simply vessels for human beings tells us all that in order to be accepted, in order to be loved, we must be thin.

A title

2006-07-11T04:56:00.000-07:00

It's all coming together now. I have a title for my dissertation (the one that I haven't started, because I have not, as of yet, been admitted to a PhD program). The title will be:

Consumed: Internet Culture and Bodily Deviance

Thoughts?

Field research

2006-07-06T07:50:00.000-07:00

One of the great things about being a social scientist is field research. One of my hobbies has always been people watching. I like going to Border's after church on Sunday, sitting outside with a cup of coffee and a magazine or book, and watching all the people go by. There's something reassuring about the infinite variety of bodies in the world, and I always see a kid or a dog who makes me smile.

Which is why it's no great surprise that I love field research. Because most of my research has been historical, I haven't had much of a chance to really perfect my field experience. There's a huge difference between "people watching" and doing real, heavy anthropological/sociological research.

With my doctoral thesis, I had planned on focusing on surveys and interviews. But today it occurred to me that I could do field research on the social perceptions of thin people. We've all seen the (obnoxious, in my opinion) pseudo-field research talk show bits where someone svelte like Tyra Banks puts on a fat suit and suddenly "understands" what it's like to be a fat person in a society that loathes fat people. But how do you do the reverse? And since that's so extreme, how do you do the reverse in extreme? They make fat suits, but they don't make deathly-ill suits. (There's some commentary right in that.) Surely "underweight" people are treated with the same presumption of deafness that "overweight" people experience.

Thoughts are welcome.

Preliminary survey design

2006-06-30T11:04:00.000-07:00

The following is a rough idea of what I will ask in my survey. I'm trying to create a computer program that will create a database from the provided answers, as well as allow users to digitally "sign" their surveys. I welcome all feedback and ideas, either in formatting of the quiz or in questions asked.

Page 1: Adobe acrobat signature consent page
Page 2: Demographics:
• Gender
• Age
• Average household income
• Highest level of education personally achieved
• Highest level of education achieved by parent
• Metro area
• Citizenship
Page 3: Vitals—internet usage (in hours)
• How much time to you spend online?
• How much of this time is spent on eating disorder-related websites?
• What are your favorite eating disorder websites?
• Have you visited pro-ana/mia sites?
Page 4: Vitals: personal internet
• What do you use for inspiration?
• Which of the following are on your website?
o Stats
o Pictures of yourself at various weights
o Thinspiration
o Quotations
o Tickers
o Food diary
Page 5: Personal stats
• High weight
• Low weight
• Current weight
• Goal weight
• Goal reason
• Height
• Which of the following do you do?
Restrict
Vomit
Exercise
Laxatives
Medication (what kind?)
Pick certain foods
Fast
Add your own
Page 6: History
• Diagnosis
• Was this diagnosis rofessional or personal?
• What age did you start developing food issues?
• Why?
Teased
Wanted to look good for an event
Write your own
• Anyone else in your family with an ED?
• Seen a doctor?
• How long?
• Been hospitalized?
• Been in a group?
• In recovery?
• How long?
• Medical problems related to ED: osteoporosis, hair loss, stomach problems, heart palpitations, etc.
Page 7A: Pro-ana/mia
• Number of visits in past week
• In past month?
• What have you learned: restricting, covering, exercising?
• What do you think the purpose is?
• If in therapy, does your therapist know about your web visits?
• Volunteer for phone interview?
Page 7 B: Pro-recovery
• Number of visits in past week
• In past month?
• What do you think the purpose is?
• If in therapy, does your therapist know about your web visits?
• Volunteer for phone interview?

Statement of purpose: I want to finish my damn PhD

2006-06-27T08:27:00.000-07:00

Within the past decade, popular media has begun to pay attention to the websites of young men and women with eating disorders. One of the most sensational type of these websites is the pro-anorexia or pro-bulimia (“pro-ana” and “pro-mia,” respectively) site. These sites function to either encourage those with eating disorders to continue to starve themselves, or they function to tout anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa not as diseases, but as lifestyle choices. Traditionally, eating disorders are the territory of psychologists. Psychologists studying eating disorders focus on the environment in which the disorder develops and exists, but this usually refers to the nuclear family or the visual media that they contend spawns this bodily deviance. I plan to use symbolic interaction to study anorexia and bulimia in a sociological context, first examining how one becomes diagnosed with an eating disorder, then to examine the recovery movement within eating disorders.

From there, I plan to examine how communities of those with eating disorders function, particularly in the use of electronic media. While media studies and journalism have examined the impact of general media on the wider community, I am particularly concerned with recovery and pro-ana/mia websites, web logs/online diaries, and message boards and how they function to help or hinder recovery. In order to assess how these web groups function, I will invite people who have eating disorder websites (either pro-anorexia/bulimia or pro-recovery) to complete an online self-assessment of their eating behaviors, onset of behavior, time spent online visiting other pro-anorexia/bulimia or pro-recovery sites, and other questions to assess how they think the online community has impacted their eating disorder. I will offer an option to complete a further interview via telephone, for further assessment.

In my MA thesis, which focused on eugenics decisions in the US from 1880 to 1920, I argued that shifting social mores created an environment where a woman’s deviant behavior of any kind could have her labeled as incompetent and sterilized against her will. I used symbolic interaction, labeling theory, and social psychology to explain that sterilization was a punishment meted out by parents to control their daughter’s bodily deviance. While that project focused on deviance of a sexual nature, my proposed dissertation project will focus on extreme weight control as a form of bodily deviance, and the pro-recovery and pro-eating disorder communities as filters through which this deviance is processed.

I am especially interested in this subject area because of my experience with eating disorders, both personally and professionally. While an undergraduate at Purdue University, I assisted in writing a handbook about eating disorders that was targeted toward the gay and lesbian community.

The University of Maryland appeals to me because of the work of Professor Melissa Milkie on pervasive beauty images and their effect on girls, and Professor John Robinson’s work on the social implications of the internet.

Music for all seasons

2006-06-20T09:14:00.000-07:00

(I'm really proud of how I avoided a Rent homage.)

At the prompting of Chris, I felt compelled to create my own seasonal soundtrack. Some are recent acquisitions, and some are old favorites. So here we go:

Spring
Jack Johnson: Brushfire Fairytales
Norah Jones: Come Away With Me
KT Tunstall: Eye to the Telescope
John Coltrane: The Ultimate Blue Train

Summer
Miles Davis: Birth of Cool
Meatloaf: Bat out of Hell
Willie Nelson & Waylon Jennings: Waylon & Willie
Bob Marley & the Wailers: Legend

Winter
Vince Guaraldi Trio: Greatest Hits
Sarah McLachlan: Surfacing
Cabaret: Original Motion Picture Recording
Joni Mitchell: Blue

Fall
Barenaked Ladies: Maybe You Should Drive
Nick Drake: Pink Moon
Melissa Ethridge: The Road Less Traveled
James Taylor: Greatest Hits

Art

2006-06-15T08:20:00.000-07:00

I re-read one of my posts about working at a performing arts camp, and remembered some of my conversations about the nature of art. The answers we came up with were, no one really can say what "art" is. (Isn't that just the perfect non-answer that you'd expect from self-described artists?) But, like pornography, we know it when we see it.

And when I see exhibits like this, it makes me want to paint, draw, and write. Check it out--it's pretty powerful stuff.

Rant: Since when is a number an accomplishment?

2006-05-31T11:24:00.000-07:00

"Losing weight is what I consider to be my greatest accomplishment." - Oprah Winfrey

I want you to go back and read that again. And then ask yourself what your greatest accomplishment is. Maybe it's finishing school, or doing a bang-up job on a project, or raising wonderful children, or being a good friend, or doing something no one else thought you could do. I hope it's not attaining a set of "ideal" numbers, where you had to count each gram and calorie to attain that number and then had to continue counting to keep that number. I hope it's not not eating something because it wasn't on a list of "approved" foods. I hope it's not the coveted "compliment" of "Oh my God, you look so skinny! Almost anorexic!"

"Anorexic" isn't a compliment. I know that if any pro-anas come across this site, they'll accuse me of being jealous of their willpower and lithe figures. And maybe I am, a little. But I also know the other side of the coin--the eroded tooth enamel and holes in the esophagus, the heart palpitations, the light fur on the body, the social isolation and fear, the hospitalizations, and even the funerals where girls (who should have been women, by all rights) were so thin they were put into caskets made for children.

The fact that Oprah lists this as her greatest accomplishment--a set of numbers--perpetuates this cultural disease, this cult of thinness. She's provided scholarships for countless students, opened schools and orphanages in towns across the world, has prompted people to read, to leave abusive relationships, to conquer their fears; has run a marathon, and has risen to heights previously unavailable to anyone, much less a Black woman from the South.

Look, I'm all for the fact that Oprah is encouraging people to live healthy lives. But you don't have to be thin, or reach a certain number, to be healthy. Active people are healthier than inactive, regardless of weight. Which is more important: healthy and happy, or thin, sickly, and miserable? So give it up.

You are more than a number.

Rant: The weight of it all

2006-05-24T05:49:00.000-07:00

"Fat is not a four-letter word." - Camryn Manheim

I read an article yesterday that really did seem like a good idea at the time. Dr. Matthew Anderson, a psychologist, emphasizes the role of body image in weight loss. I'm not going to argue that body acceptance isn't important to losing weight, but I will argue that body acceptance is important, full stop. Why does this acknowledgement of the mind/body connection come from a weight loss doctor on a weight loss website?

Then I read another disturbing article about people's perception of overweight and obese people, which disturbed me even more. The article doesn't talk about how self-loathing can damage a person's self-esteem, turning them toward extremely unhealthy, dangerous weight loss measures to acheive some ridiculous goal. Instead, it focuses on how the negative stereotypes and self-loathing can help patients lose weight.

Even the "fat positive" articles have a strange sort of bias to them. "It's okay to be overweight, but not too much." What's "too much"? For that matter, what's "overweight"? I stopped trusting BMI charts when I learned that the entirety of the women's Olympic rowing team was obese, according to their chart. Of course, there's the little disclaimer of "not for use with athletes or pregnant woman." But who really pays attention to that?

Women's Health magazine, which I normally like, is running a blog of its editor's "weight loss journey." Her most recent entry is about sneaking food and binging. Surprise, surprise: the most common result of dieting is binging.

I'm not saying that eating healthy and exercising is bad, or anti-feminist, or a sign of self-loathing. But is dieting really the way to be healthy? Is being thin a reliable indicator of health? (Hint: It isn’t.) I’ve been thin, and I’ve been fat. Both measures are based on my own opinion and my frame and body type. What I know is that I was most unhappy and most unhealthy when I was at my thinnest. I think this awareness is the beginning. So the next time you get on the scale, think about it:

• Are you exercising because you want to, or because you feel the need to punish yourself?
• Do you eat what you want, when you want, because you want to nourish your body?
• Do you enjoy your food, or are you just enjoying the control you’re exercising over it?
• What would you be doing with your time if you didn’t spend it obsessing over your body?
• How much do your physical and intellectual role models have in common?
• What would happen if you stopped counting calories (or carbs, or fat grams) for a day? A week? A year? What if everyone stopped?

The Real Mystery of the Da Vinci Code

2006-05-23T08:18:00.000-07:00

(Warning: Contains spoilers)

I've read the book, and I saw the movie last weekend. I still have some unanswered questions, though. Namely: What's the big deal?

Both in the book and in real life, the Code has rocked some worlds. People are floored by even the idea that Jesus might have had a wife and child. In the book, this leads to the deaths of several people. In real life, this has led to thousands of books written refuting the fictional Code and protests outside several movie theaters showing the movie. And still, what's the big deal?

Sure, the idea that Jesus might've been a husband and father deviates from traditional church teachings. But so what? If Jesus was a husband and father, does that make him any less divine? To me, it makes him more accessible, and it gives the story of the crucifixion even more impact. It's not as if the book and movie say that Jesus was a manwhore, flitting from town to town and impregnating women across the Roman prelature.

Is the idea so rocking just because it's not what we're used to? Church teachings have changed in the 2000 year history of organized Christianity, so the things we're absolutely certain about now weren't so much so one thousand years ago.

More than that, it's startling how much hoopla there is about this because it's a work of fiction. Meaning not real. It's not an historical document, so are people so worked up about it because it makes them think? Because it encorages people to ask questions they might not have before? If so, it really is a revolutionary book. Any book that can get people talking and researching and questioning is.

Even if it's not very well written.

Theological ramblings

2006-05-16T05:44:00.000-07:00

I’ve only been vaguely aware of the “confessing movement” in the UMC. Recently, however, I came across the organizational website and learned of the perceived crisis in the United Methodist Church. This came right after a conversation I had with Jeff the other night about the “hey, you know…whatever” attitude of many in the UMC. Part of it has to do with us not having a figurehead to definitively say what it is that we believe. (You can find the general guidelines here.) I think a lot of it is dependent upon individual churches, as each church is dependent on a district that may be hundreds of miles away, in contrast to having an archdiocese in a nearby city. (The exception, of course, is with Kentucky—there are only two archdiocese, so many Catholic churches in Kentucky are hundreds of miles removed from their governing body.) When your ecclesiastical authority is hundreds of miles removed from you, not only do they not have a real finger on the pulse of their congregants, but their congregants aren’t particularly inclined to abide by the letter of the law that the church has proscribed. This makes it very hard to know what the church believes, and if I don’t know what my church believes, I’m not sure what I can accept or reject. It makes the faith journey hard, and my faith journey is complicated enough as it is.

All this has come up recently because of my disillusion with my church at this time. For quite some time, I’ve been having objections about our pastor. He’s a very good preacher, and he definitely knows his stuff. But his people skills are so lacking that people have literally fled the church in droves. This isn’t just regular church members—his reach has extended into the loss of our youth pastor, our director of family ministries, and our church secretary. Fortunately, his time with us is almost up. (UMC preachers in the South Indiana conference are appointed for six years at a time.) And for some of us, it’s none too soon. However, there’s a petition circulating to keep him. I suppose it’s the theory of “better the devil you know…”

I tell you all this to place my faith struggle in the larger context. I haven’t been to my church since Easter, though I have been to Mass with Jeff nearly every weekend. And I find a bit more meaning in Mass, though I’m not sure if it’s because I’m surrounded by people who I love, and who love me, when I’m there. (Which is not to say that I’m not surrounded by love when I’m at my own church—in that case, I love the choir so much that the thought of leaving that church makes me exceptionally sad.) The first church I went to (that I chose myself) was a very conservative Episcopalian one. (So conservative, in fact, that they later went to Roman Catholicism.) Perhaps being familiar with that, I have a more ecumenical view of faith. The book that I’m reading right now (Why Be Catholic) asks the question, “What’s the difference in being Catholic these days?”

Since Vatican II, the Church has been more focused on healing the rift between Catholics and Protestants. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have given communion to Protestants in ecumenical services (including the funeral of JPII). Early in his ministry, Pope John Paul II wrote:

“It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist...to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments." John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, reiterated in Ecclesia Eucharistia).

As I understand it, the main reason for withholding communion from faithful Protestants is because of the doctrine of transubstantiation. That’s one piece of doctrine that the UMC is actually very clear on:

Article XVIII—Of the Lord's Supper
“The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.” (From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2004)

(Lest we forget, John Wesley was an Anglican priest his whole life. He never “converted” to United Methodism. The Anglicans have always had an issue with the RCC. That’s their basis.) Yet here’s my issue with rejecting transubstantiation: Who am I to limit the mysteries of God? Clearly, history and modern times have both reflected God’s presence in the world. Now, I imagine it would be a bit creepy to find actual fleshy tissue in one’s hand as one received Communion, but what’s to say that God will not make God’s presence accessible to the faithful in this manner? I think there’s more of a problem in those who receive communion thoughtlessly, without preparing themselves to participate in one of the loveliest expressions of faith.

Based on that, you’d think that I should just go ahead and become Catholic. There are a few things I’d miss, though. I’d miss my hymns. The Catholic hymnal does have a few hymns by John Wesley, but there are no hymns by Fanny Crosby, whose work speaks to a deep place in my soul. I would miss that. I would miss the sermons, since RC priests give short homilies rather than sermons. (That’s what actually makes some UMC services longer than RC Masses.)

I’ve always thought that faith is a continual process, and belief that does not grow and change is a stagnant, useless faith. But I do wonder what is “too much” change, or when it’s appropriate to change. I do wish I had a sign, or at least a better way to understand where the path on my faith journey leads.

God and the Feminine

2006-03-29T17:33:00.000-08:00

Today at work, The Huguenot was in rare form. Normally, I'm able to ignore him and do my work, but today he wanted to share his "unique" brand of evangelical conservative christianity. He sees that the church is troubled, and that the trouble is based on what he sees as the "feminization" of the church.

This isn't about the emergence of iconography in the Protestant sects. It isn't about the return of saints of the church to Protestant culture. It isn't even about the "Mary movement" or the exploration of Mary's role in the Nativity. What he's upset about is his perception of the "touchy-feely" turn of hymns, sermons, and church culture. To combat this, he wants more of an emphasis on what he perceives as the masculine: self-sacrifice, pain, and giving of the self for others.

First, he assumes that the church has become feminized. I don't see that as being true. The church as a whole still functions in a male role, meting out rules and regulations. Christianity is still male-structured, especially in comparison to Eastern religions with their focus on how members can help each other and help the community. Second, he assumes that a feminization of religion is a bad thing. For me and for many other women, the lack of the feminine in Christianity was a big stumbling block. Only with the introduction of the saints and the return to the ungendered God could we truly understand the divine.

And what could be more feminine than self-sacrifice, pain, and giving of the self for others? Is that not the definition of the feminine? What could be more self-sacrificing than mothering? More painful than childbirth? More dangerous than labor? I know that as feminists, we want to deny the traditional role of women because, historically, it has been exploitative and dangerous. Childbirth is beautifully self-sacrificing when it is entered into freely, but often it is a decision that is either forced upon a woman or is something that just "happens" to her. Caregiving skills can be exploited, especially with lower income and minority women. Nurturing capabilities can be used as an excuse to prohibit women from obtaining leadership positions, because we are obviously not "tough enough" to make the difficult decisions. Putting that all aside, the dual problems in both arenas (feminist and non-feminist) is that the traditionally gendered female is devalued. We as women are so focused on being "the same" as men that we forget that it is difference that makes us valuable. This is not to say that all women are giving and nurturing, or even want to give birth, or that all men are not self-sacrificing or giving. In fact, that is the problem--this dichotomy of either/or, male/female, giving/selfish, caring/cutthroat. Things are never that easy, but we often fool ourselves into believing that they are because it makes classification easier.

And limiting the holy to either masculine or feminine is a mistake. God is bigger than that, wider and more capable. At the same time, forgetting that there is so much both feminine and masculine about the divine ignores the believers who need all those qualities to worship and live fully. Whether it's at a certain time in the life course that one might need a more feminine than masculine god (or vice-versa) or whether it's that a feminine divine speaks more clearly to you in general, this cyclical gendering of the divine is as over-simplified as it is dangerous.

Rant: Sen. Bill Napoli

2006-03-12T16:39:00.000-08:00

Called to my attention by Fe:

The South Dakota Legislature has made it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion under any circumstances except to save the life of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or to preserve the health of the mother. Should this strike you as hard cheese, State Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, explains how rape and incest could be exceptions under the "life" clause. Napoli believes most abortions are performed for "convenience," but he told "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" about how he thinks a "real-life example" of the exception could be invoked:

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."
(from an article by Molly Sims)

---

There are so many problems with the statements made by Sen. Napoli I'm almost not sure where to begin. But I'll do my best:

Sen. Napoli is operating under the common misconception (no pun intended) that abortions are a routine procedure. The most recent abortion rates are at 21.3 per 1000 women ages 15 to 44 in the US. (Statistic from Popular Reference Bureau)

He also has the mistaken opinion that abortion is routinely used as contraception. That's simply not true.

Part of the problem is the image that is brought up when people think of a woman who has had an abortion. The popular image is the single 20-something, irresponsible and indiscriminate in her choices of sexual partners. In reality, the average woman seeking an abortion is most likely to be married and already has at least one child. Her decision is an economic one, more often than not, and occasionally also a safety one. She may be involved in an abusive relationship, and while she feels powerless to get out of it, she knows she has the ability to keep another innocent person out of it.

He believes that all it takes to stop women from getting abortions is to make abortion illegal. The fact is, if a woman wants to get an abortion, she will get one, regardless of its legal status. The only difference will be whether she will come out of it safe, healthy and alive.
Regarding his description of the "perfect abortion candidate" (my words, not his):
Rape is a bodily violation. It has nothing to do with gender, sexuality, sexual activity, religious belief, or age.

Rape is a violation in and of itself. One does not need to be "brutally sodomized." Often serial rapists will comfort their victims after or even during the rape. This is part of the victimization. To say that a woman has to be beaten in order for non-consensual sex to be called rape is continuing her victimization. (There are Rape Victim statues that protect women from having their previous sexual history or physical appearance at the time of the rape brought up in court, as well as statutes that make certain the rape accusations do not hinge on evidence of physical violence.)

For me, at least, being raped does not take away your "virginity." Becoming sexually active is a choice, and rape takes away that choice. You can still make the decision to engage in consensual sex and have that be the "first time."

As I've aged, I've come to the realization that most, if not all, things are more complicated than some would have you believe. I was staunchly pro-choice all through college. A grey area began to develop when I was told that I may never be able to give birth because of physical issues, so for me, it's somewhat of a melancholy decision. However...because of what I know, I will continue to support the rights of women to safe, accessible abortions.

Guilty pleasure: Shakira

2005-12-23T06:49:00.000-08:00

I love Shakira. I had heard a few of her songs when she was just on the Spanish radio, but my best friend introduced me to her English-language music through "Laundry Service." Sure, her accent is heavy, and some of her songs are more pop than substance, but what really makes me adore her is her attitude. You have to respect someone who sings

"Lucky that my lips not only mumble/ They spill kisses like a fountain// Lucky that my breasts are small and humble/ So you don't confuse them with mountains// Lucky I have strong legs like my mother/ To run for cover when I need it"

I mean, really. She is all attitude. She's not traditionally beautiful, but she has this incredible presence. Which is why I adore Shakira.

Sociology Canon

2005-12-07T06:52:00.000-08:00

The long-delayed Canon according to Jenny, Sociology Edition:

Pop Sociology

The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make A Big Difference and Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Malcolm Gladwell

Although parts of Gladwell's books make general assumptions using non-related data, the books are well-written and thought-provoking. Pick up "Blink" if only for its explanation about how sometimes "hunches" are more accurate than research.

Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser

You'll never eat fast food again. This is the more informational side of "Super Size Me," which was filmed after Morgan Spurlock read the book.

Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community

A book I keep meaning to pick up. Focuses on the way communities are changing.

The Rise of the Creative Class...and how it's transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life, Richard Florida

Unfortunately, every mayor of every major city in the US has read or is reading this book. Some of its thesis points include: how the gay community makes a city popular, how to create an artistic community, and how to attract young people. I think that most of these ideas are based on misleading data, and lead to incredibly stereotyped, results-oriented mistakes of neighborhoods. You can't force cool.

Life Stages

On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross

THE definitive book on the death process. This book totally changed the way hospitals and individuals dealt with the end of life.

Women's Studies

The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir

This is one of those books that changed my life. All the questions I'd had since "becoming a woman" (de Beauvoir) had, unbeknownst to me, been answered in the 1930s. If you want to understand why feminism didn't "take," what being a woman is all about, and the meaning of de Beauvoir's most quoted phrase ("One is not born a woman; rather, one becomes one."), this is the book for you.

The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan

The book that rocked the late 1960s and ushered in the next wave of feminism.

The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty are Used Against Women, Naomi Wolf

As if we all didn't know that images of beauty in the mass media were harmful to women and girls, here's definitive proof. See the next section about Body Politics as well.

Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, Susan Faludi

Amazing book. If you don't think that women are still having a hard time in this country, think again, and read this book. Inequality is so inherent in the system that sometimes we can't even see it.

The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection, Judith Butler

I'll grant that Butler isn't the easiest author to read. But her ideas and way with language are pretty phenomenal. Give yourself time to digest each paragraph. Hell, even each word.

The Speculum of the Other Woman, Luce Irigaray

Butler pulls a lot of her ideas from Irigaray, who pulls from Lacan. Unlike the other two, she's immensely readable.

Woman's Inhumanity Toward Woman, Phyllis Chesler

I think that often, it's not men who are the problem. It's other women, and our cutthroat competitiveness.

Body Politics

Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body, and The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and in Private, Susan Bordo

Bordo's books are great, since she looks at both men and women in body politics. Don't let the first title throw you--it's also got a lot of work about the male body and its concurrent issues. One of the first books about body dysmorphia from a sociological standpoint.

Wasted: A Memoir of Anorexia and Bulimia, Marya Hornbacher

More of a biography than a sociology book, but it provides a real view of treatment centers and the life of an anorexic. Her level of desperation is palpable, and the book may be psychologically painful for some.

Body Image: Understanding Body Dissatisfaction in Men, Women, and Children, Sarah Grogan

'Dissatisfaction' may be the incorrect word, but this is a great book about the nexus of all things sociological that converge into body image.

The Sociology of Food: Eating, Diet and Culture, Stephen J. Mennell

I'm so upset that this is out of print. It's a great book, especially in its comparative sociological studies of food and body politics.

Fasting Girls: The History of Anorexia Nervosa, Joan Jacobs Brumberg

Almost a pro-ana book. Looks at the historical basis of anorexia, from fasting saints to medicalization to the advent of psychiatry and psychology in treating this phenomena.

Deviance and Control

The Gift of Fear, Gavin de Becker

I had misgivings about placing this here, since it's nearly a pop soc book. But de Becker is a psychologist and sociologist by training and uses empirical methods to predict what stalkers or groups will become violent. At the very least, it's an interesting read.

The Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner-City Neighborhood, David Simon and Edward Burns

An update to some of Goffman's work, looking at the making of criminals.

Happy Hours: Alcohol in a Woman's Life, Devon Jersild

Alcoholism is the example that I always use in explaining symbolic interactionism. This book is particularly interesting because of its unique, female-centered perspective.

Labeling Women Deviant: Gender, Stigma, and Social Control, Edwin M. Schur

Goes along with "Happy Hours."

Race

Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism, bell hooks

Much like hooks's feminist theory book, with a more race-centered view.

Shifting: The Double Lifes of Black Women in America, Charisse Jones

The nexus of race, community, and gender.

Don't Play in the Sun: One Woman's Journey through the Color Complex, Marita Golden

One of the more interesting things about race, to me, is that the valuing of color differs even within individual races. Golden's book really looks into that, despite being a memoir instead of a sociology study.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System, David Cole

In case you missed it--the justice system is racially biased.

The Invention of the White Race: The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America, Theodore W. Allen

A very interesting book, focusing on how a race "becomes" white.

The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class, David Roediger

Class/race study.

Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White, Frank Wu

Sometimes we forget that racial studies involve more than the black/white dichotomy.

White By Law: The Legal Construction of Race, Ian Haney Lopez

Much like "The Invention of the White Race," but more focused on the legal historical developments that lead up to a race being declared white.

LGBTQ

Men Like That: A Southern Queer History, John Howard

Think all queer men live in Castro or the Village? Think again.

The History of Sexuality, Michel Foucault

Not just for queer studies, but for another look at defining sexuality in general. There are 5 books in the series, and every one of them is worth reading.

Fags, Hags, and Queer Sisters: Gender Dissent and Heterosocial Bonds in Gay Culture, Stephen Maddison

A great book about the queer community, which isn't just gays and lesbians.

Transgender Warriors: Making History from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman, Leslie Feinberg

Recently, the sociology transgender publishing market has just exploded. And it's about time, too.

The Man Who Would be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, J. Michael Bailey

Fascinating book about the process of MTF (male to female) gender reassignment. Note: not for the squeamish, as it describes medical procedures in great detail.

How Sex Changed: A History of Transsexuality in the United States, Joanne Meyerowitz

Not a light read, but a great one for those who think that transsexuality popped up within the last 30 years.

Transmen and FTMs: Identities, Bodies, Genders, and Sexualities, Jason Cromwell

Part body politics, part gender studies, and part queer theory. Overall well-written, with a good sociology base.

Theory

Dialectics of Enlightenment, Max Horkheimer

Another less-than easy read. Good intro to recent sociological theory.

Inner Experience, Georges Bataille

Bataille is one of those writers that everyone quotes and few have read.

The Logic of Practice, Pierre Bourdieu

Bourdieu is actually easy to read, once you stop throwing the books against the wall and yelling at him to get over himself.

Introducing Modernism, Chris Rodrigues

I can't recommend all the "Introducing" theory books enough. Learn theory through cartoons? Yes, please!

The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Peter Berger

Post-Goffman symbolic interaction theory. Brilliant work.

Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Erving Goffman

My pet theorist. He developed symbolic interaction theory, which basically states that all labels and roles are negotiated within a society by its actors. Blows undergrads' minds when they first hear about it, and is the closest thing to the cliched soc theory "nothing is real" that the far-left Christians object to when you tell them you're in soc 101. Rarely ever taught in soc 101, at least not in all its complexity.

Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, bell hooks

If you're going to read any feminist theory, read bell hooks. She incorporates race theory into all her work, so it was hard for me to decide where to place this. But since the book is first and foremost about feminist theory, I placed it here.

Part II: The Canon According to Me, Nonfiction

2005-11-14T10:18:00.000-08:00

Part II: The Canon According to Me, Nonfiction

(For clarity, I will subdivide.)

Life

Male or female, you must read Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. It explains women as a class, women as a movement, and exactly why feminism as a movement failed.

If you're a young woman between 17 and 35, read The Go-Girl Guide. It's a funny, quick read, and a great reference on how to manage your money, how to decorate on the cheap, how to find a good doctor, how to get ahead at work, and how to manage relationships.

It's a social science book, ostensibly, but more than that, it's a guide to intuition. Read Blink, then read Malcolm Gladwell's other book, The Tipping Point. And related to intuition...

The Gift of Fear. Some of us are afraid, but in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. This book helps us discern where fear is warranted, and how not to be anxious.

History

Want to understand the current situation in Southwestern Africa? You must read King Leopold's Ghost. Then go read one of my favorite fiction books, The Poisonwood Bible.

The Devil in the White City is a fantastic book about the Pinkertons (precursor to the FBI), the 1919 World's Fair, and the first truly "American" serial killer.

Want to know why the Scots hate the English? Want to understand why the name Campbell still makes my gran spit? Read The Highland Clearances.

Health/Sexuality

What's Happening to My Body: Book for Girls. Ironically, this is also a banned book for most libraries. It gives a frank, objective, informational and non-scary look at what the transition from girl to woman is like. My mom got it for me when I was about 7, and it has been an invaluable guide. I referenced it so many times that our original paperback copy fell apart. There's another version for boys.

Related to that, I highly recommend Our Bodies, Ourselves to anyone who wants to understand how the female body works and more about female sexuality. It's very informative, and the personal stories are a great addition.

I find it odd that many online book catalogues consider weight loss manuals "women's health guides." The best books I can recommend regarding women and food are When Women Stop Hating Their Bodies and Fat is a Feminist Issue.

Religion

Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survived the Church. The big difference between faith and religion.

The Myth of Certainty. An invaluable reference for those who question religion and struggle with the concept of blind faith.

Sociology/Criminology

Being my field of study, I can't just recommend a few books. Likewise, criminology was my focus for years and continues to fascinate me. So I'll do my best to cover just what I think is particularly noteworthy.

Death's Acre is a great book, but not for the squeamish. It looks into the forensic investigations at the legendary "Body Farm" near the University of Tennessee. If you want to know how the doctors on CSI know so much about what happens as you decompose, this is the book for you.

Another book not for the squeamish: Whoever Fights Monsters. Robert Ressler is one of the premier profilers at the FBI. His tone is a little self-congratulatory, but it's a fascinating book in terms of what psychology can do to help policing.

War Against the Weak. I heavily relied on this book throughout my thesis. It looks at eugenics (sterilization policies) in America, and compares them a bit to Nazi-era Germany. An interesting, if often missed, portion of American history and sociology.

Interracial Intimacies was written by a Harvard Law professor. It covers master-slave "relationships," mammies, antimesigination laws, marriage, and adoption. A heavy book, but a quick, fascinating read.

Race and the Education of Desire. A brilliant book that covers colonial studies, Foucault, and a slew of race-related questions. I used it for several papers and part of my thesis, so it has to be said that it's a multi-layered text with all kinds of possibilities.

Willfull Virgin. Some of the essays drive me nuts, and for different reasons. I disagree with about half, including her theory that one cannot be in a heterosexual relationship and also a feminist. Other essays maddened me because they clairified ideas that I had been spinning my wheels on for years in such a simple way that I thought, "Ah! Of course!" The great thing about this book is that it's incredibly easy to read.

Stigma. Symbolic interaction is my theory, and Goffman is my boy. This is a great jumping-off place to understand social deviance of any kind, including substance use, eating disorders, abberant sexuality, or anything that's labeled, really.

Labeling Women Deviant: Gender, Stigma, and Social Control. Women are particularly subject to social control and are more frequently labeled than men. If you don't believe that, this book will change your mind. If you do believe it already, this book will help you figure out why it is so.

Nickeled and Dimed is a great book if you're having a conversation about "the American Dream." I fully believe that the American Dream is a myth used to placate low-income individuals. If they believe they can "make it" through hard work and determination, it causes them not to question the gross inequality between the haves and the have-nots.

I've got tons of other recommendations, but right now, these will have to do. Look for a full Sociology Canon at a later point.

---------
Oh, my...check out my site after it's been Gizoogled. I'm still laughing.

Literary Canon: Fiction

2005-11-10T15:50:00.000-08:00

The Canon According to Jenny

(That would be me. And since this is a "Canon according to me," don't bitch about what I didn't put in here, or what I panned. Make your own list.)

Ann Pachett. The Patron Saint of Liars and Bel Canto are two of my favorite books. The prose is gorgeous, the characters are fully fleshed, and, what's more, there isn't a moment where I've stopped and thought, "Okaaaay. Move on." I think her strongest point as a writer is that she writes about people who have done/are doing morally questionable things, and does it in a way that makes you see where they're coming from.

Harper Lee. I didn't read To Kill a Mockingbird until I was out of graduate school, but I'm glad I waited to read it. It's one of those books that I never want to end--I can read it over and over again and still get the same happy "(sigh) Yes" feeling. It reaffirmed my faith in humanity. And speaking of...

Pearl Cleage. What Looks Like Crazy on an Ordinary Day and I Wish I Had A Red Dress fall under the Oprah Book Club heading, which I am generally tired of. But the prose is masterful, and the tone is luscious and perfect. Both books surround sisters Ava and Joyce Johnson, who I always think of when I consider who I would be friends with from literature. There's some very poetic social activism here in Joyce's belief that people basically want to do the right thing for themselves and their kin, it's just that sometimes they don't know how.

Aldous Huxley. Not a fan of Brave New World? Look at Huxley's After Many A Summer Dies the Swan. I generally dislike science fiction--I find real life to be strange enough for endless fictional permutations. But Huxley is so satirical in his science fiction that it doesn't even seem like sci-fi to me.

F. Scott Fitzgerald. As I've mentioned before, I hate him. Hate. Read him if you must, but definitely read Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz. F. Scott's Tender is the Night is a plagiarism of Zelda's first draft of Save Me the Waltz. Likewise...

Ernest Hemingway. Meh. I didn't like his books before I found out that he was a mysogynistic drunk. There's just something about them that bores me. His complete inability to write women is usually what throws me off his books, though I have to say that I love his short story Hills Like White Elephants and recommend it to anyone who's attempting to write using a large conflict. The fact that he never addresses the big issue directly makes it even bigger, which is masterful.

Margaret Mitchell. Gone With the Wind Likewise, I recommend was her only published fiction work until 1995. I think it's awful that her estate didn't burn her letters as per her request in her will, so I'm going to go with GWTW as the only legitimate Mitchell work. I recommend it to anyone who is trying to figure out how to write an unlikable character without going overboard. Likewise, I recommend Nuala O'Faolain's My Dream of You.

Douglas Adams. Read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for the pop culture, then read everything else he ever wrote. Go back and read everything again, but this time for the satirical social commentary. Read it again for the lighthearted humor, and then again for the strangely uplifting "none of it matters anyway, so why not have a good time while you're here?" philosophy.

Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Love in the Time of Cholera is another one of those "(sigh) Yes" books. Read it both before and after you understand that love isn't easy, but sometimes loving someone difficult is worth it. I think to really understand Marquez you must read at least a few Surrealist Spanish short stories, plays, and some poetry. Miguel de Unamuno is a great starting place, and his play San Manuel Bueno, Martir (Saint Emmanuel the Good, Martyr) is an excellent work overall. There's an anthology of Spanish poetry called Roots and Wings: Poetry from Spain 1900-1975. While I haven't read it, I've read most of the poems in it. Also consider Fedorico Garcia Lorca's plays, especilally Blood Wedding. After you've read a few short stories, read Laura Esquivel's Like Water for Chocolate. And related to that...

Pablo Neruda. Oh my God. How could you not love Neruda. His poetry is sexy, evocative, and rolls like water. Some of it is quite funny. What's amazing to me is that his poetry is so linguistically beautiful in either Spanish or English, though he wrote the poems in Spanish. It's either a great deal of credit to his translator or to his ability to craft words in any language.

Jeffery Eugenides. I haven't read The Virgin Suicides, so I can't speak to the merits of it, but Middlesex is one of the best books that I've read in a long time. The characters are absolutely amazingly drawn, and the book rollicks along in an amazing fashion.

Michael Chabon. I don't know how I lived so long without knowing his name. Wonder Boys is so bittersweet, and The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay haunts me every time I hear mention of a comic book. Multi-faceted characters are his strong suit, which explains why he appeals to me.

Amy Tan. I know, I know. But it's so hard for me to reference other books without talking about the conflicts in The Joy Luck Club or the pace of The Kitchen God's Wife or to think about family or folklore without referencing The Bonesetter's Daughter. For all of those who complain about the drama in her books--it is drama that is handled well, with a completely dispassionate tone that makes horrifying violence and human misery all the more horrifying.

---------

Note: I began this project at 1:30 pm. I'm finishing sometime around 3:30. I could go on and on, but I feel it's best to stop here and rest for a bit. Tomorrow, I may reconsider and update the list with things I've forgotten.

Pharmacists and Emergency Contraception

2005-11-03T09:54:00.000-08:00

From Savage Love:
STRAIGHT RIGHTS UPDATE: There were two disturbing developments in the battle over straight rights last week. First, we know that Target fills its ads with dancing, multi-culti hipsters giving off a tolerant, urbanist vibe, and runs hipster-heavy ad campaigns positioning Target as a slightly more expensive, more progressive alternative to Wal-Mart. Well, as John Aravosis revealed on americablog.org last week, Target's politics are as red as their bulls-eye logo. The chain allows its pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control and emergency contraception to female customers if the pharmacist objects on religious grounds. What's worse, the company claims that any of its employees have a right to discriminate against any of its customers provided the discrimination is motivated by an employee's religious beliefs. Read all about it at americablog.org and plannedparenthood.org.

Second, more troubling news from Tucson, Arizona, where a 20-year-old rape victim called dozens of pharmacies in town before she found one that stocked emergency contraception (EC). "When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections," reported the Arizona Daily Star. Emergency contraception, the story continued, "prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of a fertilized egg. The sooner the emergency contraception is taken after intercourse, the more effective it is."

Don't just sit there, heteros. Defend your rights! Don't shop at Target, and write 'em and tell them why you're going elsewhere. (Go to target.com and click on "contact us," then "Target Corporation.") As for Fry's Pharmacy in Tucson, the shop that wouldn't dispense EC to a freakin' rape victim, the fundamentalist pharmacist claims it's her "right" to not do her fucking job. Well, you have a right to free speech. Call Fry's at 520-323-2695 and ask them why the fuck a pharmacy that won't dispense EC keeps the drug in stock. Do they do it just to torment rape victims? ("Oh yeah, we've got EC—but you can't have any. Don't you know that Jesus wants you to bear your rapist's child?") Rise up, straight people, and demand your rights!

---------

Begin rant:

I never thought I would become more conservative with age. In fact, I swore that I wouldn't. But as I get older, I realize that life is fraught with difficult conundrums. Just like the abortion debate isn't that easy, neither is EC and the pharmacist problem. So here we go:

1.) The Bill of Rights protects freedom of religion. This would be freedom to practice as one sees fit, which would include refusing to participate in actions that one's religious sensibilities deem inappropriate. (See Conscientious Objection and the Quakers.) It seems that the pharmacists who refuse to dispense EC are doing so based on religious/moral convictions.

If we stand up and say that it's okay for someone to protest prayer at a graduation ceremony because it offends their beliefs, we need to stand up and say that it's okay for someone to refuse to dispense a prescription based on their beliefs.

(As a side note, I would also say that it's okay for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense Viagra to a male patient without the express permission of his partner and evidence of couples counseling. Also, using this logic would allow for an ascetic to deny a person his or her pain medications, because life is pain and one should learn to deal with it.)

2.) Pharmacists are hired to do a job. (Un)fortunately, their job holds them to a high legal standard, including the fact that they must verify and sign off on all prescriptions. If there's not a pharmacist there to do it, the prescriptions don't get filled. Likewise, if the pharmacist on duty refuses to fill a prescription, there's no way it's getting done on that pharmacist's shift. This makes things incredibly difficult for patients, especially patients receiving time-sensitive medication like EC.

So I propose a solution. If you have a pharmacist on staff who you know will not fill a certain type of prescription, you must have someone available at any time who can fill that prescription for them. Alternately, medication laws should be revised to permit any trained personell (pharmacy technicians, registered and practical nurses) to dispense emergency contraception or any other medication a pharmacist refuses to fill, while making the pharmacist legally liable for any harm that comes from his/her refusal to fill the prescription.

End rant.

Books--the good, the bad, and the ugly

2005-10-31T11:19:00.000-08:00

I started reading House of Sand and Fog sometime last year, and returned it to the library without finishing it. I have a problem in literature--I can't enjoy books where I can't relate to/like at least one of the characters. (I also hate books where the characters are flat/ one-dimensional, either "all good" or "all bad." This is a problem in more published books than really should happen.)

I'm not saying that I dislike books with unlikable characters--Gone With the Wind is one of my favorite books, and it has one of the most famous dislike-able characters in all of Western canon. But Scarlett shows growth and maturation throughout the novel, which is what makes it compelling. It doesn't make her suddenly a great person at the end of the book, but it does give the novel depth.

And speaking of depth, let me use this time to once again profess my hatred of Tender is the Night, and, more generally, F. Scott Fitzgerald. In my opinion, there are two types of bad male writers in the world: those who write women as if they (women) were men, and those who write women as if they (women) were crazy. Some male writers write women brilliantly. I still find John Irving's A Widow for One Year to be one of the best portrayals of adult women and female friendship. Some female writers write men badly, so at least we're all even. And I'm not saying that a woman is always going to write women right, or a man will write men brilliantly, but, the authorial saying is, write what you know. I hate Tender is the Night because of the terrible characterizations and dialogue. (Actually, I think all of his characters suck, and that he plagiarized from his own wife while he gaslit her, and that there isn't much redeemable about him other than most people have read The Great Gatsby or have at least seen the movie, thereby giving him credit for cocktail party fodder at the very least.)

So where was I? Oh, yes. I know that House of Sand and Fog is a favorite of many people, but I just can't stand it. It's a "thud book," meaning that every so often, I feel the need to throw it across the room because of a character's stupidity. I hate books where characters know that what they're doing is wrong, but they persist in doing it. (Come to think of it, I hate that in real life, too. Pisses me off.) And, more than that, I hate it when characters are torn apart because of stupid misunderstandings that could be easily solved with a simple statement by one of the characters. (This is rampant in romance novels.) Examples: "It wasn't me who you saw with your brother." "I heard you make the bet." "I never said that--that was your sister." "I was in prison once, and here's the story about that..."

I understand that real life is complicated, and that romance is fraught with misunderstandings and everyday interactions have mix-ups at every turn. But that's why I read fiction--to escape real life!

In defense of romance novels

2005-10-31T11:18:00.000-08:00

A Follow-Up Post re: books

Despite (or perhaps because of) my distaste for the cliche, and particularly the stupid cliche where relationships are concerned, one of my favorite authors (and friend) is Jenny Crusie. She started her career writing romance novels for Harlequin, but has since moved into mainstream/"chick lit" writing, focusing on character driven stories with sharp, witty dialogue. Oh, yeah. And there are relationships, and really hot ones at that.

So here are some non-fiction articles about writing romantic comedy, from The Cherry herself:

Romance, Feminism, and Women
In defense of romance novels
Defining the romance genre
And my favorite: If I am ever a romance heroine, I will not...

Musings on faith and religion

2005-10-27T11:45:00.000-07:00

Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine! Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine! Heir of salvation, purchase of God, Born of his Spirit, washed in His blood!/ This is my story, this is my song, Praising my Savior all the day long. This is my story, this is my song, Praising my Savior all the day long.

(words by Fanny Crosby, 1873)

I am so blessed. That has been my overwhelming thought this weekend, as I've spent time with my family and loved ones. I am so incredibly blessed.

The thing that I love about being a United Methodist is that my religion calls for two things in equal measure: faith and works. David Dinkins, a former mayor of New York City, once said, "Service to others is the rent we pay for our time on earth." I firmly believe that. And while I have not always served others in the way I am called to do, I have done what I can.

Being a member of the United Methodist Church (UMC) indicates a willingness to take on a certain level of social responsibility. John Wesley developed the idea of Methodism from viewing the separation of the factory and field workers from the Anglican church. During Wesley's time, the Anglican faith focused on faith inside the church, and did not allow for those who, economically, were unable to come to church every week. Wesley conceived of a church where faith was an everyday activity, and where each faithful member had an obligation to assist one another in any way they could. The first Methodists were involved in labor strikes for safe working conditions, in the temperance movement, in abolitionist movements across the world, in protests against child labor, and in creating safe, clean living conditions for all persons.

Faith is a tricky thing. So often, religious leaders turn people away from believing in God by telling them that their incessant questioning and doubtfulness is indicative of some kind of character flaw, and that if they had "true" faith "in their hearts," they would just believe. But I believe that some of us are, by nature, doubters. As humans, we were created by God with intellect and questioning dispositions. The Bible is filled with those who questioned God (Exodus 3:11), railed against God (Psalm 4), or refused God (Jonah). Yet all of these people are still considered men of God.

Before, I have called upon my faith to incorporate into the flock those persons who come seeking a genuine understanding of faith. Refusing a place for doubt in the faith journey isn't just silly, it's harmful. Doubt is necessary for faith, for blind faith is no faith at all. The lovely thing about the UMC is that not only are questions allowed, they're encouraged. We look to Julian of Norwich for inspiration in exploring faith through questions. I love this about the UMC. As United Methodists, we are expected to go through times of doubt, and not just at the beginnings of our faith journey. Doubt comes at any time, and with explored doubt comes clarity.

In the UMC, we rely not on the intercession of saints or the summing up of good works, but on God's grace that has been freely given. Grace is an amazing, wonderful, powerful thing. John Wesley writes of three types of grace: prevenient, accepting, and sustaining. As United Methodists, we believe that people are inherently good and are born with "a divine spark." (That, among other things, is what the flame means in our symbol.) God's grace is perfectly free for us to accept or reject. There's nothing that we can do to earn it, for it's already there. There's nothing we have to do to earn it, for it is already ours to have. That's absolutely amazing to me.

And for me, there is nothing more that I can ask for, for I have already been given so much. I am already so blessed.

More love to Thee, O Christ, More love to Thee! Hear Thou the prayer I make on bended knee. This is my earnest plea: More love, O Christ to Thee; More love to Thee, More love to Thee!

(words by Elizabeth P. Prentiss, 1856)

Feminisim is the radical notion that women are people

2005-10-06T13:43:00.000-07:00

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." (Rebecca West)

"Your silence will not protect you." (Audre Lord)

"A man of quality is not threatened by a woman for equality." (Slogan for the National Organization for Women)

---------

Inspired by recent activity on Angie's site.

---------

"I wouldn't call myself a feminist, but..."

Well, why not? What's wrong with being a feminist?

I'll tell you:* Feminists are evil, man-hating lesbians. Or they're whores. Or whiners. And they just don't realize how much men sacrifice for them every day, or how hard it is to be a man. They don't understand that it's out of our hands, really, because men and women are SO different physiologically that equality is absolutely impossible. I mean, can you imagine what would happen if a woman became President?! She'd probably declare nuclear war the first time she got her period!

---------
Here's the crux of the problem: Equal rights and feminism are not women's issues. They're human issues. Just as women have been harmed by the patriarchy, so have men. It seems to me that the real problem that people have with feminism is that they cannot conceive of a way that two unalike things can be equal in their value. Now, I'm not going to get into the "types of feminism" argument** and talk about if it's necessary for women to be exactly equal to men, or if women and men can be equally valuable in their own respects with the strengths and weaknesses each bring to the table.***

What I will say is that equality is an essentially human issue. Yes, we as women have come a long way. We can go to school, hold jobs, for the most part not be harrassed at them, own property, and enter into legally binding contracts. But there is such a rich history of oppression, and women as a whole (as Simone de Beauvoir would write, Woman) are still so oppressed and victimized,**** we cannot presume to say that equality has been acheived.

But, you may ask, is equality something that we even want? God made man, then woman, and decreed that woman should serve man. He didn't say that man and woman were equal, so it must not be so. I will resist the urge to say, "Yeah, well, God didn't say that people shouldn't beat themselves over the head with kittens, but you don't see anyone running out and grabbing Fluffy by the tail, do you?" Instead, I will point out that, by and large, it is the evangelical "christian" movement that relies on the degradation of women in its teachings.¹ All this is despite the fact that Jesus chose women as central players in his ministry, respected women's opinions, and made every effort to further the situation of women every where he went.

Yes, equality is something we want. Not just "we" as women, but "we" as human beings. "I passionately believe that no one can be free until we are all free, that no one can be secure until there is justice for all, and that no one can claim to be human until there is a humane world..." (Mark Mathabane). This is what equality means to me: a world where no one is afraid of being hit by a "loved one," where you can go on a date without fear of rape or assault, where equal work actually means equal pay, where sexual harassment doesn't happen, anywhere, ever; a world where men who love men and women who love women can love as freely as men who love women and women who love men, where people don't feel compelled to change their body shape, their skin colour, the shape of the nose or eyes, to conform to some "ideal type," where birth control is perfectly accurate and there is no need for abortion, where children can grow up without fear of sexual abuse or victimization, where men or women can stay at home and raise children and be given respect and dignity, and where each person is seen with love and respect, valued for the person they are and their own strengths and weaknesses--not as a man or a woman, not as gay or straight, not as young or old, not as able or disable, not as skin colour, but as a human.

That is equality. That is feminism.

---------
* Note: Tongue-in-cheek, of course.

** As it happens, I consider myself an equity feminist.

*** A variation of this argument occurs in the Queer community. Should the emphasis be on sameness, or can we recognize that each group (in the Queer community, referring to hetero- or homosexuals) brings with it its own strengths and weaknesses?

**** Incidentally, October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month and Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Yet breast cancer gets more attention. Could that be because breasts are fetishized? If only women's safety were...

---------

¹ Some of the statements from Focus on the Family: "A wise woman will understand her husband’s need to be needed: as a provider, a protector, a lover, a father to their children, a companion. She will continue to take all her needs to the Lord, but she will also realize that God can and will meet many of her needs through her own husband." Most of the statements found here belittle men and assert that women need to be patient and understanding...as if men are little better than mentally challenged grade schoolers. I don't know about you, but I find that insulting on behalf of men. (Alternately, anyone familiar with Stockholm Syndrome?)

---------

"Because woman's work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we're the first to get fired and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it's our fault and if we get beaten we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we love women it's because we can't get a 'real' man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and 'unfeminine' and if we don't we're typical weak females and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural and because we still can't get an adequate safe contraceptive but men can walk on the moon and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion and...for lots and lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement."

Rape law

2005-09-22T19:09:00.000-07:00

The Genesis story of Dinah and Shechem is often referred to as "the rape of Dinah." It is said that Shechem "defiled" Jacob's daughter, but some modern-day religious scholars such as Tikva Frymer-Kensky believe that the incident usually referred to as rape is actually simply a violation of cultural norms that surround the rights of the father in the early Israelite family. In Lacanian terms, it was not Dinah's body that Shechem violated, but the "Name of the Father" that was violated in Shechem's failure to obtain permission to marry Dinah from Jacob. The violation of cultural standards that occurred in Dinah's case is echoed in subsequent statutory rape law, which reflects later cultural ideas concerning the rights of young people over their bodies. A similar law is placed in later juridical history in the area of rape law that concerns mentally disabled individuals.
In the cultural norms surrounding Genesis, a daughter was the property of her father until she became the property of her husband.

However, the Mosaic and Levitical laws offered her special protection as a female. “A father could sell his son into slavery, but not his daughter” (Bible Status of Women 77). Before marriage, a father could negate his daughter’s vow of abstinence, providing that she was under the age of maturity (i.e., under twelve and a half years of age), still living in his home, and that the annulment of abstinence occurred immediately after she made the vow. “The power of a father to interdict his daughter’s vows ceased when she reached the age of twelve and a half years” (Bible Status of Women 81). Similarly, a husband had the power to interdict his wife’s vows, but with limitations. The interdiction had to be made the same day that the wife’s vow was made, and the husband’s ability to override his wife’s decision applied only to “the rash utterance of her lips” (Numbers 30:6, 8) and “an oath to afflict the soul” (Numbers 30:13).

Although marriage contracts have common features with slavery, a daughter over the age of twelve had a legal right to refuse a marriage set up by her father. Through the ketubah, or marriage contract, married women were provided for financially during the course of their lives. However, the ketubah was not the wife’s sole means of support. Rather, it functioned as insurance against divorce or widowhood (Bible Status of Women 86), serving the same function as modern-day prenuptial agreements and alimony.

The legal requirements surrounding marriage served to differentiate between the classes of women. Women of higher status had better luck in maintaining freedom from sexual assault because a high price was placed on their virginity. By having sex outside of a marriage recognized by the family, religious authority and the government, the value of the woman as a bride was severely decreased. When the rape of a woman of an upper-echelon family occurred, the head of the family, usually the father, could demand that the rapist either marry the woman, or pay a high bridal price to recoup the expected economic losses that would occur because no one would ever marry the raped woman. Occasionally, both marriage and a high bridal price were demanded, to protect the honor of the family.

In the case of Shechem, the Genesis story dictates that he was enraptured of Dinah and wanted her for his wife. Instead of going to her father, requesting permission, and paying the bridal price, Shechem approached her on his own. The language used in the story indicates that Dinah was a willing participant, since it differs from the Biblical and Talmudic accounts of rape. While some accounts include the phrase “lay with her by force,” the word used in this case is different from the word for rape. Frymer-Kensky writes, “…the key word, innâ, does not mean rape…The basic meaning is to treat someone improperly in a way that degrades or disgraces them by disregarding the proper treatment due to people in each status” (Gender and Law 86). Moreover, the placement of the word in relation to the word for ‘lay with’ indicates that the sex act was not by force. “Shechem did not rape Dinah, but he did wrong. From the Bible’s point of view, an unmarried girl’s consent does not make the sex a permissible act. She has, after all, no right of consent” (Gender and Law 87).

Clarke’s commentary on this chapter indicates that “the whole was an act of violence” (136), since consent had not been obtained. However, it was her father’s consent that Shechem needed to obtain, not Dinah’s. Therefore, according to Roman law, “Shechem’s act was not stumpa per vim, ‘wrongful intercourse by force,’ but it was certainly stumpa, ‘wrongful intercourse’” (Gender and Law 89). Dinah’s story becomes more complicated when an understanding of what the first paragraph of Genesis 34 means. Because Dinah “went out to visit the women of the region” without a defined purpose, her actions violated the cultural norms. During the time of the story, prostitutes were the only women who were commonly seen walking about without supervision. “The goddess Innana/Ishtar and the female demons and streetwalkers roam the streets; ‘proper’ women do not” (Gender and Law 86). Going “out” meant that Dinah was no longer under the protection of her father and brothers. Moreover, by going out alone, Dinah placed herself in the precarious social position of being associated with a prostitute who has no rights over her own body or its sovereignty. Frymer-Kensky writes, “An Old Babylonian word list identifies…’gadabout,’ wāsitum (literally, ‘goer-out’) with ‘harimtu,’ prostitute” (Gender and Law 86). Dinah’s “brethren,” that is, her family or clan, understand this distinction, and take revenge against Hamor specifically because Shechem has treated her “like a harlot.” Much like the women raped before the advent of rape shield laws, Dinah’s behavior can be used against her.

By going out alone, Dinah knew that she did not have the protection of her family, and she knew what kind of woman the strangers she met would take her for. Knowing this, her clan had to step forward to defend the honor of the women of their family, which, by extension, was their honor.

Mosaic law indicated that when a man desired a woman, he had to make her his wife. Moreover, if he “ravished a maiden or seduced her, he was compelled to make her his wife, if her father gave consent” (Bible Status of Women 96). In order to make Dinah his wife, Shechem would have had to go through the lengthy cultural requirements that governed marriage. By acquiring her through capture, Shechem “provided no dowry, no ketubah and her consent was not needed; no male relative stood on guard to protect her—they were either slain or defeated in battle; her captor was not required to leave his own tribe; genealogy was carried in the husband’s line; the wife had no control over her own person. In a word, she had no rights her captor was bound to respect. Her status was that of a sexual slave of her husband” (Bible Status of Women 72).

Lee Anna Starr later writes, “…wife-capture lowered the status of woman, and in time accomplished the degradation of the sex” (72). According to Tikva Fryner-Kensy, however, the main goal of wife-capture and marriage without paternal consent was to prove that the men whose women were captured were incapable of taking care of their women. “From Dinah’s point of view there is a very big difference if she had been raped. But from the point of view of the family, it may be even worse if the girl has consented rather than if she has been raped. If she has been raped, then Shechem has violated the integrity of the family, breached its boundaries, and left it without honor. But if Dinah has eloped, then Shechem has still transgressed the family’s boundaries, but, in addition, Dinah has not been faithful to Jacob’s right to control her sexuality and, as a result, she too has dishonored him. Shechem has shown its external boundaries to be weak; Dinah has shown its internal order to be chaos” (Gender and Law 90).

While Shechem’s behavior is considered reprehensible because he violates Dinah’s father’s rights over her body, the actual “facts of the case,” as it were, are more similar to modern-day stories of statutory rape. According to Clarke’s commentary, he “literally spake to the heart of the damsel—endeavored to gain her affections, and to reconcile her to her disgrace” (Clarke’s Commentary 136).
To restore the family’s honor, Hamor and Shechem must offer anything that Jacob’s family asks, which is exactly what is done. However, this alone is not enough to restore the family name in the eyes of Jacob and his brethren. They rely on another historical method of restoring honor, the reprisal raid. “Such a raid demonstrates that the men can protect their boundaries and that outsiders encroach upon their territory, property, or personnel at the risk of their own lives” (Gender and Law 91). The principles of honor and self-defense that are eminent in sexual assault cases for the rest of history find their beginnings in Dinah and Shechem’s story.
Lacan writes, “Law does not ignore the bed” (Encore 2), signifying the law’s permanent place in the regulation of sexuality. The Lacanian Name of the Father that functioned to control one’s desires is writ large in the case of Dinah and Shechem. Her father functions not only as a symbolic order, but as an actual controlling agent in regulating her desire, and, by extension, Shechem’s desire. In the symbolic realm, the Name of the Father appears in the text of the Mosaic law itself, when the law places the father or husband as the ultimate head of the household and final decision maker.

In the early 1900s, states began enacting laws that placed the state as the Name of the Father. Each state created its own statutory rape laws, defining the age of consent and the age or age differential that made one a perpetrator. (See Table 1 for details.) Unlike standard rape laws, statutory rape laws apply for a limited period of time, usually childhood, but occasionally including the teen years. “Under laws criminalizing sex with children, childhood substitutes for both force and lack of consent” (Sex Equality 871). Judith Levine writes, “The law conceives of the younger partner as categorically incompetent to either say yes or no to sex” (Harmful to Minors 71). Therefore, as Catherine MacKinnon writes, children’s “will is considered incomplete or immaterial” (Sex Equality 871). However, statutory rape laws are not gender-neutral.

As of the mid-1990s in the United States, all but fifteen jurisdictions had gender-neutralized the crime of statutory rape. Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas remained sex-specific, the perpetrators referred to as males. Most of the gender-neutral states imposed liability only if an age differential of from two to five years existed and the victim was below the statutory age of consent (Sex Equality 884).

The younger partner, more often than not, is female, while the elder is usually male. In fact, until 1981. “the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminalizing sex with a female minor but not a male minor” (Harmful to Minors 71). The statistical differential of older men having sex with girls versus older women having sex with boys does not account for the legal application of statutory rape laws. The application of the law suggest that girls who have sex with men are victims, while, in the words of Mary Ann Case, boys who have sex with women “are, what, lucky?” In fact, Catherine MacKinnon suggests that the statutory rape laws may serve to create a commodity of sex with young girls. To the prohibition of objects, Judith Butler writes,

Sexuality is as much motivated by the fantasy of retrieving prohibited objects as by the desire to remain protected from the threat of punishment that such a retrieval might bring on. In Lacan’s work, this threat is usually designated as the Name of the Father, that is, the father’s law as it determines appropriate kinship relations which include appropriate and mutually exclusive lines of identification and desire (Bodies that Matter 100).

Through legislation that affects their partners, the judiciary is exercising control over women’s bodies. The regulation of women’s sexuality extends back into juridical history’s time immemorial. Butler writes, “Is sexuality so highly constrained from the start that it ought to be conceived as fixed? If sexuality is so constrained from the start, does it not constitute a kind of essentialism at the level of identity?” (Bodies that Matter 93). Though Butler writes of sexuality in terms of the gender of one’s object choice, juridical history proves that sexuality is also regulated in when an act can be done. In the United Kingdom, the statutory rape laws become more confounded because a greater regulating age differential was placed on male-male relationships (anything more than three years differential was considered statutory rape if one of the parties was under twenty-one), in contrast to male-female relationships (where statutory rape laws were applied in the case of a three-year age differential if one of the parties was under sixteen).
Because the law is inconsistent, the application of the law is even more interesting from a standpoint of what it says about women. Statutory rape laws have, as Butler writes

…the capacity of the law to produce and constrain at once play itself out in the securing for every body a sex, a sexed position within language, a sexed position which is in some sense presumed by any body who comes to speak as a subject, an ‘I,’ one who is constituted through the act of taking its sexed place within a language that insistently forces the question of sex… (Bodies that Matter 95).

Many of the men who are charged with statutory rape have the charges brought against them by the girl’s parents, reviving the Biblical standard of protecting the child’s virginity, “which was the property of her father” (Harmful to Minors 71). The chastity of young women, as opposed to young men, was considered particularly precious. An 1895 California Supreme Court decision in People vs. Verdegreen stated:
The obvious purpose of [the statutory rape law] is the protection of society by protecting from violation the virtue of young and unsophisticated girls…It is the insidious approach and vile tampering with their persons that primarily undermines the virtue of young girls , and eventually destroys it; and the prevention of this, as much as the principal act, must undoubtedly have been the intent of the legislature (appearing in Sex Equality 878).

Often, men are charged with statutory rape in addition to a misdemeanor charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. “The fact that the California Legislature has decided to apply its prohibition only to the male may reflect a legislative judgment that in the typical case the male is actually the more guilty party” (Sex Equality 881). According to some state health officials who pushed for the laws, statutory rape laws were developed to discourage teen pregnancy.
The fact that males and females are not similarly situated with respect to the risks of sexual intercourse applies with the same force to males under 18 as it does to older males. The risk of pregnancy is a significant deterrent for unwed young females that is not shared by unmarried males, regardless of their age. Experienced observation confirms that common-sense notion that adolescent males disregard the possibility of pregnancy far more than do adolescent females. And to the extent that [the statutory rape law] may punish males for intercourse with prepubescent females, that punishment is justifiable because of the substantial physical risks for prepubescent females that are not shared by their male counterparts…That other States may have decided to attack the same problems more broadly, with gender-neutral statutes, does not mean that every State is constitutionally compelled to do so (Majority opinion in Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County).

This is only an effective deterrent when both parties have the biological capability of procreation. A young girl’s sexuality only becomes particularly dangerous, then, when she is physically mature enough to carry a child. However, “criminalizing sex with children surely includes many girls who are too young to conceive” (Sex Equality 882). Her sexuality, like that of the nurse-receptacle presented by Butler, “freezes that which is necessary for the reproduction of the human, but which itself is not human, and which is in no way to be construed as the formative principle of the human form that is, as it were, protected through it” (Bodies That Matter 42). The issue that the deterrent argument rests on is one of materiality. The difference between the material body of a female and a male is such that the laws become largely enforced against males, because the judiciary believes that the threat of pregnancy is enough of a deterrent to discourage young girls from engaging in sexual intercourse. In fact, only the dissent in Michael M. suggests the idea that “boys and girls are sexual equals; therefore both or neither should be held responsible for sex acts between the two” (Sex Equality 887).

Massachusetts statutory rape law protects those under eighteen who have “led a chaste life,” phrasing that seems to imply that only those who have not engaged in sexual intercourse should be protected from unwanted sex. The interpretation of exactly what it means to “lead a chaste life,” however, may be up to the discretion of judges who are influenced by sexist cultural standards that dictate what is appropriate for a young girl to be or do.

Is it possible to be seen as “chaste” when, as Simone de Beauvoir suggests, “woman…[is] required by society to make herself an erotic object” (Second Sex 529)? The presenting of one’s self as a sexual object is not a phenomena that appears suddenly at the time of maturity. De Beauvoir provides a lengthy description of girls who dress for the consumption of others beginning at an early age. This presentation of self as feminine and erotic is seen at its nexus in women whose exclusive function is as an erotic object, the prostitute. In this distinction, there seems to be a fine line between presenting oneself as an erotic object and presenting oneself as an erotic subject. Perhaps it is in the prostitute’s maintenance of control over her bodily sovereignty through viewing it solely on economic terms that creates the social phenomena of viewing prostitution as particularly problematic to the idealized social view of women’s bodies. The existence of prostitution, de Beauvoir writes, is a necessary social institution to save “one part of the female sex” (Second Sex 555). It was not until the 1990s that the judiciary determined that prostitutes could be victims of rape, and that the rape of a prostitute was not simply a civil crime governed under breach of contract suits. This reformation of rape law actually takes into account the difficult social position occupied by prostitutes. Because of their location on the fringes of society, the legal rights of prostitutes are limited at best.

When young girls are encouraged to dress in a way that eroticizes their bodies and are simultaneously given no means of control over their bodily sovereignty, all sex with minors is legally defined as rape, since there is no way that she can give consent. Thus the issue of ambiguous consent arises. If young women are never taught what it actually means to say ‘yes,’ how can they understand what it means to say ‘no’? Similarly, since the age of consent differs across states, when is the “magical age of consent”?

The ages at which a person can drink, smoke cigarettes, drop out of school, get an abortion without parental notification, see a violent or sexy movie, or be incarcerated in an adult prison [differs between states]… Irrationally, as the age of sexual initiation slowly drops, the age of consent is rising. And while ‘adult’ sex becomes a crime for minors, it is only in the area of violent criminal activity that ‘children’ are considered fully mature… (Harmful to Minors 88)

Statutory rape is not about unwanted sex, otherwise it would just be rape. Statutory rape “is about sex she did want but which adults believe she only thought she wanted because she wasn’t old enough to know that she did not want it” (Harmful to Minors 72). Further, Levine writes “The law makes a distinction between willingness to have sex and informed consent, and since a minor is statutorily ‘uninformed’, if it can be proved that he or she and an adult partner had sex, a crime has been committed” (ibid).

There seems to be no room in the discourse of sexuality for positive sexual expression where young people are concerned. Furthermore, putting a teen’s sexuality in the realm of the juridical denies any possibility for sovereignty. “By categorically abrogating a minor’s right to consent, the law grants adults purview over her sexuality” (Harmful to Minors 77). Is this legal protection in fact protecting the minor from herself, or is it denying the possibility for bodily privilege that will suddenly be granted to her from anywhere from fourteen years of age in some states to eighteen years of age in others?
The issue becomes more complicated when the cultural and historical factors surrounding the increased application of statutory rape laws are examined. Of the increase in the 1880s and 1920s, Mary Odem writes, “As their traditional forms of [familial, religious, and community] sexual regulation eroded, numerous parents—immigrant and native-born, black and white—sought court intervention to restrain their rebellious daughters” (Delinquent Daughters 5). This seems to be a uniquely American phenomena, since most other countries have statutory rape laws that allow for an idea that children above the age of twelve can actually give consent freely. In Holland, “the [overall] legal message here is that children over the age of 12 are sexual and potentially self-determining, and they remain weaker than adults, and should be protected accordingly, but not under the autonomous authority of parents” (Sexual Citizenship 215).

While children will someday mature out of the jurisdiction of statutory rape laws, there are those for whom any sex, even if consensual, is always classified as rape. According to federal rape laws, sex with anyone who is known to the perpetrator to be mentally retarded through disability is classified as rape. Mental impairment is a wide category signifying “an individual [with] the following three criteria: intellectual functioning level (IQ) is below 70-75; significant limitations exist in two or more adaptive skill areas; and the condition is present from childhood (defined as age 18 or less)” (Mental Retardation pamphlet). The federal rape statute, along with the stereotypes that have consistently existed about the mentally retarded (known as degenerates, feebleminded, imbeciles, or morons until the 1960s with the political involvement of disabled persons), has led to the victimization of the mentally retarded by both the legal and the medical communities. The laws relied on the belief that low intelligence or mental impairment were inheritable disease states. State laws, such as the first eugenics law in Indiana, began, “Whereas heredity plays a most important part in the transmission of crime, idiocy, and imbecility…” (Gosney Collection). One of the strong stereotypes is described by Dr. Owens-Adair, who wrote, “The public should inform itself more fully upon the amazing fertility of the degenerates. They procreate at an alarming rate. Statistics show that they increase much more rapidly than normal people” (Human Sterilization 9). Furthermore, a pamphlet from the Human Betterment Foundation authored by Dr. Stoppe, an in-house physician, stated that sterilization was especially recommended for the feebleminded, “as they are likely to be too careless to use contraceptives effectively” (Gosney Collection). Because of this, many medical professionals joined on to the eugenics movement, which advocated the medical sterilization of
genuine cases of severely retarded individuals who could not care for themselves, but it also swept up those who were simply shy, stuttering, poor at English, or otherwise generally nonverbal, regardless of their true intellect or talent. Feeblemindedness was truly in the eye of the beholder and frequently depended on the dimness or brightness of a particular moment (War Against the Weak 55).

The eugenics movement, headed largely in the US by Harry Laughlin and Charles Davenport, saw its role as the protective agent for mentally retarded individuals. In this case, however, eugenicists were protecting the mentally retarded from themselves, and protecting society from more people like them. Mentally retarded girls had the double possibility of being victims, both because of their gender identity and their intellectual identity. Eugenicists even took a hard-line view of “retarded” girls who were raped.

That the danger to these girls of low intelligence is real will probably be admitted by most informed persons, and is illustrated by the history of a girl (not in this group) with IQ 29, who was in addition so physically unattractive (being humpbacked, among other things) that her parents believed she was quite safe in their own home, and used occasionally to leave her there while they were out. On one such occasion she was raped by a deliveryman, and gave birth to a child, whereupon she was sent to Sonoma to be sterilized (Gosney Collection, draft manuscript, Laughlin, p 16-17).

This is a rather confusing case, since although the girl was apparently so hideous that her parents believed no one would ever want to have sex with her, someone indeed did want to have sex with her. Yet she was still the punished party, since there was no word on what became of the deliveryman. Somehow it is unthinkable that she, or any other person of low mental development, would desire sex and be able to consent to it. The flaw in legal reasoning is the wide variety of mental impairments that currently exist. Current theory regarding intellectual reasoning and development would indicate that those with an IQ below 75 cannot exercise informed consent because they are missing even the possibility of the ‘informed’ part. While this is clearly demonstrable in cases where the mentally retarded person is incapable of discernable speech, a semblance of narrative flow, and basic life skills, it is more difficult to discern when the individual can care for him or herself. The Arc, an organization for mentally retarded individuals and their families, indicates that 85% of those classified as mentally retarded are highly functioning, which means that only their ability to quickly learn new information and skills is affected. The majority of mentally retarded persons hold down jobs, pay taxes, live independently of their families, and make hundreds of independent decisions on a daily basis. There still exist simultaneous, yet contradictory beliefs—either mentally retarded individuals are asexual, or they are so hyper-sexual that they are unable to control themselves and are a danger to others (most often the fear with mentally retarded boys and men), or are incapable of understanding the possibilities that arise out of engaging in sexual intercourse. Like women, mentally retarded persons are seen as beasts, “the very figures of [sic] unmasterable passion” (Bodies that Matter 43). Judith Butler uses Plato’s phantasmatic economy to explain the female body, but, just as the “notion of the female body as a human form” is impermissible, viewing the body of the mentally retarded individual as a human form is equally unthinkable (Bodies that Matter 53). This has strong implications for jurisprudence, since, Butler writes, “How can we legitimate claims of bodily injury if we put into question the materiality of the body?” (Ibid.)

In these stereotypes, mentally retarded individuals are like constant children. And, like children, the sex education movement has changed dramatically in the last thirty years. For young people of IQs higher than 75, sex education in the 1960s and 70s began as an informative process, with a wide variety of information being disseminated. Sex education focused on preparedness for sex in terms of maturity, love, and ability to use birth control (Harmful to Minors 108). In fact, until the 1980s, abstinence from sex was not a part of sex education, and, if it was included, made up only a small portion.

The historical backdrop to the sea change in sex education is imperative to understanding the legal changes that followed. Sexual expression through intercourse with others, through kissing or “petting,” or masturbation, is threatening to parents. All the above behaviors are considered especially deviant and dangerous for children and teenagers, as outlined by Freud in “Infantile Sexuality.” Freud indicates, like the judiciary, Victorian society believed that the sexual instinct did not exist in children. While the Victorians believed that at some point a child would grow into an adult with the capability of real, responsible sexual feelings, mentally retarded persons were, and still are, viewed as perennial children. Freud slightly adjusted the idea that children were completely devoid of sexuality and introduced the idea of latency into the discourse.

It is during this period of total or only partial latency that are built up the mental forces which are later to impede the course of the sexual instinct and, like dams, restrict its flow—disgust, feelings of shame and the claims of aesthetics and moral ideals. One gets an impression from civilized children that the construction of these dams is a product of education… (Three Essays on Sexuality 43).

While Freud attributed the latency period to education, it was precisely the fear of education that caused the shift in sex education curriculum. Some parents and conservative groups believed that providing education materials on safe sex was only giving teens the idea of actually engaging in sex. As mentioned, the statistics simply did not prove the case. Instead, sex education became, to paraphrase Michel Foucault, more about what wasn’t said than what was. Perhaps the absence of sex educational materials for mentally retarded persons is simply a reflection of the public view of the retarded as perennial children. Educators and parents were terrified at the fate of their children when, “in 1976, the pro-family-planning Alan Guttmacher Institute released Eleven Million Teenagers, a report announcing a national ‘epidemic’ of teen pregnancy” (Harmful to Minors 96). Subsequently, the Adolescent Family Life Act was passed, which promoted adoption, prohibited any organization receiving federal aid from performing or even mentioning abortion to teens. Instead of receiving sex education, teens began to receive “abstinence-only” education, which, if it included contraceptive information at all, only referred to its failure rate. The failure rate, in fact, was the practicability of abstinence-only education.

By 1997, six studies had been published in the scientific literature showing that [abstinence-only classes] did not accomplish their goal: to get kids to delay intercourse. In one case, male students enrolled in a chastity-only course actually had more sex than those in the control group (Harmful to Minors 102).

Not only were one-fifth of teens still having sex, they were also having riskier sex as a consequence of being told that contraceptives don’t work (ibid). What frustrated advocates for responsible teen sexuality was that comprehensive, non-abstinence sex education actually worked. In western European countries, where comprehensive non-abstinence sex education was de rigueur, teen pregnancy and AIDS rates occurred at a fraction of US rates (Harmful to Minors 101-102).

While “normal” teens were receiving abstinence-only sex education, mentally retarded children and teenagers were receiving little to no instruction on sexuality. The instruction usually received was negative, focusing on how to say no and how to avoid being victimized. Until the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990, there were no guarantees of equal accommodation for disabled persons in the areas of public accommodation and services, government services, or education. With the passage of the AWDA, some sex education materials that were initially only available for children without mental impairments were adapted for developmentally disabled children and teens. Unfortunately, the adaptations that occurred usually came in terms of changing the age-appropriateness of information to reflect the assigned “mental ages” that supposedly correspond with a Stanford-Binet IQ test.

Much of the distaste that parents have for comprehensive sex education has its root in their fears of their child’s objectivity and penetrability. Levine writes, “A girl can be both a ‘sex object’ and a sexual subject” (Harmful to Minors 162). As sexual subjects, however, current legislation does not allow any real subjectivity. Doubtless, there is an age below which children really are incapable of making an informed decision to consent to sexual relations, be it intercourse or other acts. Also doubtless is the principle that force or coercion of any kind indicates rape. But just as businesses and individual actors can enter into contracts with minors with the knowledge that the risk lies in the adult member if the minor feels taken advantage of at a later date, is there not room for similar regulation of sexuality where minors are concerned?

Further, where is the place of jouissance in the lives of children and the mentally retarded? Lacan defines jouissance as that which “serves no purpose” (Encore 3). For the sexuality of those not capable of reproduction, this definition would prove true. But additionally, if societal standards define purposeful sexual relationships as that which has the reproductive capacity within the institution of heterosexual marriage, the definition of jouissance is also appropriate.
Perhaps the fear lies in the idea that these are people’s children, and as parents they want to protect their children from all possible harm or injury. By removing autonomy and the possibility for consent from children and mentally retarded adults, how much protection are we actually offering?

The regulation of women’s sexuality reaches back to the Biblical story of Dinah and Shechem. A thorough reading of Genesis 34 indicates that Dinah was not a victim of sex by force, but was instead an actor in the patriarchal structure where the rights to the virginity of a daughter rested with her father. Thusly, Dinah is the first historical incident of statutory rape. As statutory rape laws evolved in the 1900s, they took away the possibility that young women could consent to sex in a meaningful way, which detracts from the real meaning and harm of rape. Similarly, current rape laws indicate that mentally retarded persons cannot meaningfully and legally consent to sex by virtue of their intellect. Both statutory rape law and rape law where mentally retarded persons are concerned hinge on the Lacanian Name of the Father as the controlling agent of behavior and the Freudian concept of the sexuality of children.

Works Cited

Butler, Judith. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. London:
Routledge, 1993.

Clarke, Adam. The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments: The Text with a
Commentary and Critical Notes. Cincinnati, Ohio: H.S. & J. Applegate & Co.,
1851.

de Beauvoir, Simone. Tr. H.M. Parshley. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books, 1989.

Evans, David T. Sexual Citizenship: The Material Construction of Sexualities. London:
Routlage Press, 1993

Freud, Sigmund. Tr. James Strachey. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. 2000.

Gosney Collection. California Polytechnic Institute Archives.

Levine, Judith. Harmful to Minors: the Perils of Protecting Children from Sex.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002.

Matthews, Victor H., Bernard M. Levinson and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, ed. Gender and
Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

MacKinnon, Catherine. Sex Equality. New York: Foundation Press, 2001

Michael M. vs. Superior Court of Sonoma County. 450 U.S. 464 (1981)

Odom, Mary. Delinquent Daughters: Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female
Sexuality in the United States, 1885-1920. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1995.

Owens-Adair, B.A. Human Sterilization: It’s [sic] Social and Legislative Aspects.
Portland, Oregon: Metropolitan Press, 1922.

Starr, Lee Anna. The Bible Status of Women. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company,
1926.

Hurricane Relief Efforts

2005-09-13T10:40:00.000-07:00

(Editor's note: I thought I would be able to let this pass by without comment, but it turns out--I can't. What follows is a particularly bile-filled rant.)

Hurricane Relief Efforts: Contribute Some "Shut the Hell Up"

By all accounts, Hurricane Katrina hit land at 6:09 am on Monday, August 29th. That's nearly three weeks ago. In the aftermath, residents of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana have struggled to find loved ones, pets, shelter, food, and other daily necessities. Meanwhile, those who live outside the area are bombarded with dire news reports, pleas for supplies, and an endless cycle of blame.

First, the news reports. I understand the major networks' desire to be on top of all the information available. Unfortunately, the constant reporting of bad news contributes to the nation's feeling that nothing is happening and things are just about as bad as they can get. My proposal is to limit the number of times a news network can run the same story, and in the meantime, send those reporters and camera operators out to evacuee sites with supplies.

Regarding supplies: C.R. has a great link on her website regarding credible Katrina charities. Too many unscrupulous people have used this disaster as a way of fleecing money from people who want to do what is good.

There are literally hundreds of ways to contribute to relief efforts. The American Red Cross has done an admirable effort to get help to those who need it. That being said, here's why I don't support the ARC: For the last four decades, they have ignored scientific research regarding the existence of AIDS in the blood supply. Instead of spending approximately 5 cents per liter of blood to run an ELISA, they ask certain "at-risk" groups* to self-select out of the donor population. The policy of self-selection is not only dangerous, it's also discriminatory.

And finally, about the blame. I have received several e-mails from MoveOn, HRC, and NOW about the necessity for a coalition to investigate who's to blame in the failure of relief efforts. To them, I say, no. No.

What we need now is not a scapegoat, because that's all that an investigation would do. We need to apologize to the people who were left behind. We should apologize for not having an evacuation plan in place before the hurricane hit land. Most of all, we should apologize because this is nothing new.

The average family income of those hardest hit by the hurricane is $11,000 per year.** This isn't new--families have been living below the poverty line for decades in that area. The disparity between the rich and the poor isn't new, either, although the gap between the two groups widens each year. What is new is that something has happened to call it to our attention.

Kanye West received a lot of flack recently for saying that President Bush hates Black people. I don't think that's entirely true, although I can't speak with any certainty about W's racism, real or otherwise. What I think is true is that America doesn't understand poor people, the majority of which (right now) are Black and Hispanic. Those in power have always been the elites, from Thomas Jefferson to the Kennedys to the Bush dynasty. Their backgrounds, with a few exceptions, create a mentality where poverty is absolutely impossible to fathom.

I am not issuing a polemic against the political regime. I'm angry that this is a continuing problem. Because if we have a commission to figure out who dropped the ball, once someone is censured, the issue of poverty will fall through the cracks once again. And for the 12.7 percent of Americans who live below poverty levels, that is unacceptable. So to those seeking someone to blame, shut the hell up. You're not helping. To those who want to give aid contingent on meeting some moral or otherwise arbitrary criteria, shut up. To the news media outlets who keep yammering on with the same dire news stories and horrifying rumors: Shut. Up.

In other words, put your money where your mouth is.

---------
*These groups include: gay men and lesbian women, anyone who has had sex with any gay or bisexual man, IV drug users, tattoo recipients, anyone who has lived outside the US for more than 4 or 6 months (depending on who you talk to).
**For a family of four, the poverty line cut-off is $19,350 per year.

Immigration, Land Titles, and the courts

2005-08-25T10:42:00.000-07:00

Immigration, Land Titles, and the courts: Thoughts on recent court cases, as brought to my attention by Jeff

Last week, the SPLC won a land title for two Salvadorians who had, according to the decision of the court, been detained and abused by a ranch owner on the Arizona border. The ranch had been "the headquarters of a paramilitary group that promised to use force to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across the border."

I have no reason to disbelieve reports that vigilante groups were patroling the US-Mexican border, as it's something that was reported quite some time ago. In times of economic trouble, anti-immigrant sentiment tends to run higher. What troubles me, though, is that anti-immigrant sentiments are nothing new.

Some of you may know that, for a short time, I worked as a translator for a social service agency in London. We provided translation and assistance for speakers of Spanish and Portuguese who were seeking asylum or visa to the UK. During this time, I was able to assist people from all walks of life who had one thing in common: they were all from Spanish-speaking countries, and they all desperately needed to immigrate. Some examples:

* Luis, the father of twin girls who could not find childcare for his children so that he could work. Luis's wife was a bystander to a car bombing in their home country of Guatemala. Luis had been with his wife, and had witnessed the guerrillas planting the car bomb. When the bomb failed to kill him as well, the guerrillas came to his home and threatened to kill him if he told anyone what he saw. He had already spoken to the police, so he and his infant girls (who had been sleeping in the back seat of the car when their mother was killed) had to flee to England that night.
* Marisol, the workers' rights organizer and lesbian who had been tortured by her government because of her organizing and sexual orientation in El Salvador.
* Laura, the abused wife from Colombia who had been threatened by her local government because she dared to report her husband's beatings and refused to go back to him.

Obviously, I have some strong thoughts when it comes to immigration. And yet so many Americans think that we should close our borders to "those people," that they should know English before they arrive in the US, that asylum should no longer be granted, that Mexicans (and it's always the Mexicans that they site) are coming to the US to sponge off the welfare system,* and that all of our problems would go away if it just weren't for these damn immigrants.

But before you think that people are just hopping over the border for no good reason, consider the facts:

* Between 1980 and 1991, an estimated 75,000 people in El Salvador disappeared, presumably to extrajudicial executions, kidnappings, and forced inscription.
* Workers who attempt to organize into unions in Guatemala are faced with death threats every day.
* Over 1,000 women and girls have been kidnapped, raped, and brutally murdered in Guatemala. The government has investigated 9% of these crimes.
* In Honduras, indigenous peoples are regularly imprisoned for petitioning for equal rights to education, medical care, and property rights.
* Mexico is just now investigating the abductions of over 20 women from the areas of Chihuahua and Ciudad Juarez. The Mexican government found no need to investigate until recent outcries of US human rights groups, because many of these women were factory workers or prostitutes.
* In many parts of central Mexico, indigenous peoples are forbidden to receive an education past the fourth grade. They are also forbidden to be taught in their own languages, and must struggle through with Spanish instruction only.
* In Colombia, paramilitary groups regularly target private citizens and public workers.
* The 40 years of armed conflict in Colombia has left its women with a legacy of rape, violence, and abuse.

Is it any wonder that people are seeking asylum? Sure, things aren't perfect here--far from it, I would say. You may ask, "Fine then. Do you advocate just letting anyone in?" To that, I answer, yes. The asylum seeking policy of the US should be expanded to include escapees from violence (including political, sexual, psychological, and physical), or credible threats.** All other immigrants should hold to the same requirements as Canada--you must prove that you can make a contribution to the work force before obtaining a visa.

I find it ironic that the very people who complain that immigrants are "stealing all our jobs" are the same ones who don't want to do those jobs.***

What allows the Arizona judge to re-distribute the land to the workers in question is the recent Supreme Court ruling of Kelo et. al. v. the City of New London et. al. Land is allowed to be re-distributed by government entities if they serve the greater good. Apparently, taking land away from morons and giving it to non-US citizens is serving the greater good.

My question is: what good comes from redistributing land? It won't make any difference to the Salvadorians--for the rest of their lives, they will live with the abuse they suffered. It probably won't make any difference to the ranch owners--they owned the property for less than two years, and had paid in cash when they purchased it. My guess is that they have a very wealthy backer out there somewhere. And that's what worries me.

It's no use in getting upset about the ruling if nothing comes of it. It's no use getting upset at the treatment of the immigrants if nothing changes. What's worth being upset about is the fact that negative opinions about Spanish-speaking immigrants is so pervasive in this country, and I don't know what to do about it.

---------
Notes:

* Ask anyone who has ever been on welfare, and they can tell you that you don't get much, and it's certainly not enough to live on.
** Of course, it's hard to determine if a threat is credible until it happens. Then it's credible.
*** Undocumented workers are most frequently employed as domestic help, janitors, maids, and other low-paying, blue collar jobs.

Rant: Violence against women

2005-06-28T10:45:00.000-07:00

A rant, of sorts, because I need to.

It isn't fair. It isn't fair that a culture of violence against women exists. It isn't fair that women everywhere are afraid to go out alone at night, even if nothing has happened to them before, because something could happen. And it's not right that people aren't bothered by this, that the solution that is first mentioned when women feel that their personal safety is threatened is for them to buy a gun, or Mace, or learn self-defense. It's not right that boys and young men grow up in a culture where it's acceptable to refer to women as "bitches" and "hos," where objectifying women in speech, in thought, and in media is de rigeour.

It's not right that women are the ones who are bringing this up, and when we do, it's looked at as "our problem," a "women's issue," and that we're just causing trouble. It's not right that one in six women are raped, that nearly one in three women are assaulted by a "loved one" during her lifetime, or that women should ever be afraid in their own homes. It's not right that women who've been fortunate enough to not experience this soul violation undoubtedly know someone who has, and must always wonder, might it happen to me? In his book A Widow for One Year, John Irving writes, "Hannah would say that [Ruth] had never been beaten because she just hadn't met the right man yet, as it were. Or the wrong one."

I am tired of it. I am remarkably depressed. I know that the men I know and love are good, kind people, and I am equally angry for them, having to grow up, exist, and survive a culture that has the potential to so deeply damage men. And, truth be told, there has been a moment with every man I love where I look at him and think, "When is it going to happen? When is he going to turn in anger and hurt someone? Will it be me?" And that's not fair. It has nothing to do with the men in question (let me re-iterate that--this is entirely independent of the men I know), which is not fair to them. It's also not fair to me, and women like me, to be aware of the potential that this culture of violence has to exhibit itself through our men and their relationships.

What's most depressing is that I see no solution. I can state that objectifying women is bad, but then we grapple with how, exactly, it is that women are objectified. Catherine MacKinnon and the late Andrea Dworkin would say that it is pornography that objectifies women, but I think that's too narrow of a focus. Thinking of women as only mothers, or only whores, or only anything is what objectifies women. People without agency are always going to be objects, and, in most parts of the world, women have no choice as to what happens to them and their bodies.

But how do we un-objectify women, or create a space where all women have agency?

I wish I knew.

Rant: Emergency Contraception

2005-06-24T10:46:00.000-07:00

Go, New York!* Gov. Pataki signed a bill that will allow pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception without a prescription.

I've got mixed feelings about this, actually. While I believe that E.C., like Plan B, should be readily available, there are still dangers involved in unprescribed hormonal contraception. (And, in case anyone is unclear on this matter, oral contraceptives do nothing to prevent STDs and STIs. A barrier method must be used for that.) For one, it's the only thing that brings some women to the gynecologist, which is important. There are still some people (both male and female) who are completely uninformed about sex, sexuality, and contraception, which is a shame. Going to a positive, caring OB/GYN is important in helping young women become informed.

(As a side note, the sex ed. that is being funded by the federal government now is abstinence-only education. This is the only educational program that has been proven to be ineffective, yet is still being used. The moral of the story is: Don't rely on the schools to teach your children about sex, sexuality, and reproductive health. Comprehensive sex education should be taught at home, and re-emphasized at school.)

Also, the potential for use by women and girls who are being exploited or who have been assaulted in some way must also be addressed. In order to do this, though, we'd have to change the entire system of dealing with sexual assault and rape (both statutory and otherwise), and although I'd love to see that happen, it's a long road. However, we have come a long way.

If you're curious, here is Indiana's rape law statute. If you'd like more information, please let me know. This is a topic I've researched pretty extensively, though I don't contend to know everything about it. Indiana is relatively typical in its statute wording, though there are a handful of states (Kentucky, Connecticut, and California being some of them) that make provisions for withdrawl of consent. A relatively new development in the statutes is provisions for marital rape. My biggest complaint with these addendum is that they do not acknowledge gay or lesbian couples.

As a sidebar, it was only recently that rape statutes acknowledged that men could be raped and/or sexually assaulted. While this frequently happens in the prison system, it happens in the outside world as well. (Admittedly, less frequently than it does to women.)

Consent is a slippery thing. Legally, consent is defined by affirmation ("yes") or negation ("no"). And we all know that "no" always means "no." But it's not really that easy, is it? In her book, Catherine MacKinnon writes about the sex you want versus the sex you have. In other words, the sex you participate in, and the sex that happens to you. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), her client said "I let him do what he wanted." The question CMacK asked was, "Does acquiesence indicate affirmation?" Is there a difference between the sex we want and the sex that "happens" to us?

I wrote about consent back in May. Let's re-visit that post:

I finished reading Tim Dean's Beyond Sexuality yesterday morning. Let's see if I can outline the arguement. For a long time, I've been trying to wrap my mind around the idea that we, as a culture (and I'm speaking of any culture here, not specifically American or even generic "white culture") define sexuality as what the biological sex of your object choice is, with complete bearing on what your own biological sex is. Think about that for a second. We're more concerned with who does to whom that we're not even concerned with the what that they're doing, where they're doing it, and, I think the most important part, the why. This is how we define sexuality.

But when it comes to regulating sexuality (thesis material reference coming up), we don't just focus on the actors. By regulating procreation in limiting the number of children people can have and still obtain welfare, etc, we're regulating the what, when it gets right down to it.

And it's interesting that we choose to focus on biological sex, instead of gender, when I would argue that most people have a stronger gender preference than they do a sex preference. Hear me out...I very rarely look at dating opportunities and think, "That is a male" (referencing biological sex). I think, "That is a man" (referencing gender identity). A lot of this probably has to do with the fact that I'm by and large attracted to the "gym rat" type--former football, soccer, or baseball players who are generally big guys in height, weight and muscle mass. None of these characteristics have anything to do with the biological factor of being male, perhaps save muscle mass, since more testosterone means one can build muscle more quickly. I would argue that choosing a partner based on gender characteristics is especially prevalent in the gay community. (And if you don't believe me, watch The Broken Heart's Club.)

The "why" that's left out in considering how to define sexuality is the most important part, I think. What if people were defined solely by why they choose the partners they do, or why they choose to (or if) to sleep with someone? Maybe, when it comes down to it, we use biological sex to define because it's the most visible characteristic we have to go by. Of course, with gender reassignment surgery, we all know that's not exactly a fail-proof screening device... Another why definition might be left out because it disproportionately applies to women, ie, sleeping with someone because of economic reasons (needing someone to provide for you), as a prevention of violence (so he won't beat or kill you), or as an exchange of power (making someone else even momentarily helpless can make you feel more powerful). Maybe if we defined sexuality in those terms (which all those considerations do happen to women all the time, all over the world and right here in the US), women's situation would improve.

Defining your sexuality by whether or not you consent and/or want a sexual encounter is another way to go about it. If sex is, like it is for many women, something that "just happens" to you, I think that's very different than if you are an active, choosing participant. And while fully 1/3 of all women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, we still insist on defining sexuality on the biological sex of the actors involved. This would be what CMacK calls a "hello question." Hello? Does this make sense to anyone else? Is this just another way of ignoring victimization? Do we not focus on women as consenting, wanting actors (and there is a distinction between consenting to an encounter and actually wanting said encounter) because if we did, we would have to reexamine what happens to women every day?

Just asking.

To find out how you can help in these issues, and others, visit:

The Joyful Heart Foundation: Providing comprehensive therapy to rape and sexual assault survivors.
RAINN: Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network
Find out if there are rape survivor advocate programs in your area
Support comprehensive sex education

---------

* Note: When I originally linked to this news article, I had not anticipated all the commentary I would feel compelled to write. I may not be done with this treatise yet.

Just One Person

2005-01-19T13:19:00.000-08:00

This inspired me, so maybe it will also speak to you... It's a bit long, but it's worth the time.

Just One Person
Don't buy into the myth that one person can't make a difference.
By Danusha Veronica Goska
Excerpted from "The Impossible Will Take a Little While," edited by Paul Rogat Loeb.

It was September, 1998, in Bloomington, Indiana. As part of the conference on "Spirituality & Ecology: No Separation," a group of concerned citizens was gathered in the basement of St. Paul Catholic Center. They were thinking and talking about living their ideals. Some had planted trees in Africa. Some described ways that they honor the indigenous spirit of a place, and their own ancestors. Elderly nuns and young feminists recounted their part in women's struggle. One frustrated woman voiced the nagging worry of many. "I want to do something, but what can I do? I'm just one person, an average person. I can't have an impact. I live with the despair of my own powerlessness. I can't bring myself to do anything. The world is so screwed up, and I have so little power. I feel so paralyzed."

I practically exploded.

Years before I had been stricken by a debilitating illness. Perilymph fistula's symptoms are like those of multiple sclerosis. On some days I was functional. On others, and I could never predict when these days would strike, I was literally, not metaphorically, paralyzed. I couldn't leave the house; I could barely stand up. I had moved to Bloomington for grad school. I knew no one in town. I couldn't get healthcare because I hadn't enough money, and the Social Security administration, against the advice of its own physician and vocational advisors, denied my claim.

That's why I imitated Mount Vesuvius when the conference participant claimed that just one person, one average person, can't do anything significant to make the world a better place; that the only logical option was passivity, surrender, and despair.

I raised my hand and spoke. "I have an illness that causes intermittent bouts of paralysis," I explained. "And that paralysis has taught me something. It has taught me that my protestations of my own powerlessness are bogus. Yes, some days I can't move or see. But you know what? Some days I can move. Some days I can see. And the difference between being able to walk across the room and not being able to walk across the room is epic.

"I commute to campus by foot along a railroad track. In spring, I come across turtles who have gotten stuck. The track is littered with the hollowing shells of turtles that couldn't escape the rails. So, I bend over, and I pick up the still living trapped turtles that I do find. I carry them to a wooded area and let them go. For those turtles, that much power that I have is enough.

"I'm just like those turtles. When I have been sick and housebound for days, I wish someone-anyone-would talk to me. To hear a human voice say my name; to be touched: that would mean the world to me.

"One day an attack hit me while I was walking home from campus. It was a snowy day. There was snow on the ground, and more snow was falling from the sky. I struggled with each step; wobbled and wove across the road. I must have looked like a drunk. One of my neighbors, whom I had never met, stopped and asked if I were okay. He drove me home.

"He didn't hand me the thousands of dollars I needed for surgery. He didn't take me in and empty my puke bucket. He just gave me one ride, one day. I am still grateful to him and touched by his gesture.

"I'd lived in the neighborhood for years, and so far he has been the only one to stop. The problem is not that we have so little power. The problem is that we don't use the power that we have."

Why do we deny that power? Why do we not honor what we can do?

Part of the reason is that "virtue" is often defined as the ultimate commodity, something exclusive, like a Porsche or a perfect figure, that only the rich and famous have access to. "Virtue" is defined as so outside of normal human experience or ability that you'd think, if you were doing it right, you'd know, because camera crews and an awards committee would appear on your lawn.

Thus the defining of virtue is surrendered to a Madison Avenue mentality. I remember when the Dalai Lama came to Bloomington in 1999. The words "virtue" and "celebrity" were confused until they became synonymous. The Dalai Lama's visit was the most glamorous event Bloomington had seen in years. Suddenly even our barbershop scuttlebutt featured more movie stars than an article from People magazine. "Did you see Steven Segal on Kirkwood Avenue? Richard Gere gets in tomorrow." Virtue becomes something farther and farther out of the reach of the common person.

I was once a Peace Corps Volunteer. I also volunteered for the Sisters of Charity, the order begun by Mother Teresa. When people learn of these things, they sometimes act impressed. I am understood to be a virtuous person.

I did go far away, and I did wear a foreign costume. But I don't know that I was virtuous. I tried to be, but I was an immature, inadequately trained girl in foreign countries with obscenely unjust regimes and little to no avenues for progress. My impact was limited.

To put myself through college, I worked as a nurse's aid. I earned minimum wage. I wore a pink polyester uniform and I dealt with the elderly and the dying, ignored people who went years without seeing a loved one, who died alone. When I speak of this job, I never impress anyone. I am not understood to be a virtuous person. Rather, I am understood to be working class.

I loved this difficult, low-paid work not out of any masochistic sense of personal elevation through suffering. I loved it because I physically and emotionally touched people everyday, all day long; I made them comfortable; I made them laugh; I challenged them; they rose to meet the challenges. In return, patients shared with me the most precious commodity in the universe: their humanity.

This essay is not a protest against selfishness, which, well done, can be a beautiful thing. There is nothing I envy, and appreciate, so much as a life led with genuinely unconscious, uncomplicated self-absorption. It's a sort of karmic performance art. Isn't that quality why some people so love observing cats? And I do not begrudge my fellow travelers' enthusiasm for glamour; there's nothing I like more. The right dress worn by the right starlet on Oscar night probably does as much to feed the soul as a perfect haiku.

Rather, I'm protesting the fallacy that to be virtuous, one must be on TV, one must be off to a meeting on how to be a better person or one must have just come from a meeting on how to be a better person, but one can pass up every opportunity to actually be a better person.

It's sad how sometimes "virtue celebrities" intimidate us with their virtue résumés. We think, "Gee, I'll never travel to Malaysia and close a sweatshop; I'm not brave enough (or organized or articulate enough) to champion a cause. I have to go to work every day, and I just don't have the time or the gifts to be a virtuous person."

I go to a food bank every two weeks to get my food. I have no car. I can'tcarry two weeks worth of food the three miles back to my house. Every week, I get a ride home from other food bank patrons. These folks don't pause for a second to sigh, "Oh, problems are so big, I'm so powerless; will it really help anything if I give you this ride?" They don't look around to make sure someone is watching. They just, invisibly, do the right thing. I get rides in old, old cars. In one car I could see the road beneath whiz past under broken-down flooring; in another, I shared space with a large, lapping dog. I once got a ride from a man who told me he'd just gotten out of jail. Another time, my chauffeur's tattoos ran up and down his naked chest and back. When I was sick, I went from agency to agency, begging people with glamorous titles and impressive virtue résumés for help. Most did nothing.

The Lamed Vov Tzaddikim are the thirty-six hidden saints of Jewish folklore. Unlettered and insignificant, they work at humble trades and pass unnoticed. Because of these anonymous saints, the world continues to exist. Without their insignificant, unnoticed virtue - Poof! - God loses divine patience, and the world goes up in smoke.

Sometimes we convince ourselves that the "unnoticed" gestures of "insignificant" people mean nothing. It's not enough to recycle our soda cans; we must Stop Global Warming Now. Since we can't Stop Global Warming Now, we may as well not recycle our soda cans. It's not enough to be our best selves; we have to be Gandhi. And yet when we study the biographies of our heroes, we learn that they spent years in preparation doing tiny, decent things before one historical moment propelled them to center stage.

Moments, as if animate, use the prepared to tilt empires. Ironically, saints we worship today, heroes we admire, were often ridiculed, tortured, or, most punishingly, ignored in their own lifetimes. St. John of the Cross gave the world the spiritual classic, The Dark Night of the Soul. It was inspired by his own experience of being imprisoned by the members of his own religious order. Before Solidarity, Lech Walesa, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who helped bring down Communism, was a nonentity; a blue-collar worker in an oft-ridiculed Eastern European backwater. He was always active; one moment changed this small man's otherwise small-time, invisible activism into the kind of wedge that can topple a giant. Now, that moment past, Walesa has returned to relative obscurity.

Besides the pressure of virtue as an unattainable status reserved for the elect, there may be another reason why people don't live their own ideals. It may be that many who do not live what they believe have been stunted. They've been told many times: "What you feel does not matter; what you believe is ridiculous; what you envision is worthless; just sit back and obey the priest, the preacher, the teacher, the cop, the mob, the man in charge, or your own fear." When the still, small voice whispers to them that they ought to visit an elderly neighbor, or write a letter to the editor, or pull a few strings and let the indigent patient in to see the doctor, even though the red tape says they cannot, they tell the still, small voice "Stifle yourself!"

Such self-numbed people may see themselves as perpetual victims. "I have nothing!" they insist. "I have no power! I can't do anything! I have nothing to give! Everybody picks on me!" These are the folks who begrudge so much as a smile to their neighbors. Even as they live in houses, drive cars, enjoy health, they see themselves as naked, starving, homeless, penniless wretches waiting to be rescued by whomever is in charge. Their sense of victimization does not allow them to see that they are in charge - of their own choices.

While working or traveling in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, I occasionally met people who really did have next to nothing, but who stunned me with their insistence on the abundance of their own humanity. One afternoon, as I trekked to my teaching post in the Himalayas, a monsoon storm turned day into night and a landslide wiped out my trail. I got terribly lost; coming to a strange village, exhausted, I sat on the porch of a peasant home. Inside, the family was eating roasted cow-corn kernels for dinner. Roasted cow-corn kernels were to be their entire dinner; there was nothing else on their menu.

A man inside saw that a human form was sitting on his porch. He couldn't have seen that I was American, or anything else, for that matter. It was dark night by then, in a village without electricity. In any case, I was wearing a sari. He whispered to his wife, "Someone is sitting on our porch. We have to cook rice." Rice is the highest status food in that economy. And, by "rice," they meant, for them, an elaborate meal consisting of rice, lentils, and vegetables.

This feeling of being seen, this conviction that every act one performs matters to a supremely consequential audience, can come from a belief in God. Psalm 139 articulates how thoroughly and consequentially witnessed the theist feels. "O Lord, You have searched me and You know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; You perceive my thoughts from afar. ...Before a word is on my tongue You know it completely, O Lord. Where can I go from Your Spirit? Where can I flee from Your presence? If I go up to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in the depths, You are there." The very marrow of the believer's bones is impregnated with the conviction that everything he does is avidly witnessed by God, and that everything he does matters to God. Whether or not one's fellow incarnate beings see is secondary.

Non-theists, including atheists, can also have this feeling that one is witnessed, that everything one does matters. Not just a personalized God sees and tallies human action. Disembodied forces that can never be tampered with also weigh our deeds. For some, karma plays witness. You may be able to fool your fellow humans, but, ultimately, you can't cheat karma.

In many cultures, there is a disembodied force that demands that every action be ethical: honor. "Bog, Honor, Ojczyzna," or "God, Honor, Country," is the Polish national motto. My stays in Poland introduced me to otherwise empty-handed activists who faced off against Nazis, Communists, and now, capitalism, with relentless personal power. "Burnout" and "apathy" were not in their vocabulary. Even when serving time in prisons that appeared on no map, they felt visible. Honor recorded their every deed, and ensured that it mattered.

I suspect that we all have our three-in-the-morning moments, when all of life seems one no-exit film noir, where any effort is pointless, where any hope seems to be born only to be dashed, like a fallen nestling on a summer sidewalk. When I have those moments, if I do nothing else, I remind myself: the ride in the snow; the volunteers at the food bank; the Nepali peasants who fed me. Activists like the Pole Wladyslaw Bartoszewski who, decades before he would earn any fame, got out of Auschwitz only to go on to even more resistance against the Nazis, and then the Soviets. Invisible, silent people who, day by day, choice by choice, unseen by me, unknown to me, force me to witness myself, invite me to keep making my own best choices, and keep me living my ideals.

The Day of the Holy Innocents

2004-12-27T15:54:00.000-08:00

In the church calender, the 27th of December is known as The Day of the Holy Innocents. This is the day for Christians to remember the death of the children of Israel after the birth of Jesus, as written in Matthew 2:13-18:

13When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” 14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”[a]

16When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: 18“A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”

Many people dislike this day. Coming so close to Christmas, it is uncomfortable to remember that the birth of Jesus came at a great cost to the people of Israel. But at this time, remembering the slaughter of innocents is perhaps more important now than ever before. As of today, 14,880 to 17,076 Iraqui civillians have been killed. I do not begin to suggest that all these were innocent, but by ignoring the deaths of non-Americans, we are glamourizing war even more than we already have. Entire generations have been decimated. A culture is dying, and people are at continual peril. And, like many other crimes, it has been perptrated in the guise of justice and religion.

When I first began my "spiritual journey," one of the major things that turned me off of Christianity is the horrible history of the church. The Crusades, slavery, policies of non-involvement in multiple conflicts and wars, and the continual degredatation and belittlement of women are just a few of the things that come to mind when one mentions Christianity. Now, as a Christian, I find myself terribly bothered by non-Christians who use these arguements, the same arguements I used before to others and myself, to support their opinion that Christianity is at best antiquated and unneccessary, and at worst, evil and wrong.

There are some things to be learned from the history of Christianity, however, past the caveat of what should not be done again. One is that in every horrible historical event, there were those who perpetrated the travesty, and those who stood idly by and tolerated it. These people are equally guilty. At the same time, however, there has always been a minority in the movement who have known that what was being done was wrong, who have willingly sacrificed their freedom and lives to speak out against what they knew was wrong.

We can also learn that just as Judaism cannot be defined by the wars in Israel or genocide perpetrated against Jews and Islam cannot be defined by September 11th or political extremism, Christianity cannot be defined by the fringe groups who profess a hatred of anything that is different than they are--be it racially, sexually, religiously, or nationally. This is why, in my mind, there must be a clear difference between religion and faith. Religion is an organized group of people. Faith is personal. Some people use religion to strengthen their faith, others use faith to strengthen their religion. When it comes down to it, though, going to a place of religious worship does not make you a faith-ful person, just as going to a McDonald's doesn't make you a sandwich. (I know, old phrase, but it works.)

When I cultivated my faith and got to a point where I could freely participate in organized religion without allowing it to sway me in neither a positive nor negative direction, I realized that faith is an inward process. Without it, religion doesn't amount to anything more than ceremony, which, while interesting, is not usually that comforting. I also began to realize that there is nothing I can do about the history of the church and how people interpret it. All I can do is my best, which includes quiet reflection and faithfulness.

Chemistry? Yeah, chemistry.

2004-11-14T02:56:00.000-08:00

It's no use trying to force chemistry. Either it's there, or it's not, or so they say. But the question remains, what is it that makes us attracted to one person and not another? There's scientific research about facial symmetry, and there's speculation about pheromones. There's the Freudian interpretation that we look for partners that resemble our opposite-sex parent physically and behaviorally, but that doesn't offer much explanation for people with an absent parent or same-sex attraction. And no amount of research can comfort you when you realize that it will never work with the person you're intellectually attracted to simply because you have no physical attraction to him.

Cole slaw

2004-11-08T11:08:00.000-08:00

I went to the first funeral of my adult life last weekend.

Aunt Susie, also known lovingly as "Granny Grump," was my grandmother's fourth sibling and first sister amongst her 8 siblings. She had a stroke while visiting my grandmother two weeks ago, and died last week at the hospital after never regaining consciousness. She was 67.

Susie was a mother, a grandmother, a great-grandmother, and a community leader. She had been active in 4-H for the entirity of her life, teaching and counseling at summer camps, serving on the local and state boards, and leading her own 4-H group, the All-Stars. She was kind and beloved by many, and will certainly be missed.

My Aunt Susie had many quirks. In the 24 years I knew her, she always wore her long, grey hair in a bun on the top of her head, with pencils and pens stuck in the bun jauntily. She said that this kept a writing utensil handy at all times. :-)

Susie loved good food, and the day she had her stroke, she and my grandmother went to my grandmother's house to make fried chicken. On the way, they passed their favorite restaurant, and Susie suggested that they stop for cole slaw. My grandmother talked her out of it, since she had cole slaw at home, but as they ate lunch, Susie talked about how she wished they had picked up the other kind, since it was so much better.

Friday night, before the wake, my mom, grandmother and I all went to that restaurant and had cole slaw. Very quietly, my grandmother said that she wished she had stopped that day, so Susie could have her slaw. My mother took her hand and pointed out that Susie is certainly having her cole slaw now.

American "On A Break"

2004-11-03T16:45:00.000-08:00

(satire, because I just had to)

Sources close to the world-famous lovematch known as the United States indicate that the couple may be "on a break."

"They've been together for a long time," a representative for the Blue States said, "but lately it just feels like they're growing apart."

For several weeks, outsiders have speculated that the recent election may have drawn too much attention to the young match, emphasizing their differences. Red States were seen by themselves early Tuesday afternoon, but by Tuesday night, seem to have found friends to lean on.

"I don't know what Blue States's problem is," Red States said at a late-night party that night. "I just want what's best for us." In the background, Blue States's friends scoffed and made gagging motions.

A heated exchange occurred Monday night, in which Red States accused Blue States of being simple, godless Communists, and Blue States responded by calling Red States fascist, evil, and out-of-touch. Sources close to the couple, which has had a rocky history througout its short courtship, blame the wealthy friends of Red States for creating divisive, overly-moral issues that drew the couple apart.

Blue States's representative denies that Blue is seeing anyone else, but has said that Red and Blue are trying to "remain friends" through this ordeal.

Contradiction

2004-10-18T17:33:00.000-07:00

I'm on a Democrats board online. In my profile, I list (some of) my reasons for being a Democrat, as well as my hobbies and what I'm doing with my life. Today, I received this (unsolicited) message. His text is italicized:

I tend to side with Carlin on the question of religion. Though there are wonderful philosophies to be found in the bible, there are many truly awful ones too...and any institution that threatens non-believers with eternal damnation is inherently intolerant (and non-liberal).

I'll agree on this one. However...

I gotta call you on this: "well-thought-out beliefs" is a contradiction. "Thought" is a process of using facts to come to a conclusion; "belief" is a conclusion based on little or no knowledge. ("Faith" filling in the gap, much like with the rationale for war and tax cuts for the wealthy.)

No, actually. My religious faith (as well as my faith in other things) is entirely interdependent on my ability to think through available information to logical conclusions. I’m interested in where you got your helpful taxonomy of word breakdowns. Thoughts, when extrapolated to their fullest means, become beliefs quite frequently. In grade school, I learned how the earth revolves around the sun, creating seasons and alternating patterns of light and dark. Extrapolated, I now believe that when I go to bed at night and it is dark, the next day, with predictable accuracy, it will be light again. Maybe a weak example, but there are many others.

Without going into a lot of details with a total stranger who feels the need to question the phrasing of others, I've gone through enough research and thinking to discern that 1.) There is a God 2.) I am not God. 3.) Jesus Christ is/was the only Messiah, was crucified and raised from the dead. If not, it's the greatest hoax in history.

After all, what is the worst sin a person can commit according to Christianity? Non-belief. We're "fallen" in the first place because humanity ate from the "tree of knowledge." Hitler could've repented in the bunker and gotten into heaven, but a kind and generous agnostic will burn for eternity? Religion, like the current administration, fears knowledge and dissent... which goes against the spirit of liberalism, which celebrates those things.

Hey, careful. Lumping in all people who believe in anything with fundamentalists who use misguided religious beliefs as weapons of oppression is, as you said, like the current administration. Separating equality-minded, liberal government-oriented into the "have" and "have not" camps of religion isn't just incorrect, it's dangerous to the political orienting process. Many religions, including mainstream Western ones and nearly all Eastern ones have the firm belief that knowledge, dissent and religion are compatible. Where else would the Three Questions of Judaism, the scholarship of the early Catholic church, and the tradition of learned Buddhist masters have come from, if not from a faith rooted in the idea that humans are separated from non-human entities by their capacity for abstract thought?

And in most Christian sects, there is no "worst sin." That's a fallacy. As for if Hitler could repent of his sins and sincerely believe and whether or not that's "fair," that's a tired argument based on the assumption that any all-supreme deity wants to separate people out and damn them, which is ultimately very silly and makes absolutely no sense. Does it matter that Hitler would be acceptable to God in the same way Mother Teresa would be? Should it matter more to Mother Teresa or Hitler? Can one ever be truly sorry for the things one has done, whether they are acceptable in the culture or not? Moving in that vein, we're getting into Sarte and essentialism.

Check this out and see what you think: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html
Let me know what you think, and feel free to put me in my place! Write me at: (e-mail address deleted)

While the prose style is interesting, many of his facts are flat-out incorrect. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are consistent with the place and time of Jesus’ birth, within a few years. Most scholars agree that Jesus was born in late October, since the Aramaic word for sheep used in all three gospels specifies a sheep of a certain age, which would be impossible at any other time of year due to historically documented, centuries-old breeding and shepherding practices. The mathematical probability of one person fulfilling all the prophecies written out in the Tanakh (“Old Testament”) is approximately 1 in 580,276. Your odds of winning a national lottery are higher, since that seems to be an analogy familiar to most.

What I find particularly interesting is the need of people to run around and “debunk the myth of Christianity” and to bombast those who profess a Christian faith. Truthfully, would you do the same thing to someone who professed to be religiously Jewish, or Shinto, or B’Nai B’rith? Other than the bad example set by those professing to be Christian, what is it that bothers you so much about me, a random stranger, that you felt compelled to write?

*************

So the question is, why do people feel the need to categorize and divide? What purpose is served by dividing religious from non-religious, monotheistic/poly- or anti-theistic, Democrat/Republican, Christian/Jewish, male/female, straight/gay, left/right, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad infenitum?

Aside from the basic helpfulness of matching, why? Just...why?

Death

2004-10-12T10:29:00.000-07:00

Christopher Reeve's death has been big news for the past 24 hours. What news sources failed to pick up was that the philosopher Jacques Derrida died on Friday, a death that saddens and affects me more than Reeve's death.

For excerpts of Derrida's work, please visit here.

Homecoming

2004-10-11T13:59:00.000-07:00

This past weekend was the afore-reviewed Harvest Homecoming, a street festival in nearby New Albany, Indiana. The highlight of the festival for most people, as far as I can tell, is the food. So Friday afternoon, my mother came to pick me up at work and we walked down to Main Street, where three blocks were closed off with booths of all kinds. Most of the stuff there is of no interest to me--lots of country-esque tchotchkes, odd pieces of homemade "art" and other questionable materials--though there is the occasional volunteer opportunity. (It was at HH that I first got involved with Habitat for Humanity.) Because my mother was getting the chance to view the booths later that day with her friend Joanie, we headed straight for the first of the Harvest Homecoming institutions: chicken and dumplings.

It's funny how vivid singular memories are. When you experience something only once a year, or once in a lifetime, it somehow becomes more rich in your memory than something that you experience every week or every day. We all have things like this, I'm sure--birthday cake, the smell and feel of a relative you love dearly but rarely get to see, your first view of a long-awaited sight, or that elusive, perfect kiss.

Here's my theory on things like this: Much like the taste of chicken and dumplings or pumpkin ice cream at Harvest Homecoming, the things you have vivid, amazing memories of very rarely live up to the expectation. They take on a life of their own, so that the potato pancakes your grandmother makes (or, if you have my grandmother, the potato pankcakes and fried green tomatoes she makes) once a year never taste *quite* as good as the year before. They haven't changed--your memories of them have changed what they are.

And I don't think that's a bad thing. It doesn't matter if the second (or tenth, or one-hundred-tenth) time around isn't as good as you remember it being, because you'll always have that clear, shining moment of beauty and perfection. What's more, I think that the memory behind glass, where life and circumstances can't change it, is necessary. When my great-grandmother finally dies, I don't want to remember her like she is now--childlike in speech, helpless from Alzheimer's. I want to remember her the way she was when I was small--brilliant, active, and wickedly funny, teaching me about the birds that flitted about her 100+ acre farm and helping me and my grandmother pick blueberries in cool August dawns.

I'm not bothered by the fact that it will be different the next time I hike Mt. Acadia and see the sunrise from the first place in the US to greet the dawn. I wouldn't give up the first sight of Yankee Stadium for the same feeling in the next thirty glances. The same goes for the Prado, El Vaia de los Caidos, Westminister Tower, and the Pacific Ocean at the 45th Parallel.

I think what makes me not all that concerned is that I know thousands of other things will join those perfect, beautiful memories. The first time I see Tokyo, the first real "I love you," my first child's first breath, the first time I win a case... The possibility of future memories is endless, and, as Catherine of Aragon wrote, "I dwell in the possibilities."

*************

Then again, I could be alone on all these theories. Let me know.

These are a few of my favorite things (Part II)

2004-10-08T10:11:00.001-07:00

(Note: I love lists. So I guess the first thing on my list of my favorite things should be lists.)

Books:

I love books--both fiction and nonfiction. In fact, I keep lengthy lists of books to read in both categories. (This is in addition to the shelves of books in the "Read Next" category.)
Here are some of my favorite books:

Tell Me Lies, Jennifer Crusie:

This fiction book has one of the best opening lines of any book I've ever read. It's about first love, doing the right thing when you really should be doing the wrong thing, gossip, sex, small towns, and how, in the words of John Lennon, "life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." The first Jennifer Cruise book I ever read; it came to me with the caveat "You have to read this--Maddie is you."

Circle of Friends, Maeve Binchy:

Maeve Binchy is not the most complex writer. (Read more than one of her books and you'll realize that she basically does the same plot in every novel.) However, this being the first book of hers that I read, and the one where I felt the most kinship with the characters, it's still one of my favorites. Read it if only for the moments of surprising profundity in the text:

"It was always easy to make them laugh. It was a different think altogether to get them to see you in a different light."

Lamb: the Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal, Christopher Moore:

I firmly believe you can't approach religion without a sense of humor. Plus, I've always wondered what happened in those "missing years" of Jesus' life, from 13 to 30. (That's a lot of time for nothing to happen.) At the risk of cliche, you'll laugh and you'll cry, sometimes within the same page.

"The Messiah was holding the little girl's pet bunny, hugging it to his cheek with the big back feet swinging free. He was gloriously drunk. 'Know what?' Josh said. 'I love bunnies. They toil not, nor do they bark. Henceforth and from now on, I decree that whenever something bad happens to me, there shall be bunnies around. So shall it be written. Go ahead, Biff, write it down.' He waved to me under the bunny, then turned and started back through the gate. 'Where's the friggin' wine? I got a dry bunny over here!'"

Stones from the River, Ursula Heigi:

Trudi Montag is a dwarf living during both World Wars in Germany. Having never read anything about Germany during the wars, it was a refreshing and educating change. Heigi handles the atrocities of war, genocide, physical illness, and family secrets with amazing dexterity.

Do They Hear You When You Cry?,Fauziya Kassindja:

After the sudden death of her liberal father, Kassindja is betrothed to an uncle who demands her circumcision. She escapes to Germany, then to London, and finally emigrates to the United States through a passport belonging to a friend's sister. In the US, she was arrested and confined for two years for using an illegal passport while she battled for asylum. Eventually, through the help of legal aid, she gained amnesty and became a legal resident of the US. Through her biography, female genital mutilation became a war crime and fear of FGM became a grounds for granting asylum.

Still Life with Woodpecker, Tom Robbins:

"There are essential and inessential insanities.

The latter are solar in character, the former are linked to the moon.

Inessential insanities are a brittle amalgamation of ambition, aggression, and pre-adolescent anxiety--garbage that should have been dumped long ago. Essential insanties are those impulses one instinctively senses are virtuous and correct, even though peers may regard them as coo coo.

Inessential insanities get one in trouble with oneself. Essential insanities get one in trouble with others. It's always preferable to be in trouble with others. In fact, it may be essential."

Television:

I used to watch a lot of tv. A lot. But that was when there were good tv shows on. There are very few tv shows I still enjoy--Joan of Arcadia being one. Most of the shows I still love have been cancelled or have simply gone off the air. Here are a few.

Sports Night:

Best. Show. Ever. Written by Aaron Sorkin, who later wrote and produced The West Wing, this show was funny and brilliant with an amazing cast. It also has some of my favorite quotes, like, "If you're stupid, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." (Isaac Jaffe), and "You are about five different kinds of crazy, you know that?" (Casey McCall). Plus, it has Josh Charles, who I'm a little big in love with. Okay, a lot. :-)

Felicity:
Okay, I'm not ashamed. I'll admit it. I loved "Felicity." It was a soap opera for college students when I was in college. Sure, not much of the stuff that happened to her happened to me--I never followed a guy that I hardly knew all the way across the country, I never fell in love with my RA, I never had sex with a random art student, and I never had a mean song written about me by a girl whose boyfriend I stole. (Well, not that I know of.) But "Felicity" was fabulous, if only for the Contemptuous Sardonic Felicity Watchers' Society, of which I was a member. (Of course.)

Sex and the City:

I didn't start watching SaTC until it was into Season 5, but I know exactly when I fell in love. Before seeing the first episode of Season 2 in reruns, I thought the show was offensive and unnecessary and had very little to do with women's real lives. The aforementioned episode (entitled "Take Me Out To the Ballgame") includes Miranda yelling the line, "When did our lives become so juvenile? All we ever talk about is men and dating. It's like junior high with checking accounts!" and imposing a break on her friends, which was exactly what I've said multiple times to several friends. While many of the things that happen have never happened to me (and I doubt they've happened to anyone save a select, adventerous few), it's still a great show with great advice. (The most important being, "If he doesn't call, it's not because of some elaborate excuse. He's just not that into you.")

Okay, enough for now. More later.

Making the political personal

2004-10-01T11:22:00.000-07:00

Last night, while watching the first of the Presidential Debates, I was struck by the language that was used by both the candidates. The first quarter of the debate focused on the US's involvement in Iraq. Both Bush and Kerry outlined their plans for ending the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, talking about their obligations to the troops stationed there. Not once did either candidate mention the Iraqui citizens, other than their capacity to fight for or against "democracy." Not once did the candidates mention that while life under Sadaam Hussein was difficult for women and children, life now under the US-appointed prime minister is worse. During Hussein's reign, 65% of girls under the age of 16 were enrolled in school and attended full-time. Now, with the imminent threat of rape, kidnapping, and genital mutilation from Iraqui insurgents, American troops (yes, it does happen, and with shockingly-regular frequency), and genocidal countrymen, fewer than 15% of girls under the age of 16 are enrolled or attending schools.* Women and girls are afraid to leave their homes. Suicide bombings and bombings of public venues have increased drastically since the US began occupying Iraq.

We entered Iraq on the premise of finding weapons of mass destruction. WMD have never been found. We entered Iraq and Afghanistan because women and children were experiencing "atrocious" human rights' violations, as evidenced by the wearing of the hijab (face veil) and burqua (full-length body and face veil). Afghani women have faced the same injustices that Iraqui women and girls have faced, in addition to being indefinitely detained in refugee camps--common breeding grounds for genocide, sexual assault and abuse, and ideological terrorism. We entered Iraq with no exit strategy, limited military personel and equipment, and, more than a year later, we are still there, in the same circumstaces.

The candidates talk about human rights like they're some ideal exclusively held by Americans, or even by those living in democracies. (They're not.) They talk about human rights violations like they're exclusively happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. (They're not--they're happening in the US, in China, and in North Korea, among other places. Yet we don't seem to care about those places.)

There are so many Americans who have the right to vote and don't use it. They don't think their vote makes a difference, or they can't be bothered to stay informed, or they don't like any of the candidates. Not voting is an insult to the sacrifices made by Alice Paul, Lucy Burn, and Dora Lewis. Not voting is an absolute degradation to the men and women who walked miles to cast their ballots, only to be turned away from polling place after polling place because of the color of their skin. Not voting negates any right you might have to complain about the presidential administration, and it negates any right you have to tout the ideals of democracy. You have given up the rights afforded to you under a democracy.

Occasionally, I will read an op-ed piece that mentions the perils of making "the personal political." I say that the personal is always political. Our political convictions come from our life experiences, and cannot be separated from our personal lives. Those who think making the personal political is dangerous usually do so because of their fear of rights that have been limited by sexuality or sexual expression (meaning gay and lesbian rights as well as reproductive rights).

Moreover, the political should be personal. I used to think that the sitting president had very little to do with my daily life. Now I know that's wrong. An irresponsible, war-mad president has restricted the rights of the people and has caused Americans to live in fear. He has shown himself to be a poor leader, a poor planner, and an even worse diplomat.

This November, make the political personal. Vote.

*************

The deadline for registering to vote (either in person or through absentee ballots) is Monday, October 4th for Indiana and Kentucky. To register online in any state, visit here.

* Data from Women for Women International and Amnesty International.

These are a few of my favorite things...

2004-09-20T09:56:00.000-07:00

I'll admit that I probably complain a bit too much about the place that I live. This occurred to me yesterday afternoon as I was driving down I-265 toward home. The sky was a bright autumn blue, the air was crisp, and the hills were (alive with the sound of music? Nahhh...) breath-takingly beautiful. So, without further ado, a short list of my favorite things about Kentuckiana:

WNAS Radio:
Airing live since May of 1940, this is the oldes student-run radio station in the world. It airs from both New Albany, the first public high school in Indiana, and from Floyd Central High School (my alma mater).

Harvest Homecoming:

A street fair held one weekend in early October every year, this would be your only chance to have pumpkin ice cream, chicken and dumplings, funnel cake and just about anything you could imagine on a stick. (However, the thought of deep-fried Snickers bars makes me want to vomit.) It's worth it to go on a Friday night if only for a rousing game of "Spot The Mullet"

Lynn's Paradise Cafe:

The best day to go is either Derby Day (see below for information) or, my personal favorite, New Year's Day, in which there is a giant pyjama party and mimosas and bloody marys for $1.50 each.

Hawley-Cooke:

Hawley-Cooke was bought out by Border's last year. It had formerly been the first privately-owned bookstore in Louisville. The staff was personable and extremely knowledgable, and it was a joy to shop there. When Border's bought it, they respected the history of the place by keeping up articles and memorabilia about Hawley-Cooke, and paid attention to what the customers really wanted by keepingmany of the original staff. It's still fun to shop there.

Kentuckiana:

An area-unique name developed by advertisers in the 1950s, this is the only area name that really caught on. (Perhaps obviously, it's a contraction of the two state names and refers to the multi-county area surrounding Louisville/Jefferson County. Personally, I would have preffered Indiyucky. Somehow, that didn't catch on.) Other areas might have their "tri-state area" or whatever-valley, but we have this. Plus, it's less surrounded by controversy than "Louisville" (see below).

Churchill Downs:

It actually came as a surprise to me that people even just one hundred miles away have never heard of the Derby or the Oaks, have never been to a Derby Party (a fact that Chris is probably thankful for!), and have never had a mint julep or Derby Pie (see below). The Oaks is run on the first Friday of May, and is run by three-year-old fillys (female horses). The winner receives a $500,000 purse and a garland of lilies.

The Kentucky Derby is run on the first Saturday of May by one-year-old male horses. (Smarty Jones, the horse that one the 2003 Kentucky Derby, was the first gelding (castrated horse) to win in over fifty years.) The winner of the Derby receives a trophy, a $1,000,000 purse, and a garland of roses in the winner's circle. The horse usually eats the roses while waiting to have his picture taken.

(Some might be interested in the fact that the Kentucky Derby is the first of the horseracing Triple Crown. The second is the Preakness Sweepstakes in August and then there's the Belmont in October. The following year is the Breeder's Cup, after which the winning horse(s) are sold for breeding and put out to pasture. (Oh, to be a horse.) No horse has won all three races in many, many years (I can't find how many right now) because of the difference in the racetracks.)

The other festivities (the Hat Parade, the Infield crazyness, the millions of dollars worth of fireworks at the pre-Derby festival) are too extensive to mention.

Derby Pie:

Nobody knows what's really in it, and no one can really make "Derby Pie" other than the Derby Pie makers themselves. It's a sweet pie made with pecans, sugar, semi-sweet chocolate, and bourbon, with a cookie crust on the top andbottom. It's perfection, and it's worth putting up with three of my major food allergens (eggs, sugar, and tree nuts) for.

Louisville, Looeyville, Luhville:

Okay, at this point, the controversy is actually quite funny. People who've never been to the area call it Louisville (pronouncing the 's'). Much like the 's' in Illinois, it's not pronounced by anyone except the extremely gauche. People who've lived here for a couple of years pronounce it Looeyville, but people who've been here for 4+ years say Luhville/Lu-uh-vll. The trick is to not open your mouth at all.

Ramblings: Monotheocracy

2004-09-16T16:22:00.000-07:00

I finished reading Reading Lolita in Tehran yesterday and The Handmaid's Tale today. Both were good books, worth reading and worth my time to recommend them.

The thing is, though, that away from school, away from the constant contact of people who will discuss things ad nauseum, ad infinitum (and know what both terms mean), only to arrive to a closing point in a discussion and say, "Yes, but what does any of it really mean?", makes discussions where you don't really know what your point of entry is particularly difficult. I could start with the fact that both societies in the books--the fictional Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale and the nonfictional Iran in Reading Lolita... are monotheocracies that use state religion to control women specifically. Questions:

1. Is the mandated wearing of garments that cover the entirety of the body--veils/hijab, hats/burquas, robes/chardors, etc., a terrible thing? Is true freedom in revealing as much of the body as possible, or is it in the sovereignity of being able to choose how one's body is revealed?

2. When the US "democratizes" countries like India, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan, why are we persuaded to go into these countries by the supposed inhumanity of women being covered up? Why is the miniskirt a symbol of freedom from oppression?

3. Why are women's bodies so often seen as dangerous or subversive?

4. What happens to the faith of people who are subjects of monotheocratical tyranny?

Right now, I have more questions than answers. Par for the course, I suppose.

*************

I keep saying that I'm not ready to go back to school yet, but with the sheer volume of books I've read recently and the papers that I've begun in my head, symptoms would indicate otherwise

Liminal space

2004-09-13T12:40:00.000-07:00

I wanted to see if I could still do it. And I can, more or less. Forgive the errors--my accent keys aren't set up on this keyboard.

*************

La dificilidad en este vida es que solo algúnas personas pueden vivir en un mundo entre Español y ingles. La mejoridad del tiempo, estes personas son niños de personas que imigran a los paises ingleses, y ellos encontran sus propios difícilidades en viv irían en un mundo liminal. Este es la lastima, por supuesto, porque estas personas, mis paísanos, son mas benidictado de las personas que deben enseñar una lenguanueva cuando estamos adultos. (Aprendí español cuando era joven, pero la lengua siempre estaba mi lengua segunda. En años pasados, puse pensar en español, y cuando viví en España, puse vivir en un mundo solamente español. Ahora, olvido cerca de tres palabras cada día, mas o menos.)

Es un lastima que, en muchas partes del mundo inglese, no ponemos mucha respecto a ensenar una lengua segunda en un tiempo durante que aprenda ms de una lengua es mas facíl. Tambien, es un lastima que no podemos existan en un mundo que es normal a usar varias lenguas en un frase. Hay veces que solo una lengua no es suficiente, como en hablando del amor o otras emociones fuertes.

Mental illness and cultural relativism

2004-09-10T09:31:00.000-07:00

I'm incredibly fascinated by this. For the full text, please visit here.

"...how people narrate their own experience will be influenced by culture. Happiness is a particular cultural value. In North America, it is important to indicate your success by exclaiming your happiness. In many other cultural contexts, however, people don't view the point of life as being happy; they may view it as being productive, as being honorable, as being a contributing member to society or to a family. I think the idea that we should be happy is a particularly American value. It fits very well with consumer capitalism, where the route to happiness is the consumption of products. It's certainly possible that the strategies someone uses to pursue well-being (such as through economic productivity) have built into them inevitable unhappiness, but we're not really encouraged to question our value system."

*************
E-mail me at Currer1013-at-yahoo-dot-com if you have any thoughts. I'm not sure where it goes from here, but it's going somewhere.

Indiana--Case in point

2004-09-08T10:13:00.000-07:00

I don't know if there's anything to say about this...

Coroner Discussing Gun Safety Shoots Self

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. - Monroe County Coroner David Toumey was hospitalized with a leg wound after accidentally shooting himself while trying to demonstrate gun safety.

Toumey told The Herald-Times for a story published Saturday that he was demonstrating gun safety to some people at a Lake Monroe boat ramp about 11 p.m. Wednesday when he accidentally shot himself.

He said that as he checked to make sure his weapon was unloaded, the gun discharged, and a bullet struck him in his left leg.

"It's an unfortunate accident," Toumey said. "I've always been very, very safe."

He was taken to Bloomington Hospital and later transferred to Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis.

Toumey said he was scheduled to have surgery Saturday and expects to be in the hospital from three to five days.

Monroe County Sheriff Steve Sharp said he was unable to release details of the shooting because the report had yet to be filed by the deputy assigned to the case.

An introduction: Hi there!

2004-09-05T15:50:00.000-07:00

Welcome, bienvenue, willkommen, bienvenidos...

I've decided to shut down an old weblog and move the interesting stuff here. From time to time, you'll find updates from me. I'll be posting rants about current issues, ramblings about what's going on in my life and the lives around me, reviews of movies and books, and random thoughts. Hopefully, some of it will be thought-provoking, amusing, or at least interesting. Feel free to leave notes.

Quotation of the week:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two diametrically opposed ideas in the mind at the same time. One should, for example, be able to see that the world is ultimately doomed, yet be determined to make it otherwise." (F. Scott Fitzgerald)

Rant: Kobe Bryant and the message boards

2004-09-02T11:52:00.000-07:00

I find it appalling that the charges against Kobe Bryant have been dropped. Equally appalling is the fact that her sexual history was admitted into the court, violating two decades of Catherine Mackinnon's work. But perhaps even more appalling is the public's perception of the trial proceedings. A post on a Louisville-area message board prompted a high-octane rant from me. The text to which I responded is itallicized.

I agree 100% with you bluerider. Kobe just doesn't fit the bill as a rapist. Any girl that has sex with multiple partners in the same day lacks credibility in my eyes. This isn't like Mike Tyson who has a violent history either. The whole case was screwed from the start. A slutty girl and a man with no violent history, gee I wonder who wins.

While I realize that this may make me immensely unpopular, I had to respond to this post. There is no one who "fits the bill" as a rapist. Rapists are not creepy weirdos who hide in the bushes and pop out at unsuspecting women. Rapists are, by definition, people who violate another person sexually by force. That's it. Most convicted rapists do not have a "violent history," although there often will be a history of battery or other sex-related offenses that he or she is not convicted of. The fact that the sexual history of plaintiff in the Bryant case was admitted into court is a travesty and a violation of victim's rights laws that have been in effect for two decades. It is permissable, if not required, to admit any history that would reflect on her credibility as an accuser, but the fact that she was presented as "slutty" is unforgivable. Whether or not she's a "slut" is beside the point. Rape is not about sex, it's about power, control, and violence. Prostitutes can be raped, as can nuns. The sexual character of the survivor is without merit in any sort of case, including a rape case.

For more information, please visit Rape Victims' Advocates.

How many times have we heard of girls like this claiming to have been forced to do something they didn't want to?

The statistics are 4 to 6% of reported rapes are false claims, which is exactly the same for other reported crimes. I agree that those who falsely report crimes of any kind should be prosecuted (and, I might add, are). BUT--falsely reported sexual assault cases are a rarity, and are considered problematic because of the disproportionate publicity they get.

Her sexual history is very important in this case, because it shows what she is capable of. I mean the girl had sex with 3 guys in one day. Let's use common sense, if she did that, then why in the hell would she turn Kobe FREAKIN Bryant down?

Maybe she turned Bryant down because...she didn't want to have sex with him? Just a suggestion. Here's a scenario: A person gives money to a charity early in the day. Later that day, the same person gives spare change to a homeless person. At the coffee shop, the person puts money in a can for another charity. While walking home, the person is robbed. Because the person gave money three times earlier in the day, does he or she "deserve" to be robbed? It's exactly the same with a rape case.

Random Thoughts: Philosophy, etc.: Or, what happens to what we believe?

2004-08-03T11:03:00.000-07:00

Everyone talks about the nature versus nurture debate, but I've not heard anything about the effects of being raised with a philosophy. (And when it comes down to it, isn't religion, or even a lack of religion or faith, really a philosophy, a way of living?) Being raised without a religion, I can't really participate in the debate of what it means to be Jewish or Catholic or atheist or anything else. I wasn't raised atheist--my parents just never talked about God at all. I know that the effect it had on me was that after a lot of research, I found my own faith, and I think that's really worked out for me. I've often said that I'm the type of person who would have automatically rejected any dogma just because it was dogma, so I'm glad that I was left to find my own path. Then again, you never know--things could have turned out completely differently, so speculation is really quite useless.

Looking at how your parents' philosophy affects your own philosophy and the results of your life would be an interesting study, though. I think that designing it would be somewhat daunting, though, because where do you start? What kinds of questions can you ask that would gauge how a fundamental belief/world outlook affects one's life?

I'm just brainstorming here... Sorry about the puddles.

Random thoughts: Fahrenheit 9/11

2004-07-03T01:33:00.000-07:00

If you haven't already, I now urge you to see Fahrenheit 9/11. I'll give this disclaimer, though--I was violently ill after I saw it. When W won the electoral vote (note: one must remember that he did not win the popular vote, and therefore is more of a prime minister [appointed by a governing body] than a president [appointed by the people]. One must also remember that the last leader of an ostensibly democratic country to be appointed by a governing body was none other than Adolf Hitler.), my exact words were, "Well, this should be interesting." And interesting it has been. W and his friends have managed to create so many "Others" that it has allowed them to enter the US into an illegal and immoral war, create the Bush Doctrine, which allows for pre-emptive strikes against sovereign nations that have NEVER attacked or even threatened to attack the US, disenfranchise hundreds of millions of Black voters, deny gay and lesbian citizens their civil rights by writing discrimination into the Constitution, and endanger the health and well-being of millions of American women, among other things.

Fahrenheit 9/11 sickened me because it presented the facts of W's administration in a clear and precise manner. Granted, it was extremely biased against W, but there really are no attempts to insist otherwise. My overwhelming disgust with this administration is only equalled by my determination to vote, to see that others vote, and to make sure that this is W's ONLY administration.

So make sure you're registered to vote, and when November comes around, do what is moral and smart--vote W out of office. Lest anyone accuse my intentions of being in the wrong place, let me end with this:

"What is therefore the task...of today? Shall I answer 'faith, hope, and love'? That sounds beautiful. But I would say courage. No, even that is not challenging enough to be the whole truth. Our task today is recklessness. For what we lack is most assuredly not psychology or literature. We lack a holy rage. A holy rage. The recklessness that comes from a knowledge of God and humanity. The ability to rage when justice lies prostrate on the streets and the lie rages across the face of the earth, a holy anger about things that are wrong in the world, to rage against the ravaging of God's earth and the destruction of God's world, to rage when little children must die of hunger, when the tables of the rich are sagging with food, to rage at the senseless killing of so many, and against the madness of militaries, to rage at the lie that calls the threat of death and the strategy of destruction peace, to rage against complacency, to restlessly seek that recklessness that will challenge and seek to change human history until it conforms with the norms of the kingdom of God."

~ Kaj Munk, a Danish pastor who was executed by the Nazis in January of 1944.

Rant: Abu Grav

2004-06-28T14:48:00.000-07:00

A friend is going to grad school at UC Berkeley, very close to where he grew up and where one of his brothers teaches. He's well-acquainted with some of the faculty, and recently informed us that one of the political science professors there had served as John Ashcroft's advisor on the military prisons in Afghanistan. Seems that he wrote some memos that informed the administration how to get around the Geneva Code, in case the public (meaning any non-military or non-government personell) found out about the "goings on" at the military prisons. These Geneva Code cheats were used as an outline for later prisons in Iraq, including Abu Ghraive (sp?). Students have started to circulate a petition calling for the professor's resignation.

My question is, is it the fact that the torture occurred at all, or that we now know that it was consciously planned that we all find so abhorrent? I'd like to think that we're bothered by anyone being tortured, but since the American prison system is, as of yet, unreformed, and the death penalty still exists, I'm inclined to believe that it's more that we as Americans are bothered that we got caught. Because if we justify the invasion of Iraq on the idea that Sadaam Hussain & his government tortured thousands of Iraqui citizens, the fact that we're also torturing Iraquis should bother us. Yet many people still aren't bothered by it, because they've so "othered" the Iraqui soldiers and civilians.

As the comic strip character Pogo said, "I have met the enemy, and it is us."

*************

"I confess that I have no philosophy, nor piety, nor patience, no art of reflection, no theory of compensation to meet things so hideous, so cruel, and so mad, they are jud unspeakably horrible and irremediable to me and I stare at them with angry and almost blighted eyes." (Henry James)

Sistah Jenny's Advice for New College Girls

2004-05-17T15:44:00.000-07:00

Sistah Jenny's Advice for New College Girls

1. Relax. It's never as big of a deal as you think it is. And when it actually is that big a deal, you'll know.

2. Set up clear guidelines with your roommate on the first day. Sure, you're friends now, but will you be friends when she's borrowing your clothes and returning them without washing them?

3. Cheap macaroni and cheese is not worth it.

4. Go to class. It greatly increases your chances of actually learning something.

5. Class is not, and should not be, your life. Get involved in something other than your school work, and for heaven's sake, get out of the dorm room.

6. When a guy tells you that he's not a nice person, believe him. When a guy tells you that he's a nice person, don't believe him.

7. Do your homework. It greatly increases your chances of passing.

8. Try something new every week.

9. While pot and ecstacy may seem harmless, they're not. If you're caught with pot, you'll lose any federal funding you're getting. And ecstacy will really, really screw you up, and might even kill you. In the words of Nancy Regan, "Just say no."

10. Almost any decision you make is reversible. It's the ones that aren't that matter.

11. You will change during your first year of college, in more ways than you know. When people tell you that you've changed, you won't believe them.

12. People are more different from each other than you can possibly imagine.

13. When you go to parties, go in a group, and leave in a group. When you go on dates, make sure that at least one other person knows where you're going.

14. The Freshman Fifteen is real. To avoid it, remember that Ben & Jerry's is not a food group, and going to the gym is nothing like high school gym class. Try it at least once--you might even like it.

15. Everyone bonds tightly that first week of classes. Some of these people will be your friends for life, some will just be your friends through college, and you'll just exchange awkward 'hellos' with others for the next few months. Take care of the ones you're close to, though. You're all each other has got.

16. A pound of Skittles will give you your daily dose of Vitamin C.

17. Don't ever try to do laundry on Saturday or Sunday. Tuesday afternoon is usually the best time. And while we're at it, make sure you separate your clothes, or you'll look like a Marshmallow Peep.

18. Keep in contact with your family. You may be busy doing new things, but they still want to know that you're alive and happy. Call them at least once a week--it greatly increases your chances of getting care packages and money.

19. Get to know your professors, but don't be a nuisance. Have something interesting to say.

20. People will tell you that college is much harder than high school. These people usually have no idea what they're talking about.

21. If you want things to change, you must be part of that change.

22. Exclusively using the Internet for sources when writing papers isn't going to cut it any more.

23. Remember that your college or university is part of a larger community. Take part in that community before you graduate without realizing that it's there.

24. Excise cops are usually the friendliest, best-dressed guys at the party. While underage drinking is against the law, everyone does it. Just be smart about it.

25. You will be faced with hundreds of different viewpoints and millions of opportunities to change your life and mind. Stay true to who you are and what you believe and you'll come out fine.

Rant: After reading Tim Dean's "Beyond Sexuality"

2004-05-15T16:26:00.000-07:00

I've been having a less than brilly last few weeks... A lot of it hinges on my thesis, and the outlined problems that have been occurring (and reoccurring...) therein. Some of it has to do with my job, which makes me alternately angry, frustrated, and bored to the point of exhaustion. A bit has to do with the readings that I've been doing for class, all of which leave me with thoughts that won't be implemented, ideas that can't be pinned down, and a general feeling of "aaagggh...it's right there, somewhere, the solution to all the intellectual bugaboos that have been plaguing me for the last however-many years."
The readings, in fact, may be most of it. I finished reading Tim Dean's Beyond Sexuality yesterday morning. Let's see if I can outline the arguement. For a long time, I've been trying to wrap my mind around the idea that we, as a culture (and I'm speaking of any culture here, not specifically American or even generic "white culture") define sexuality as what the biological sex of your object choice is, with complete bearing on what your own biological sex is. Think about that for a second. We're more concerned with who does to whom that we're not even concerned with the what that they're doing, where they're doing it, and, I think the most important part, the why. This is how we define sexuality.

But when it comes to regulating sexuality (thesis material reference coming up), we don't just focus on the actors. By regulating procreation in limiting the number of children people can have and still obtain welfare, etc, we're regulating the what, when it gets right down to it.

And it's interesting that we choose to focus on biological sex, instead of gender, when I would argue that most people have a stronger gender preference than they do a sex preference. Hear me out...I very rarely look at dating opportunities and think, "That is a male" (referencing biological sex). I think, "That is a man" (referencing gender identity). A lot of this probably has to do with the fact that I'm by and large attracted to the "gym rat" type--former football, soccer, or baseball players who are generally big guys in height, weight and muscle mass. None of these characteristics have anything to do with the biological factor of being male, perhaps save muscle mass, since more testosterone means one can build muscle more quickly. I would argue that choosing a partner based on gender characteristics is especially prevalent in the gay community. (And if you don't believe me, watch The Broken Heart's Club.)

The "why" that's left out in considering how to define sexuality is the most important part, I think. What if people were defined solely by why they choose the partners they do, or why they choose to (or if) to sleep with someone? Maybe, when it comes down to it, we use biological sex to define because it's the most visible characteristic we have to go by. Of course, with gender reassignment surgery, we all know that's not exactly a fail-proof screening device... Another why definition might be left out because it disproportionately applies to women, ie, sleeping with someone because of economic reasons (needing someone to provide for you), as a prevention of violence (so he won't beat or kill you), or as an exchange of power (making someone else even momentarily helpless can make you feel more powerful). Maybe if we defined sexuality in those terms (which all those considerations do happen to women all the time, all over the world and right here in the US), women's situation would improve.

Defining your sexuality by whether or not you consent and/or want a sexual encounter is another way to go about it. If sex is, like it is for many women, something that "just happens" to you, I think that's very different than if you are an active, choosing participant. And while fully 1/3 of all women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, we still insist on defining sexuality on the biological sex of the actors involved. This would be what CMacK calls a "hello question." Hello? Does this make sense to anyone else? Is this just another way of ignoring victimization? Do we not focus on women as consenting, wanting actors (and there is a distinction between consenting to an encounter and actually wanting said encounter) because if we did, we would have to reexamine what happens to women every day?
Just asking.

I think I'll get down off the soapbox now. It's a little dizzying up here.

Men get eating disorders, too

2004-05-11T17:32:00.000-07:00

I guess you could say that I consider myself a "men's rights" feminist. I'd prefer the term "liberal feminist," but so many people don't understand what that means... I'm tired of thinking of things in terms of how society is unfair to women, when in many cases it's as equally unfair (if not more so) than men, simply by virtue of the male population not having the general level of consciousness about what's happening as many women do. There seem to be some extremes going on in the feminist movement, and I'm not for that. Things have been immensely unfair to women for many, many years, but we still have to realize that things still are unfair to men. Women can legitimately choose to either stay at home and "keep house" or enter the paid workforce, but men don't really have that option. That's unfair. Women live their lives in fear of violence and/or sexual assault by men, but men are the ones who have to prove themselves, every day, that they're not "bad guys," which (personally speaking) would really bother me. That's unfair. Women can express feelings and are encouraged to talk about what's bothering them, but it's considered weird or unmanly for men to express their feelings. That's unfair. Now, because of social norms about who "gets" eating disorders, men aren't getting the psychological and physical help they need. That's not only unfair, that's dangerous. I guess the question I'm asking is, why do we think of society in terms of "why can't women be more like men?", when it doesn't seem that great to be a man in a male-dominated society, either? Wouldn't it be great if, instead of looking at sex equality in terms of women equaling men, we looked at sex equality in terms of everyone being equal in opportunity and outcome to one another? Call me crazy...

*********
"Equal rights are not special rights." (Anonymous)

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." (Audre Lord)

Ramblings: Public grief

2004-04-03T15:23:00.000-08:00

When the Madrid bombing occured, it shook me as much as the incidences in New York and Pennsylvania. Madrid is a city I've been to, a city where I first figured out how to stand on my own two feet and feel good about doing it. What shook me more, though, was how the bombing in Madrid was completely ignored by US press. There's a million excuses for why it didn't hit the front pages as hard as Sept. 11th--fewer casualties, attribution to a local problematic source, etc. I'm more inclined to believe that it was because few (if, possibly, any) US citizens were involved, and because it was in a part of the world that no one really knows how to classify. Many people don't think of Spain as being in Europe (for a myriad of social and political reasons, centering on the 50 year Franco reign). Its citizens are not Latin American, but many white people view them as such because of the color of their skin and (ironically and incorrectly) because of their language.

So many people view international tragedies as a chance to show an outpouring of grief that just isn't rational. Here I specifically think of the Trade Towers reaction, and Princess Diana. How many of the people who were "just so torn up about it" had any real perspective into what had happened? Maybe someday, the American Psychological Association will have an explanation as to why some people feel the need to publicly grieve during events that only slightly impact them on a personal level, if it occurs at all.

My viewpoint on it is that grieving for something that you have no perspective on belittles the grief that people really are experiencing. There's a potential functionalist arguement in here--that people grieve with others to obtain a sense of community and solidarity. And I guess it can be seen that way.

Yesterday, when the "Office of Homeland Security" announced that there was a new threat to US cities, I didn't react the same way that I did last time. Last time this was announced, I was living in the middle of America, in a place that was highly unlikely to be a terrorist attack location. Now, however, I live in the third largest city in the US, and the possibility of something harming the city that I've very quickly come to love made me immensely angry. In extension, I thought about how people who don't live in a city that's been under attack, or who don't love a city the way that I do, can't really understand the immense grief that New Yorkers went through in September of 2001. I think we all know that New Yorkers are fanatical about their city, but it seems that most people who have devoted any of their time living, working, and loving in a major metropolitan city have a strong allegiance toward that city.

This is not to say that you have to actually live in the city that you love. I know many people who are from New York who will always have a little piece of their hearts, souls, or minds there. As for me, my mind is in Chicago, my soul is in Portland, and my heart is in Floyds Knobs, Indiana. These are the "cities" I love.

Rant: Christianity, Christians, and "Christians"

2004-01-09T22:24:00.000-08:00

Written for a dear friend...

It's highly unfortunate when people who identify themselves as "Christians" use the opinions of others as an opportunity to evaluate their "Christianity." First, the idea that anyone can evaluate another's religious "worthiness" isn't just facetious; it's sacrilegious and harmful to relations between people and the community of faith at large. (Not to mention the fact that it gives yet more evidence to those who choose not to be Christians because of the people who claim they are representing Christ.)

Furthermore, it must be so nice to have all the answers to the complex moral dilemmas that individuals are faced with. The fact that people feel free to judge others about their opinions on social issues indicates a lack of maturity on their part. Both religious, moral, and social. God *does* have absolutes...as mentioned above, there are the Big 10. I believe the point that was being made in this case was that in situations such as abortion or similar problems, God does not see them as absolutely wrong or absolutely right. Think of it this way...everyone thinks that it is wrong to murder another person, but there are also times when everyone would consider it justified: war, self-defense. If you're basing the merits of absolute truth on the existence of God, you're missing a whole lot in the entire concept of God. Like it or not, but because of all the people, religions, and belief systems in the world, there ARE differences in what "absolute truth" is. It's called cultural relativism. Everything is nice when it's cut and dry, but the "real world" just isn't like that. Life is more complicated; more intense, with a greater variety of experiences than most people who seem to hold this hard-core belief in their "duty" to "help" others by pointing out their moral and social shortcomings. And I, for one, am glad that life is more complicated than that. God's creatures are wonderful and amazing, and I'm so pleased to be counted among them as one of those who does God's will by loving others simply as God made them.

It's funny that people get all wrapped up in the arguments about homosexuality, abortion, etc., and yet when there's something that can actually be done where you can apply your faith, very few people are willing to step up and do it. God has made it very clear as to what we are meant to do as human beings: Love one another, and love God with all our hearts.

By judging those who have been faced with difficult life circumstances and have chosen a path that you don't necessarily agree with, are you loving one another? And when you judge another human being based on his or her viewpoints, and subsequently judging one of God's perfect creations who has been blessed with the understanding of the complexities of life, are you loving God with all your heart?

Next time you start to judge someone, think about this: I believe that Jesus would have understood what people go through when they make difficult decisions, and while maybe he wouldn't have necessarily agreed with the decision, he would have supported them in the true fellowship of faith. (Like we ALL should be doing...)

Step up to the plate and be a real man or woman of God, instead of hiding behind your judgmental attitudes and assumptions about others.

Travel

2003-03-22T12:50:00.000-08:00

I've got that travel bug again, for many different reasons. I think it was delayed this year because we had no snow. Snow's what does it to me most of the time.

So I have my itineraries for the next sixty-five years. (I'm not kidding in the least, BTW.) It's my goal to spend every big birthday someplace cool. So here are the plans, with websites attached to them.

2005: Japan. Land of the Rising Sun

2010: Czech Republic. No information on this one, yet. If you have any ideas, e-mail them to me.

2015: Egypt and Morocco. I'll be thirty-five; my sister will be 30. Big trip. Cairo's Heritage

Morocco Highlights

2020: China. My fortieth birthday. Cake on the Great Wall, anyone? You know I'll do it...

2025: Poland.

Global Volunteers, Poland

2030: Argentina. My fiftieth birthday. I'll start stocking up on the Aleve so I can go tango-ing all night long.

2035: Vietnam. I'm really looking forward to this one.
Vietnam Gourmet Traveller

Global Volunteers, Vietnam

2040: Russia. St. Petersburg at 60.

St. Petersburg By Train

2045: Thailand. I'll learn (finally) how to make my own Thai food. I may never leave.

Thailand Culinary and Spa Retreat

2050: Israel. I'm pretty serious about this one. Can you see me at seventy in the middle of the Gaza strip?

2055: Greece.

Western Crete Photography Workshop

Global Volunteers, Greece

2060: Italy at 80. I'll wear all black, with a scarf around my head. I'll fit right in. (At least in Northern Italy I will...)

Tuscany Gourmet Ride

Global Volunteers, Italy

2065: My last planned trip. Ireland. Think of it as a pilgrimage.

Glencree Reonciliation Program

Side note: For the most part, I hated "Titanic." I thought it was stupid and overly-lauded because of its box office scores. But, I did love one part. At the very beginning of the movie, when they're in the Old Rose's apartment, they pan across all sorts of pictures. Rose flying an airplane, Rose on a camel's back... I want those pictures. I want to be that kind of old lady.

And I will be.

You Were Waiting for the Deep Thoughts and Musings, Weren't You?

2002-08-19T22:49:00.000-07:00

This summer, I had several really great (read: educating and long) conversations about the nature of art, the process of love, what we thought we'd never have to do as counselors, and things we've said entirely too much.

I realise that talking about camp is potentially boring for those who weren't there, and for those who were there, I could never do it justice. Thusly, I shan't (or at least will try not to) talk about camp too much. Tonight's topic should be the nature of love.

Being "of a certain age," we do a lot of thinking about love. Sometimes, we think about love in its specific forms. I know I've devoted a large portion of my web journal to the great "why doesn't he/why does he love me?" debate. (This seems really shallow when you look at it this way.) And there are as many opinions about love as there are people in the world, so one might say that talking about love is like dancing about architecture--it's pointless to analyse it to death. (That's from "Playing By Heart," by the way.)

The thing I figured out recently, though, is that there are as many ways of loving people as there are people as well. And as long as you do it honestly, with your whole being, throwing your soul into your actions, it's a beautiful thing. "Everyone needs to be loved/Everyone needs their own teen-age fan club." (SuperChicks)

Although it's odd, I can now say with some certainty that I will probably get married someday, or at least find my soul mate. Veronica (one of my Swedish friends) believes that a person doesn't just have one soul mate-- a person has three people who would be a perfect fit at different times in their lives. Thusly, the person you were in love with at sixteen isn't necessarily the person you were meant to be with at thirty-five, just as that person isn't necessarily the person you are meand to be with at seventy-five. If you're lucky, you find the person who can evolve alongside you. Sometimes, it's just a reassurance regarding "the one that got away"--he wasn't necessarily the right person for you in the future. And, if he is, I firmly believe he will be back in your life just when you need him.

We can go on forever being bitter about things we can't change--circumstances of our lives, our relationships or whathaveyou. Or, we can choose to see those difficulties for what they are--a change in life circumstance that has shaped the person we have become. This all works out rather well if you like the person you've become (or you think other people like the person you've become--although that's something you might want to reconsider [take it from someone who knows...]), but if you don't like the person you've become, you might have your work cut out for you.

It's amazing how I start talking about love and soul mates and then suddenly make it such a personal issue. I think love is always a personal issue, though. For a while, I was bitter that I didn't have the relationship experiences that other people my age have, because of life circumstances. Then I figured something out. While everyone else my age was trying to hold on to relationships and mold themselves into the person they thought their significant other wanted them to be, during those formative years, I was actually figuring out who I was. This may sound crazy, and a little new age-y, but figuring out who you are before you foist yourself onto another person with his or her own problems is not such a bad idea. Now, granted, I did have to figure some of the other things out as an adult, (about 4 years behind schedule) but I had adult coping mechanisms and social support behind me to help me--something I can honestly say I didn't really have at 16 and doubt that many people do.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that people should wait until their late teens to begin dating, or that I have all the answers. I'm just relating some of my personal experience in the "fix yourself before you try to fix anything (or anyone) else" department. And, if nothing else, these ramblings have just been my opinion. Of course, I could be wrong.

Corporeal punishment

2002-04-01T12:52:00.000-08:00

For some reason, I think I've had this rant before in my weblog. But here goes again: I don't believe in corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment or physical punishment on children (or anyone, for that matter) is something that makes me absolutely furious. All I have to say is this: There is no reason, EVER, for an adult to hit a child in any way, shape or form. Adults are bigger than children and can do more potential damage. Adults have more life experience and should be able to deal with problems in another way. Finally, hitting a child teaches him or her nothing, other than that if you're bigger than someone, you can hit them. This is in regards to any form of physical punishment--spankings, slapping, hitting, beating, whatever you want to call it. It is unacceptable.

Personally speaking, I don't think that child abuse is enough of a social problem. If children are still getting physically or emotionally abused or neglected, we haven't made it enough of a priority to stop it. By permitting "certain types" of physical abuse in child rearing practices, we are condoning child abuse. And it's not just nurses, teachers, social workers and doctors who are obligated to report suspected child abuse--it's everyone with (I can't remember what the legal term is) "appropriate knowledge." As a parent, you know what's normal for children. Children fall down, that's certain. (I still fall down frequently. It's something I'm working on...) But children don't have fingerprint-shaped bruises around their necks or hand-shaped bruises on their backs. And those kinds of bruises are enough to indicate abuse or another serious problem. You're required to report it--legally, in most states, but definitely morally in all. Period. Also, parental rights should never take priority over the physical and emotional safety of a child. My mum's friend Janie had a foster child placed with them a few years ago. The child was placed with them three times. Each time, he was returned to his family. Each time, about four months later, he was returned to Janie's family. And each time, he was further developmentally delayed because of the abuse and neglect he was receiving at the hands of the people who were supposed to love him and take care of him.

If (as a society) we really think children are as important as we say we do, you'd think that we'd put more of an emphasis on children's well-being and safety.

Parenting is hard. It's probably the hardest thing anyone can ever do. (Notice I said 'parenting.' Anyone can be a mother or father (by being genetic material donors), parenting is something different.) And because the job is difficult, you will often have to take routes in discipline that are time-consuming and maddening. The fact is this: It *is* easier to physically punish a child than to deprive the child of television rights, phone calls, et cetera. (By physical punishment, I'm not talking about things that people usually *define* as abuse. I'm talking about smacks on the bottom or smacking a child's hands.) Those other things take time and effort and, arguably, punish the parent just as much as the child, because they require vigilence. When you hit a child, all you teach him or her is that when you love someone, it's okay to hit them. And that big people can hit smaller people. You're depriving the child of his or her dignity, which can be the worse thing a parent can do to a child. (I'm not even going to get into verbally abusing a child, either outright or by witholding affection or anything like that. I'm against that, too, and have more than a little personal experience with it.)

And to all the people who say "I was spanked as a child and it hasn't affected me! I think spanking is a perfectly acceptable way of disciplining.", I have this response: Isn't the fact that you find ADULTS, who may outweigh children by more than 200 pounds, hitting CHILDREN, acceptable, a sign of lasting damage? Remember, adults have a *social obligation* to care for children because children cannot care for themselves. And hitting children teaches them that hitting is a good way to solve your problems.