Presenting "faith journey" aka existential crisis

Every Sunday from now until January, I'm meeting with a group of Catholic women for personal formation, community discipleship, and event planning.  We will facilitate a women's spiritual retreat after our last meeting.  The dozen of us went through the same retreat last month, facilitated by women who had met together all of last year.

Event planning is well-rehearsed.  Community discipleship is new to me in terms of spirituality, but otherwise not that different from my experiences in other goal-oriented groups.  Alverno College prepared me well for both of these.

The primary way that personal formation is achieved through these meetings is through a half hour presentation, followed by "affirmations" from the rest of the group.  Most of the retreat consisted of these presentations, edited and refined throughout last year's meetings, and then reflections on them both alone and in small groups.  The two leaders of my group, seasoned facilitators, will give their presentations again and then give some light guidance while we dozen prepare our own.
These presentations will focus on each individual's personal "faith journey," how each person got to where we are now.  Guidelines are loose, though based on the presentations at the retreat most of these women speak almost exclusively about their relationships with their parents, their husbands, and their children.

It's only been a day and a half since the first meeting and I've already turned this into a full-on existential crisis!  Go me!  I'm such an overachiever!  I signed up to be one of the first presenters partly so I won't have to think about it for more than a month, and partly + selfishly so I can give a little lesson about good public speaking skills right away (if one more person clicks her tongue after every sentence, I'm going to scream).  The more I think about my journey the more I delve into gender and feminist theory, liberation theology, and nihilism vs. existentialism.  This sums up my progress thusfar ("ppl" = people):

Here is this unusual opportunity to talk about myself openly before a group for a half hour, and... this is very cheesy... if I talk about theory, then who am I?  If my developing plan to speak about my journey consists mostly of concepts that exist outside of me, then what does that say about me?  The debate and contemplation of these ideas will continue after me, the same can't be said about relationships (I wonder how many people identify through their relationships out of a fear of mortality?).  But if I end up impacting these studies through academia, does that reflect on the quality/value of my life?  If I don't, does that imply failure?
It's not that people, places, and events aren't important to me, I just can't imagine filling up more than 15 minutes with talking about only them as a reference to my self.  But these concepts, I could - and do! - go on and on and on.

At the first meeting the other day, each person summarized their personal goal as an individual in the group for the year.  Mine was "be an agent of change."  That tends to be my goal/role in Catholic communities altogether, and it's what I hope to achieve through grad school (next year???).  The retreat highlighted how alone I feel as a whole human being in these communities and I don't expect that to change as long as I aim to facilitate change.  I'm just not certain what it says about me as a whole human being presenting oneself through theory.

Gendered Marketing in Religion

The rise in both gendered marketing and the outcry against it has largely been secular.  Soap, deodorant, shampoo, yogurt, shaving razors, pens, earplugs - these are just a handful of items that have been needlessly gendered solely to bump up sales.  Men's products are in dark packaging with hard lines and a sense of adventure, whether through sports or references to battle or problem-solving.  Women's products, which tend to be more expensive, are in pink or purple packaging with soft lines and a sense of delicacy.  While women have been purchasing more of the men's products largely because they are cheaper, men very rarely purchase the women's products partly because they're more expensive and partly because they're emasculating.

     Gendered marketing has spilled over into religious products, namely teen Bibles and rosaries.  Faith & Family Reviews posted a brief review of the "faiTHGirLz! Bible" and the "NIV Boys Bible" commending the gendered marketing.  The "faiTHGirLz!" Bible has a "dream girl" section.  Faith & Family Reviews compliments the boy's Bible's "manly" appeal to boys by having a cover resembling metal.  The girl's Bible has sections focusing on difficult emotions, the boy's Bible has sections focusing on strength.
     Other Bibles marketed to teen girls are also pink with flowers, birds, and repeatedly the phrase "faith, hope, and love" (1, 2, 3, 4).  These four, as well as the one reviewed by Faith & Family Reviews, all have profiles of women in the Bible - a topic that usually goes unnoticed outside of Eve and the Virgin Mary. Christianbook.com also offers dozens of similar Bibles for teen girls.
     The same Bibles marketed to teen boys bear darker covers and bold but simple graphics.  Their descriptions are more focused on action in "the real world" rather than on personal development (1, 2, 3, 4).  None of them mention women of the Bible - perhaps the creators of these gendered Bibles assume boys don't need to know about them?  Christianbook.com's Bibles for teen boys resemble footballs and soccer balls, bear army camouflage, and repeatedly declare "man up."
     These Bibles prioritize very differently for boys and girls.  Where's the adventure for girls?  Where's the emotional depth for boys?  Why apply such commercialism to Bibles, especially the sports references?  And how could anyone stand to read Galatians 3:28 in a gendered Bible?

And this gendered marketing in religion extends to Catholic rosaries as well.  Men's rosaries almost always have larger, matte beads - black, blue, brown, dark red - with thick dark wire.  Descriptors often include "strength," "durability," "heroic," and "powerful" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).  Catholic online shops offer dozens of men's rosaries that all look remarkably the same (1, 2, 3).
     Women's rosaries, on the other hand, come in a wide variety of colors and flourishes (1, 2).  Pearls and svaroski crystals are very common.  Men's single-decade rosary bracelets are shown on the wrists of models with no other part of the body visible (1), while women's rosaries are often pictured with cleavage, shoulders, necks, hair, and lips (1).  Descriptors are almost exclusively focused on the beauty of women's rosaries (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
    While there is certainly nothing wrong with having personalized rosaries, the gendered division goes against the very universality of both the rosary itself and of Catholicism.  Do men and women really pray the rosary so differently that they require such different styles with explicitly different priorities?

Gendered marketing extends beyond Christianity.  Jewelry and apparel for Pagan men and women is similarly divided.  Pagan women's jewelry tends to be smaller, more delicate, more graceful, and more colorful (1, 2) black velvet chokers are very common.  Pagan men's jewelry is thicker, darker, bolder (1, 2).  Additionally, Pagan apparel is very distinctively gendered.  Men's clothing tends to be baggier, covers more, and has large bold designs (1, 2) most of these are black, grey, or white t-shirts.  Pagan women's clothing has a much wider variety that involves more colors, shows more skin, and bears more delicate or "cute" designs (1, 2).  While all of these statements could be made about men and women's apparel/jewelry in general, gendered marketing seems contradictory and perhaps even hypocritical in a community that so often complains of "patriarchy" in Christian practices.

What does gendered marketing say about contemporary religion?  In terms of Matthew 22:21, is the commercialism of these gendered Bibles and rosaries Caesar's or God's?  What does it mean when Pagans critique the complementarianism of Christianity but then duplicate the same themselves?

Feminine Feminism

Some prominent foci of the current "4th Wave feminism*" are street harassment, intersectionality (though not often effective), and reclaiming femininity.  Crafts & domestic projects have become incredibly popular as both personal and feminist statements recently, primarily among privileged (read: predominantly white) feminists. This isn't that different from the DIY movement of the early 90's, save that we have the internet now and crafts today are typically much more feminine than then. I suggest that Pinterest is the primary subcultural point.

A few months ago, an argument passed around tumblr debating that the popularity of Pinterest among women evidenced a move back toward domestic femininity...but that it isn't a bad or regressive thing. Femininity has long been a widespread cultural scapegoat: a woman must be feminine in order to have value, though femininity is weak + devalued in patriarchy. Reclaiming crafts, domesticity, and general prettiness is a way young, privileged women are putting power into femininity. In the 1950's, femininity was often displayed in order to attract & keep a mate (see: The Feminine Mystique, The Erotic Silence of the American Housewife, Pink Think, etc.); that's unheard of now: today's feminine feminists do it for ourselves.

I'm waiting for more people to say that the empowering of domesticity is connected to the current feminist focus of street harassment. Catcalls & stalking often push women back into our homes just for the safety, and more dialogue among women is engendered therein. Domestic crafts are a way of reclaiming the very femininity street harassers prey upon, while also connecting to other women. Pinterest (and tumblr, etsy) has become the women's bookstore of the 2010's.

Of course there are problems within this feminist movement, largely relating to race (as always). Crafts require time and money and a safe place, and the websites of exchange display mostly white able-bodied people, white aesthetics, English at around a 6th grade reading level. WOC designers & businesses are often celebrated by tumblrs that focus on race, rarely by tumblrs that focus on gender/sex (and are therefore white tumblrs). Transphobia isn't unusual either, "I didn't mean it that way, therefore it's not transphobic." I'd like to say that intersectionality is improving now, but I am able-bodied & white and it's not my place to make such judgements.

Beginning about 7 years ago, much mainstream media noted that domestic femininity was becoming more common among [white, privileged, cisgender] women. Many such journalists speculated that feminism was ending, women were going home in order to become housewives, etc. They were partly correct, but they couldn't see femininity as something powerful willingly chosen by strong individuals.


* I'm beginning to realize that the use of Waves as categorizing islands of angry women, as opposed to a point of generational reference in a larger context, is a divisive tool used primarily by mainstream media.

Marylike Standards for: Modesty in Dress

I found a pamphlet today, at Church of Gesu in Milwaukee, entitled "The Marylike Standards for: Modesty in Dress."  Printed by The Fatima Center, fatima.org is their site.  Inside, The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI is quoted on women's clothing - words from 100 YEARS AGO!!  Then there's a checklist of 7 points regarding measurements and material of women's clothing.  Very precise.

There is the statement "Note: because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress."  Christian womanhood in terms of apparel?  Don't different Christian women find solace and support in different models for different reasons?  Allowing quarter-length sleeves sure is accommodating, but I'd be more concerned about protecting ALL women from sexual assault.  Which brings me to my next point -

"A girl who follows these...she will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others."  A person can't be an occasion of anything because a person is a person.  I don't know what The Fatima Center meant by "occasion of sin" but I do know that clothing is not responsible for sexual assault or rape, the rapist is.  And if anyone should be ashamed, it's the person who chooses to be embarrassed by another person's appearance.  The Fatima Center seems to have forgotten much of the Gospels, particularly Luke 7:36-50.  Church of Gesu had no similar pamphlets regarding men's garb or behavior, nor does Fatima.org mention any such modesty in dress for men.

And lastly, The Fatima Center holds no respect for women's decisions regarding their own bodies.  Slacks, jeans and shorts are banned - how is a woman supposed to run or jump or climb or bike?  Shouldn't this be an individual's decision?

gurl.com

In the late 90's, gurl.com was an internet haven.  Modeled after riot grrrl zines with strong emphasis on DIY and self-love, it was a gritty alternative to other teen girl sites.  Celebrities were rarely mentioned and diets were considered personal decisions based on medical advice.  Political awareness was prioritized over designer labels, but nothing was more important than supporting one another through self-care and exploration.  The discussion forums were remarkable with intelligent conversation.

Miserable in my unstable environment and barely grasping feminism, I adored gurl.com.  At 13 I'd been put on Prozac against my will and it only made things spiral even further; my research and discussion on gurl.com convinced me to fake-swallow the pill - the advisers and peers on there listened to me more than my mother and her shrink!!  On top of all that, talking to others in my position made me realize I wasn't so alone: other girls had depression, preferred music from the 60's, weren't allowed outside of their houses, had crushes on girls, admired goth kids just for dressing goth, experimented with religion, etc.  Although a few years went by before I got into riot grrrl music and feminist comics and zines, gurl.com at least provided me with the awareness that such things existed.

There were fantastic by-girls-for-girls comics.  They illustrated what other teen girl media either ignored or poorly parodied: school cliques, the destructive and addictive inner voice of self-doubt, being torn between passion over something nerdy and wanting popularity, eating disorders and anti-depressants.  One comic that I remember very vividly was about an outcast girl who glamorized her depression, convincing herself that she was really an outcast because of her cynicism rather than because of her shyness and extremely neglectful parents.  Until seeing that, I'd had no idea that's what I'd been doing.

gurl.com also released this book, which I adored but wasn't allowed to buy.  At least this is still available for teen girls today.

The site has changed a LOT.  About 12 years ago, it began to actively compete with other teen girl sites with the strategy of emulating them.  Having switched from desperate preteen to counseling young adult, I was very disappointed in the shift.  User contribution had less influence and, besides, I was socializing more in real life finally.  Today, gurl.com is closer to its original mission with realistic dating advice, comics, sex-positive and factual sex ed, and self-love.  However, celebrity gossip and trendy fashion still hold sway.  Nevertheless, gurl.com was very helpful for awkward girls in the late 90's and early 00's and I hope it can still do the same today.

Women Dumbing Down

I've been out of school for two and a half years now and my post-Alverno College, post-women's college, outlook keeps shifting. I see women behaving in the same ways, but with drastically different outcomes between the feminine cloister and the outside world.

At Alverno, there were plenty of students who dumbed themselves down. Normally, they feared insulting someone who might not be as intelligent, which is a twisted kind of empathy that I have yet to see in men. Yes, there have been plenty of women who have complained "so-and-so thinks she's so smart, blah blah blah she's so stuck up." That's even been said of me, when I thought that I was just doing a favor by providing information.
More understandably, these students just didn't want an extra workload!!

In the normal world, there are women who dumb themselves down because they think that they won't be liked otherwise. In private, they might be extraordinarily intelligent; publicly, they feign stupidity. A friend of mine does this and I found out, through one-on-one conversation, that she's very interested in feminist theory (ironic, huh?). Whenever we meet up in a group, I jump in before she has a chance to say something stupid, "hey tell me about the book you're reading!" With others, attempts to get to know them are blockaded by "teehee, look at this cute pic in my phone!"

I'll admit that I sometimes dilute my intelligence, though not to such a degree. Rather than blathering "theory theory theory blah blah blah," I'll see how the conversation goes while asking questions; then I'll point out "what you're saying is similar to blah blah blah theory." I do this because pouring out all I know isn't a conversation, it's a monologue and nobody will learn anything from that. It's more effective and more enjoyable to back off for a little while.

Feminine Domesticity

Wanderlust, the antithesis of domesticity, is a masculine characteristic. And, likewise, domesticity is feminine. I have a very high wanderlust and, frankly, I don't want this to be a gendered quality. For a few years, I've been exploring masculinity and experimenting with masculine traits. The implication, though, that feminine women stay at home precisely because of their femininity concerns me. I don't mean housewifery specifically, also settling down sooner/younger than men and not exploring beforehand.

Many feminine women, particularly from college, say that they admire my "bravery" in traveling disconnected from domestic obligations. That's great, though it isn't exactly "bravery" to follow your dreams and it would be more of a compliment for these women to live their own lives. These women also fear for me. What does this accomplish?!

Perhaps feminine women are more domestic because home is a safehaven from misogyny. Which isn't to say that misogyny doesn't happen in the home, but the facade of control can be held up there more than out in the world. And for all their masculinity, butch lesbians get very domestic and eager to settle down. They tend to get twice the bullshit: misogyny + homophobia. With the understanding that home is a safehaven from these social forces, butches would be even more driven to build and maintain one. This certainly helps explain why lesbians jump into relationships so quickly: to feel safe together from shared bullshit.

And I may be exempt from gender-related domesticity because home wasn't a safehaven for me. The road is my safehaven.

Fulfilling Stereotypes

Having attended an all-women college, living in the dorms the entire time, I realize that those were five years spent away from normal men. Aside from standard social divisions such as race, age, sexuality, etc., the main split between us students was between nursing majors and everybody else. By no means were all nursing majors vapid, shallow and dependent - just like not all non-nursing majors were deep, analytical and independent. When someone who didn't major in nursing was referred to as a "nursing major," the reference of her mind was understood.
And, aside from a few faculty members, security guards, and boyfriends of friends, men were not a social group in my mind. Because I only knew them as individuals, I thought of them as individuals rather than as representatives of a gender.

So when I graduated and came back to reality, I was extremely hesitant in thinking along the lines of "men this" and "men that." When I'd read/hear women complain that men take up too much space, I didn't want to believe it. The main division, in my mind, was still between nursing majors and everybody else, devoid of gender...alright not entirely. It's saddening to see a woman fulfill the "nursing major" stereotype because she can't imagine her own independence and value.

And now, after two years of almost daily public transportation, it's much more difficult to question women who claim that men take up too much space. About two-thirds of the people who cram me against the bus/train wall, rub up against me unnecessarily or push me into the aisle are men - all of the people who intentionally do these things are men (how do I know it's intentional? They look right at me while doing it and the women apologize).
This is probably not a natural, biologically-based behavior - at least not any more than the vapidity of many women is based in biology. Granted, I don't know the backgrounds of most of the people who act along these stereotypes, but I'd like to believe that these behaviors are nurtured socially.

In essence, a lot of people make it rather difficult to not categorize them along stereotypes.

PMS Rant

Recently, I encountered two women in a professional relationship. One was a client of the other for legal purposes. The client, who was in this situation because of a car crash, didn't know what an axle was - she was at least my age and knew English, she just didn't understand how her own car worked and couldn't name various parts of it.
The other lady and I had a conversation aside from her client. We were discussing a medical professional and I mentioned how, since I've taken many anatomy-based figure drawing classes, it's refreshing to hear a doctor who speaks in terms I know. She said there are plenty of people who know what a trapezius is, I shouldn't make such a big deal of sharing that knowledge with the doctor. I replied "there are some people who don't know what an axle is."
She chuckled "many girls don't know about cars."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!

What really pisses me off is that she's right.
So many people, specifically men who're just minding their own business, will meet woman after woman after woman who knows nothing and needs her hand held...and then they expect the same of me. I can't blame them!

This isn't a problem of the sexes or the genders or the sexualities, it's what comes of heterosexism. Shulamith Firestone theorized that a man, with his male privilege, will pick a woman to elevate to his status. While there are probably very few men who have that specific thought process, her theory is evident in our culture. And Olive Schreiner noted "The less a woman has in her head the lighter she is for carrying.” Many straight women who rely on being elevated through a diamond ring will lighten the weights of their minds. This is how it works, up until a queer freak comes along and gunks up the clockwork.

GGGGGYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH PMS!!!!!

Masculine to Masculine

When people see me with a bioguy lover, the few who say something will say one of two things:

1) that I've turned straight

2) we might be two gay guys

The main difference between those groups is that 1 sees sex and 2 sees gender expression. Group 1 perceives "opposite sexes" (and don't know that phrase makes no sense) and expects certain behaviors - like I secretly loathe my lover and just want him to buy me things. They also, usually, can't resolve my queerness with my "heterosexuality;" apparently I must choose one or the other.

What Group 1 can't see but Group 2 can is that the people to whom I'm attracted are usually masculine and that I'm rather masculine. In addition to just basic attraction, I relate more to masculine people. One thing that I've noticed recently is that most of the guys I get along with best have only brothers. Guys with sisters tend to be more protective of me rather than challenging, and I hate being protected.
Anyway, Group 2 is a bit closer to reality. They see gender expression, which is a facet of an individual. Biological sex has no inherent meaning or value, therefore judging a relationship on it ignores the true value of the people involved.

There are some queer people who are in Group 1, which is very disappointing. The queer community has been fighting for decades to be accepted for/despite "same sex" relationships. And now that I have "opposite sex" lovers, some queer people are giving me the same shit they've been given. It's frustrating! And a few can't/won't see that we're in the same predicament!

What those poor misguided queers and Group 1 see are "opposite sexes" and privilege. Yes, there are L.U.G.s (Lesbian Until Graduation) who give up their queerdom to live a "normal" life of straight privilege. That is not me! The people of Group 1 who assume my hatred of my lovers expect me to be like all the breeder women who'd rather be in a miserable relationship than contentedly single. And they do so because they get privileges by being in relationships with breeder men.
And I don't even want a relationship!

A New Trend

Firstly: http://thoughtsonblank.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/i-am-trans-i-just-dont-try-very-hard/

And then my real post:

Either I've struck gold or there's a new trend - I'm choosing to believe it's a new trend - since masculine/androgynous chicks are a hot commodity.

When I was in middle school, high school and college (an all-women college!!), there were many many girls who felt like they had to choose between male attention and their own "masculine" interests. "I love math, but I want to get a boyfriend," or "I always wanted to learn woodworking, but I got married." AAAAHHH SO STUPID!!! And now, particularly when I'm at work, those kinds of women can't have simple conversations with their boyfriends/fiances/husbands.

Clearly, I didn't give up my interests in order to snag a man, even before I came out of the closet. And that makes me really attractive to a lot of straight men now, which I NEVER expected. Knowing sci-fi, carrying a pocketknife, and having welding experience are not only things I enjoy but they also are apparently pretty sexy. This means that, at least at work, I converse with straight guys while their women get very jealous of me. But because they abandoned their interests in order to get a man, all they can contribute is "look, honey, Bristol Palin is on the cover of People magazine!"

At first I thought that I'm just really lucky, but then I talked with a flaming friend who said that most straight guys, regardless of social group, are into "bi girls" now. Whether it's Jersey Shore types into girls making out with each other or nerds into masculine/androgynous women, we're where it's at now!

My point is...
fuck it
READ A BOOK, PEOPLE!!!! ....NOT ROMANCE!!

SlutWalk Chicago, My Sex Positivity

http://www.slutwalkchicago.org/blog.html is calling for submissions regarding one's sex positivity. Here is my submission:

1. First and Last Name, Age, Neighborhood (or suburb) of Chicago in which you live
K. Kriesel, 25, Edgewater

2. How do you promote sex positivity in Chicago?
My first priority, regarding sex positivity, is to heal from my own sexual assault. This involves decreasing the intensity and frequency of my triggers, separating completely from the person who raped me, maintaining control over my 50% of any relationship, and, maybe most importantly, integrating this experience into my identity. Through the Chicago chapter of the Adult Survivors of Childhood Abuse (http://www.ascasupport.org/_events/event1.php?eventID=51), of which I am a co-secretary, I am reaching those goals.
I am also promoting sex positivity by having enthusiastically consensual sex! When one of my lovers described sex as communication, I took that concept and ran with it. Flowing from discussion, to sex, to artistic expression, to reflection, and again, I keep a sexual dialogue (trialogue?) going. Sometimes a simple, frank conversation can open doors. Also, as a genderqueer person perceived as a bicurious lesbian with biomale lovers, I break boundaries and answer questions - usually with more questions.
Also, I have a blog: http://kkriesel.blogspot.com/
I have an online gallery of my artwork: http://sites.google.com/site/kkrieselart/home
And I write articles for thenewgay.net

3. What sort of changes would you like to see in Chicago in regards to sex positivity?
The person who sexually assaulted me did so because she was not sexually aware. She thought that, because we're both females, whatever she did to me could not be sexual. She was also extremely sexually repressed and acted out her lack of self-connection through controlling me.
By taking control of my own sexuality as well as by facilitating discussion and educating others, I am promoting sex positivity as a prevention technique. Sexual taboos and rape culture are two sides of the same coin. Through sex positivity, personal issues of sex-as-control can be resolved through discussion, expression and consensual activities.
Also, gender and sex policing occurs here too often. The concepts of "you are your biology" and "pick a side" (regarding both gender and sexuality) are still rampant and don't help anyone. The lesbian and gay movement has been fighting for so long to be valued as individuals rather than through the sexes involved in relationships - but the social bind between anatomy and destiny is still there. In some circles, there is no room for fluidity. I want to see this policing end, to see individuality and fluidity welcomed and celebrated.
Simply, to break the social taboos over talking about sex, power play, sexual assault, gender and sexuality.

4. Why do you support SlutWalk Chicago?
Firstly, for its initial cause. Rape is rape because it is nonconsensual. A person's garb is not consent. There is no connection between clothing and consent. This ties in to other issues regarding sexual assault: all sexual assault is violent, certain bodies are there for others' taking, etc.
Secondly, to demonstrate my control over my own sexuality. My body is mine, I define it and I choose what to do with it. Should I choose to march in "slutty" clothing, I would be allowing others to see my body, not giving. I would control my 50% of the situation.
Thirdly, in what other way could I walk down the street in lingerie and feel safe?

Cinderella Ate My Daughter

The next time you spy a Disney Princess product, check to see if the princesses are making eye contact with each other. They're not! Roy Disney was opposed to bringing together princesses from different movies, so this was a creepy compromise.
I'm not arguing that trivial details like this are manipulating the children of America, but it gives you a good idea of how the higher-ups of child-focused companies function (or not). This is just one anecdote of oddity included in Peggy Orenstein's Cinderella Ate My Daughter, through which she navigates her new parenthood.

It's no conspiracy that the boys' and girls' sections of toy stores are so neatly divided, but it's no accident either. Orenstein did an unbelievable amount of research and found that the decision-makers of toy companies honestly believe that they're just giving kids what they want: pink, feminine, consumer/domestic items for girls and violent, mechanical items for boys. They also are after making the biggest sale, but that's to be expected of anyone. And parents are often dismayed at what their children are offered in the gender-segregated aisles, but see no other option. It's partly the companies themselves and it's partly the parents that divide children along masculine and feminine, but Orenstein's research into children - especially little boys who want to wear mommy's makeup and little tomboys - is the most revealing. I'll leave you to actually read the book to find that out.

As in her previous books, Schoolgirls and Flux, Orenstein articulates how gender divisions in our society impact real people in Cinderella Ate My Daughter. She makes connections through hard-hitting research that seem so obvious upon her articulation. I highly recommend reading any and all of her books!

My only complaint, though, is her description of Sesame Street and the Muppets - and I admit that this is only a personal bias. She investigated the very few regular women characters (Ms. Piggy, Janis, Zoe, Abby, ...?) and the Henson company explained that feminine characters just don't market as well as "masculine" ones. Honestly, I always thought that most of the characters were androgynous. Even as a kid, I thought that Big Bird, Elmo, and most of the monsters were genderless (same for the Toaster and Blanket from Disney's The Brave Little Toaster). Then again, that probably explains a lot about my genderqueer identity...

Queer Qualifiers

When I hung out with the Madison Socialists, a newbie at one of the group meetings asked what qualifies someone as queer. As the most visibly queer person in the group*, I answered that someone who doesn't get straight privilege would be considered queer. Then we all had a big discussion on how privilege doesn't actually benefit anyone.

I'm dating a straight bio-guy and a lot of people expect my identity to change, that I identify as bisexual rather than lesbian now. With people who are easily confused or won't invest much thought into gender/sexuality, I let them think what they will. My gender identity had started shifting years ago and, because of that, "woman-identified-woman" hasn't really applied to me for a while. Lesbian is too small a box for all my fabulous queerdom. And don't even get me started on the binary "bisexual" label. The genders of the people I date impact me so little that it surprised me when that was the first place people went upon this news.

Just look at me! I'm not gonna get straight privilege anytime soon. Heterosexism both disrespects gay relationships and elevates straight relationships for no reason; as a confusing genderqueer, the genders/sexes of the people I date are used as judgement. When I pass for a guy or an "it", it implies the guy I'm dating is gay; when I pass for a woman, it implies that I'm straight. Either he gets a taste of homophobia or my queer identity gets smothered by straight privilege. It's a lose-lose situation.

Last week, I went on a date with an androgynous, straight bio-guy and this table of jerky businessmen was leering and laughing at us. I don't know if they thought we were both lesbians or fags or if their behavior would've changed had they known our "opposite sexes" (so many things wrong with that system!). Aaaww my kitty just curled up in my lap! My point is that being gender-variant, especially with complete strangers who know only how you look, is more likely to stir up shit. And rather than trying to figure out who you are, they're more likely to fit you into the "gay", "straight" or MAYBE "bi" box. WHO CARES?!?



* by no means is this a value system or qualifier, it's just how it was. I was far more likely to get odd looks (at the least) in the street than everyone else in the group, who looked normal. Well...normal for Madison.

The Closing Scope of Masculinity

Imagine a man with a sleek mustache, a boater with a ribbon, a pink ascot, and a cream, well-tailored, three piece suit. A hipster seeking a classy sugar daddy, right? Nope! Up until WWII, our dapper friend here was the height of masculinity! You may not believe it but, in the early 1900's, pink was a very masculine color.

Unless you were alive at the time (I tip my boater to you if you were), check up some gif.s and YouTube videos of The Beatles early in their career. Watch A Hard Day's Night. Pretty gay, right? Nope! That was masculine fifty years ago. Granted, this is Europe we're dealing with but I think we can let that slide.

Masculinity has gone through drastic changes in a relatively short amount of time, these examples are only an obvious few. Pat Boone, Mike Douglas, Bill Shirley and other suave singers in the 50's had no cause to doubt their manhood; but a man who sings about dreams and his heart flying with joy today just sounds fruity. Not only have the social standards for masculinity changed, but the scope of it has changed over time as well.

Mark Hamil has noted that, in thirty years' time, his action figures have gained at least fifty pounds in muscle. As the Y chromosome shrinks, so shrinks standards for masculinity. It's become a competition of manhood, with more and more men's archetypes falling into girly territory. When an individual man asserts his machismo to the point of emasculating others, it's pretty obvious that he's insecure in his own manhood. On such a cultural scale, though, could insecurity alone have brought about the closing gates of masculinity?

Gender Policing at its Finest

I work in a bookstore at a big, busy international airport and, thus, encounter many bizarre people. Bizarrely normal. The past two days, two irksome incidents occurred and they are more similar than may appear at the surface.

The other day, a straight, white, middle-aged, upper-middle-class man came in to the bookstore. He browsed around, then bought something by John Grisham or Vince Flynn or someone else along those lines. While I was ringing up the book, he rambled about the author; I was politely maintaining my end of the conversation "ok...yeah...uh-huh" He told me with an awed grin "you're very agreeable. That's rare in a woman." ...I'm sorry, what? I clamped my mouth shut as he left, not wanting to spew out what was on my mind. Like, maybe he's the disagreeable one!

Yesterday, a couple of the same mold as that guy fought in the bookstore. They made up by talking about their money. Yes. Then they checked out the magazines stacked next to me. Cher is on the cover of Vanity Fair, the text beside her saying "Cher on her daughter-turned-son, Chaz." The couple talked about how Chastity was turning into a man, had a sex change, etc. Not the most p.c., but not that bad. Then, they began referring to Chaz as "it." As politely as I could muster, I interrupted "excuse me, he is not an it." The husband acted like I wasn't there and the wife said "sorrysorrysorrysorrysorry" until I stopped talking. I look very androgynous myself, so they walked away muttering about me.

Had just one of these encounters occurred, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But the two in a 24-hour period are symptomatic. These three people of the same age and class, probably unknown to themselves, work as gender police. They probably had no idea that the messages they were conveying were that women should be agreeable and that transpeople are "it"s. They probably have never thought about it. Under different circumstances - the couple shut down immediately, especially - a simple discussion could have planted a seed.

I'm too busy being FABULOUS!!

What's that? You disagree with my "lifestyle choice"? Oh and you voted for candidates who want to restrict gay and transgender rights? ...No, I won't respect your opinion!

See, queerdom doesn't actually hurt anyone. It doesn't cause harm, it doesn't restrict anyone's freedoms, and it makes the world a more fabulous place. The root of my "same-sex attraction" (which is all sorts of wrong) is none of your business, but I wouldn't change it if I had the opportunity.

Your "opinion" disrespects people who have done no ill. Oh, yeah, it's so great that you haven't ACTUALLY bullied anyone...you enable it. Anti-bullying legislation, employment and housing laws don't block your freedom to your opinion, they protect people from the destruction you allow. When you vote for candidates who want to remove that protections, you bring about more pain than anyone has just by being queer.

No, this isn't political and this isn't religious. This is cruelty.

The Impact of Background

There is apparently a popular Irish joke of this guy coming to a roadblock during The Troubles. The militants at the roadblock as him his religion and he says "atheist." The militants talk amongst themselves, then ask him "Protestant atheist or Catholic atheist?" It may be a sad joke but it sums up how important one's background is. A Protestant atheist (an atheist of a Protestant background) would have different values, at least when it comes to disbelieving, than a Catholic atheist. And a Hindu atheist would be radically different! Where you come from, no matter how far away you are from it, affects how you approach things now.

The impact of background affects more than just religion, it works with fluid gender and sexual orientation. I strongly identify as genderqueer and my background of woman/lesbian affects my approach today, so I'm most accurately a female-to-queer. Had I come from the background of a man, I'd approach things differently. Coming from an intersexed or gender-free background would have been...optimal. Anyway, I'm usually most comfortable with feminine pronouns, the women's washroom, etc. because I'm used to it. Sometimes I'm frustrated that there are too few non-binary options; it's frustrating enough being perceived as a woman in the first place since this isn't exactly an egalitarian culture! A lot of transsexuals who "successfully pass" experience culture shock as they have to change how they approach things.

I'm usually comfortable functioning as a lesbian since that's my background and it's a lot easier to give the short answer "I'm a dyke" to n00bs than the long explanation "I'm genderqueer and I'm primarily attracted to fellow genderqueers...oh, you haven't heard the term before...etc." And then they get confused when I ogle Chris Colfer...I mean...what?

All -isms are Bullying

In the second edition of her book, CUNT, Inga Muscio admits “I am most often aware that I am a woman when I feel threatened...” In the same vein, Simone de Beauvoir quipped that one is not born but, rather, becomes a woman. What unites roughly half the population is not genitals, chromosomes nor hormones and what turns a child into a woman is not menstruation, penetration nor childbirth. No, it's the shared experience of playing second banana, as it were.

Whether you're overlooked because you're a woman or you're picked because you're a pretty woman, the problem remains the same. And this problem has been rampant the world over for millennia; it unites generations of women more strongly than any reproductive function. In this harsh world of competitive and weak human beings, man* needs to make somebody #2 in order to keep himself #1. Who better than not-man? And there are many women who push someone else, a masculine woman or a feminine man or someone else entirely (or even a prettier, more feminine woman!), into #3. This is what puts the “sexism” into “heterosexism”: insecure people pushing down queer people just to ensure that they're the ones rising up. It's bullying, all the -isms are just bullying on a larger scale!

There are women who claim to never have experienced sexism. They're either extremely privileged and cloistered or blind to, well, everything. It begins when parents proclaim upon birth “that's not a penis, bring out the dolls and pink frilly dresses!” for one and “that's a penis, give him a toolbox and blue overalls!” It is a privilege, usually tied to class, to have been brought up and then to continue in adulthood otherwise: not as a #1, a #2 or as any rank at all.



* I don't mean all or even most men, nor even just men in general. Clearly, Phyllis Schlafly has done more to perpetuate heterosexism than RuPaul.

The Second Sex Part 1

I tried to read The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir a few years ago but couldn't make it past the first 20-some pages. Crazy stuff was going down with my dad at the time and everything that I was reading seemed to refute his arguments (why didn't I just send him a copy? Because I didn't want to participate in the destructive conversation he attempted to initiate). Now that I'm in a much better place, I'm picking up The Second Sex again and can fully concentrate on it.

In the book, British poet and novelist Steve Smith is quoted as saying of de Beauvoir “She has written an enormous book about women and it was soon clear that she does not like them, nor does she like being a woman.” Granted, I haven't made it far enough in the book to have an opinion on that but it strikes me as odd that this is considered critique. In A Room of One's Own by Virginia Woolf and The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath, the authors clearly don't like most women. Had I been a straight nursing major rather than a queer art major, I would have loathed women too! Some women aren't aware of their option to live autonomously or they're afraid to take that risk. If anything, de Beauvoir's alleged opinion on women would have supported her cause: why would you want to help people who you think are doing just fine? And sometimes, more often than not if you don't have a good network or haven, it really sucks being a woman.

De Beauvoir states “In truth, to go for a walk with one's eyes open is enough to demonstrate that humanity is divided into two classes of individuals whose clothes, faces, bodies, smiles, gaits, interests, and occupations are manifestly different.” And when the second class uses these signifiers to entice the first class, you get heterosexism. When a member of the first class chooses a member of the second class to be his, he transfers some benefits of his class unto her. And there is intense competition within the second class (see next paragraph). Walking in certain areas will reveal a third class of individuals who combine and/or reject those binary signifiers and are just fine with autonomy.

From there is the idea that most minorities (and majorities...) refer to their class as “we” but that women don't consider themselves as such. Women say “women” rather than “we” except for a few strident feminist situations. I believe that the root of our lack of solidarity is this competition. I've been there, I feared what would happen should my future husband get stolen from me; it's very scary to think that you could lose both a loved one and your elevator out of spinsterhood if a woman better than you comes along. And second-classhood is so ingrained that many women, as stated above, aren't aware of or fear the autonomy of spinsterhood (or a marriage that involves autonomy).

In some circles, women are uncomfortable with my use of “we” in reference to womanhood*. Because I've rejected heterosexism, I'm the Other's Other. It's fully understandable why queer people – including straight couples with “reversed sex roles” - are considered a third gender. If both ends of the gender binary comprise the two classes, then those who don't fit on the binary form a third class. Socially, we queer people don't fit in to their game. We can't relate to the woman who drops out of school to marry young, before she's old enough to lose her man to someone younger, and has kids to entrap him. We can't relate to the woman who picks Danielle Steele over Stephen Hawking because she fears intimidating her man, whose credit card she uses to buy the book in the first place.

What's really sad is how little has changed since 1952 when this was originally published. More posts to come as I progress through the book!


* - my gender is fluid, there are times that I identify as a woman and times that I don't. I am usually perceived as a woman by men and as something else by women, who often end up surprised how much I can relate to them as far as womanhood goes.