If you’ve been following my The Gender Politics of Smoking in South Korea series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Newsflash, Part 4, Korea’s Hidden Smokers), you’ll know that there’s a huge stigma against women smoking here. This leads to chronic under-reporting by female smokers, which in turn leads to the government and media regularly giving female smoking rates as low as 2-4%. In reality though, best estimates put the rate amongst young women at roughly 20%, pointing to a looming health crisis.

Even if the coming presidential election brings more enlightened officials to the Ministry of Health and Welfare (보건복지부) however, which has previously overwhelmingly focused on — and been accused of exaggerating — reductions in the male smoking rate, there’ll still remain the problem of finding out how many young Korean women actually smoke.

Or will there? With my thanks, let me pass on a reader’s partial solution:

My coworker, the assistant haksaengbu (학생부) at my high school, made a list of students caught smoking. This is at a small-town girls high school, with 330 students age 15-18 in western years. So far this year (since 2 March) 14% of the students have been caught smoking, with 9.5% of the academic (moongwha; 문과) students caught and 25% of the vocational (sanggwha; 상과) students caught.

I would think that 14% would be the absolute minimum possible average in Korea, considering that we’re in a fairly conservative area and teachers can still punish students (though it’s pretty inconsistent and haphazard). Considering that those are only the ones who’ve been caught and there’s almost nothing in the way of lunchtime and after-school supervision, I’d guess that the amount who smoke on a daily basis is 50% higher and the ones who’ve tried it on occasion is double that.

In any event, if you wanted some incontrovertible statistics about teenage girls smoking in rural Korea based on a sample size in the hundreds there you go!

Later, they added:

If you’d like the breakdown it was 21 out of 226 moonghwa students and 26 out of 106 sangwha students. I believe a couple of the sangwha students have dropped out/gone awol/transferred.

What do you think? How does this compare to readers’ own schools?

Pic courtesy of: pynkmag.com

Only about 3% of the 4,000 animal species are monogamous. Of that 3%, not including humans, only one species mates for life. The male anglerfish finds a mate and fuses itself to the female anglerfish.  Their bodies begin to grow together and share food.  Ultimately, the male anglerfish becomes a sperm-producing organ, completely dependent on the female for survival. The male fish ultimately becomes nothing more than a means for the female fish to reproduce. 

Pic courtesy of: sastha-knowyourledge.blogspot.com

So, is it possible?  Is it possible to be with one person for life? 

I think each situation is unique.  When did the relationship begin?  How much whoring has the couple done outside of each other before marriage or long-term commitment?  Regardless of gender, I think that some people are just wired to be serial monogamists.  Most of these people are women, but there are some men that find that special one and then hold on.

Pic Courtesy of: www.dressedtothe9to5.com

What did couples do fifty years ago to remain together?  Drink excessively?  Seriously, the divorce rate has seen a steady increase over the last fifty years.  Moreover, in the early 1900’s a marriage could only be ended if there was proof of adultery or cruelty.  These days many marriages don’t make it past the first year.

Five potential reasons marriages USED to last forever:

1. Grow together - How many older women have you heard say they “learned” to love their husband? People grow and change constantly.  It is imperative to remain on the same page as your mate.  Share activities and hobbies in common, while maintaining some separation. Too much of anything is bad; I don’t care if it’s chocolate cake or a good man.  Give each other time to miss one another.  Absence does make the heart grow fonder.
   

   Couples grew together once upon a time.

2. Let a man be a man- People who don’t know me well would be surprised to learn that I am very old-fashioned.  I do believe in “men’s” work and “women’s” work.  That doesn’t mean that a man can’t cook a meal every now and then or a woman can’t put air in her own tire, but household framework makes the house strong.  So, I don’t have a problem with handling the cooking, cleaning, or anything else domestic.  But, trust and believe, my man better protect our house from harm, kill all bugs, take out the trash, and lift heavy things.  On a serious note, define chores and duties in the household to create harmony and a sense of accountability. 
   

   Pic courtesy of: http://madamenoire.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/slide-143.jpg

3. Communicate - Communication is important. Talk on a regular basis. I don’t mean dishing dirt on friends and family or complaining about work. Take the time out to share your goals and dreams with your partner, and take the time to actually listen to each other.
   

   Pic courtesy of: www.heartandsoul.com

4. Never stop dating - So many relationships get stale because you get comfortable.  My grandfather called my grandmother “Love” until the day he died, and he said it with a love in his eyes that you don’t see every day. Take time to make your partner feel special and wanted.  If you don’t someone else may do it for you. When you first started dating, a random rendezvous could happen on a Tuesday evening. Keep the spontaneity of dating an element in your relationship.
   

   Pic Courtesy of: www.twogethermarriages.blogspot.com

5. Be patient - When all else fails, the key to a successful relationship is to be as passive aggressive as possible. Just kidding. Seriously, even when your mate has habits that drive you insane, let it go. Everything is not worth fighting over. An old boyfriend once told me that I was perfect. I know that I am not perfect in the classic sense of the word, but he meant I was perfect for him despite my flaws. Make your mate truly believe that they are perfect for you.
   

   Pic Courtesy of www.madamenoire.com

 In the end, society might be past the notion of marriage forever  “Until death do us part.”. People have been reciting those vows for years, but they have become empty words.  Marry someone with honest eyes, someone you can talk to for hours, and someone who can make you laugh. When the passion fades, you will need something to get through the years. So, why do you think the anglerfish make it work?  Is it because of the short life span of the male? Or maybe people are only meant to be monogamous for short periods of time?  I think we just need to take a page from our grandparent’s generation.  Marry for a love that will grow with the years.

~Pretty Sexy by Janine

Pretty Sexy Janine is owner of Toy Closet NYC. Janine has an amazing online store and blog. Be sure to check her out!

He:

Women in leadership really just want to be men.

She:

Unless you’re talking about transpeople, that’s not true.  We want to do the same jobs, but we don’t want to be men.

He:

Yes, you do.

The thing is, I have no idea what that means, “you want to be men.”  It sounds vaguely Freudian.  We all just wish we had the Fabulous Power of the Penis.  There seems to be this idea that there is something magical about testosterone that makes men capable of certain things, and women just can’t do them.  Well, I have two things to say about that.  One, there is nothing (aside from producing sperm) that a man can do that a woman can’t, and there’s nothing a woman can do (aside from growing and breastfeeding a baby) that a man can’t do.  Not that we’re interchangeable, just that in terms of capability, we can absolutely do all the same things.  (And research bears this out, there is almost nothing different between the brains of men and the brains of women, among other non-differences.)

Two, I do not now, nor have I ever, wanted to be a man.

I don’t want to shave every day.  I don’t want to have to wear a tie to work.  I definitely don’t want any dangly bits between my legs, that sounds . . . awkward and uncomfortable.  I absolutely think men’s bodies are beautiful (my husband’s in particular), but I don’t want to be in possession of one.

I like being a woman.

I like the things my body can do.  I didn’t enjoy pregnancy, but I sure did like the fact that my body could grow a kid.  I like having breasts.  I like having a husband who enjoys them, and I like that they were extremely useful for feeding a kid in the dead of night without getting up.  Sure, there are things about being a woman I could do without.  But overall, I wouldn’t want to be any other way.

What I do want is to be valued as a human being.  I do want it acknowledged that womanhood does not make me less as a person.  I also want women everywhere to be able to have the jobs they want, the sexuality they want, and the families they want.  I want women to know they don’t need a man to do the rescuing, that they are capable of fighting the dragon alone, with their friends, or as equal partners with their spouses.  I want girls to be encouraged to study math, science, and technology.  I want girls to grow up knowing they can be brain surgeons or CEOs or construction workers or world-class orchestral conductors.  I want women acknowledged in the church as “God’s fellow workers,” and that their hormones and vaginas don’t disqualify them from pastoral leadership.

And guess what?  I want them to be able to do all this as women.  Not as men in disguise, or wannabe men, or people men think wish they were men.  I want women to do all those things not in spite of being women, but because women are just as qualified.  I don’t want women esteemed above men, I want men and women to be treated equally with respect.

You know what else I want?  I want men to stop believing that those women who are ambitious and driven “want to be men.”  Ambition and drive are not male-exclusive traits.  Do you men who say those things have any idea—any at all—how demeaning that is?  It’s not good for women, because it implies that men are superior.  It’s not good for men, because not all men have the leadership qualities and personality traits you associate with masculinity.  And it’s certainly not good for transpeople, who are already marginalized and misunderstood.  So stop it.  Stop saying it.  Stop posting it on web sites.  Stop believing it.

Women, if this is you, and you’ve been victimized by this kind of language, then let’s make our voices heard.  We can’t just sit idly by and allow anyone to think that we just “want to be men.”  Men, if you consider this shameful behavior on the part of your fellow men, then say something!  Misogynous men need to know they don’t speak for you.  If they go on thinking that they are representing all men, they will never  be silenced.

Not only do I not want to be a man, I don’t want to lose my voice as a woman.

MAN
Dictionary defined as an adult male person. Culturally defined as… 

1. Someone who is obsessed with women making them sandwiches.
So all Subway and Quiznos customers are men?

2. A person with two heads.
Get it?! This person is clever. But if choosing to be literal, this person is technically talking about a polycephaly.

3. A generic term for any administration, institution, law enforcement agency, rule giving organization; any restrictive body that would limit or constrain in any way an individuals liberties.
This would be Man capitalized. But women can choose to stick it to the Man or a man.

4. A derogatory term for someone who is being unfair, stupid, idiotic, asshole-like, monstrous etc.
More specifically this definition refers to a man among mere mortals – Charlie Sheen.

5. A twisted creature that hates women but still wants to fuck them.
This definition also applies to grizzly bears.

6. Baby-maker and/or sex toy.
Uh, isn’t that a woman? (Don’t slap me).

7. A CREDIT STEALER,VEIN,SELFISH,SCUMBAG,HATER,BITTER,EVIL,CONNIVING,LIAR,REVENGEFUL,DEFENSIVE,BIG,EATER,FRIDGE INHALER,EATS EVERYTHING,COMPLAINS ABOUT YOUR FIGURE,COMPLAINS ABOUT YOUR BOTOX,EVIL,BASTARD,DIES BEFORE YOU BUT YOU HAVE TO WAIT 40 YEARS..AND ON A MAN BUDGET WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE.
This is EXACTLY how it was posted. And I thought I was bitter? I’m hoping she (safe to assume so) unpressed ther CAPS LOCK key and found a punching bag or therapy (retail or otherwise) shortly after posting.

8. The useless lump of flesh surrounding the penis.
Definition also applies to the packaging around a dildo.

9. Sentient creature only good for two things: money and amusement.
I ain’t sayin’ she’s a golddigger, but…

10. A man is someone who frequently doesn’t phone or send an email when they say they will. This definition excludes: good husbands, brothers and fathers.
This would make nearly all customer service workers men.

WOMAN
Dictionary defined as he female human being or an adult female person. Culturally defined as…

1. The most beautiful of the sexes. The sex that is able to bear life. More emotional than men. They are normally physically weaker than men.
Let me kick your ass and prove Point D is wrong. But you are on point with Point A.

2. 1) What i live my life for 2) Should be placed on a pedestal 3) The gender of the human race that will not love any of these perverts that write this horrible shit about them 4) Everything a real man cares about.
I’m just going to go out on a limb here and guess a woman posted it. But my second choice is mama’s boy.

3. A strong inteligent human being who uses her brain instead of her sex to make descions.
Excellent point from the user who misspelled intelligent and decisions.

4. A female being capable of bringing a man to his knees.
Thankfully, no one defined men for being able to bring women to their knees. Wait…

5. A superior being responsible for all human life.
Hello, God complex.

6. A life support system for a vagina.
Also known as a Fleshlight. (If you don’t know what this is, Google at your own risk).

7. Word describing what Justin Bieber will grow up to be, in about 9 years time.
Possibly the most accurate definition I have seen yet.

8. Where sandwiches come from.
Also known as the grocery store, fast food restaurants and your kitchen.

9. Irrational lesser sex.
Raise your hand if you think this poster is currently playing video games in his parent’s basement and eating a home-cooked meal courtesy of mom.

10. A creature created by God for the pleasure of mankind. Women are often offended by simple remarks, and their unusually unstable emotional state often restrains them from tasks that a male would do. In other words, they are inferior to men.
I’m too busy being offended by this simple remark to remove my foot from your ass. But you’re probably so unemotional and stable you can’t even feel it up there.

After this cursory search, I’ve come to realize that most people are as clueless as reality show matchmakers when it comes to defining gender roles. Which leads me to believe we should define them for ourselves and in the context of our romantic relationships, rather than allowing society to define them for us. Enough of this lesson, it’s time for me to go get a male Subway worker to make me a sandwich.

by definition, there are certain aspects of culture that are not left in the archeological record.  as cultural artifacts, brain scans might survive history (and technology, assuming they are saving hard copies and arent all digital) but what people are thinking about is not included in a brain scan and relies on self-reports (or perhaps the controlled application of known stimuli, like gaming).  but no one ever listens to women when we tell them what concerns us, and the details of our internal lives.  indeed, many women still dont have the luxury of having an internal life that isnt consumed with the dialog of survival and constant strategizing around issues of survival as female-bodied persons under patriarchy.  many, many girls and women do not survive patriarchy at all.

so what are these men who allegedly “think like” women thinking about?  this is not a rhetorical question.  if (and its a big if) they really do think differently than other men, this alternate way of thinking is just another tool in their arsenal that can and will be used to further patriarchal interests and to achieve patriarchal ends.  thats all.  it will not be used as a way to further womens interests or to understand and remedy what female-bodied persons experience at the hands of men and male-centric institutions under patriarchy.

so regarding men who allegedly think like women, the only appropriate response is so the fuck what?  and possibly jesus.  of feminist concern is what men are thinking about, and they demonstrate the substance of their internal lives all the time: what men think about is (big surprise) accumulation (and violence).  specifically, accumulation of material wealth, sexual access to — and general exploitation of — women, and institutional and interpersonal power.  and that includes the ones who allegedly “think like” women.  they all think about the same things.  theres a reason for that.

and if there are some men who “think like” women, there are probably women who “think like” men, but what does that give us?  does thinking like a man change womens individual or collective institutional or political standing?  if a woman thinks like a man, is she likely to stop thinking about and strategizing around issues of survival as a female-bodied person under patriarchy?  does it negate the consequences to her of being born with a baby maker in a rape culture – of being female-bodied in a world where boys and men routinely stick their dicks into girls and women, and what that means?

wake me up when any man, or any trans politicker has anything interesting to say about what men and women think about, and why, and why there is obvious difference there.  until then, any alleged alternate way of thinking, when men do it, is just an alternate route to a patriarchal destination that benefits men at womens expense.  if this is expected to be their all-access ticket into the womens locker room, and it obviously is, well, lets just say that feminists disagree about the significance of the brain scan results.  or, alternatively, if they want to push the issue, and they obviously do — game on?

that they apparently didnt see this coming is unsurprising, considering their utter disregard for the substance or existence of womens internal selves and lives, and the details of womens internal dialog — what we think about — which 100% of the time, at whatever level, includes processing the details of our environment, in order to avoid rape.

Settle down… It’s just a joke.

(via)

“Hen”.

Imagine being referred to, not as “he” or “she” but as “hen”.  In Sweden, that is precisely what is being done in schools, as gender is being phased out and gender neutrality is being phased in.  It is an extraordinary step on the part of the country to help eradicate gender inequality by removing gender from the picture altogether.  Toy stores are dissolving their boys’ and girls’ sections and integrating the playthings that children may access, appealing to boys with pink and girls with trucks, in a way not seen in countries like the United States.  The idea is that by removing the constraints of gender labels and the gender binary, society can become freer, more egalitarian.

But is gender neutrality necessarily the same as gender equality?  And is Sweden’s attempt to eradicate gender as beautiful a plan as it seems?

Proponents of the gender neutrality initiatives argue that by eliminating the teaching of gender, they give children more choices; they are no longer constraining children by antiquated gender roles and gender norms, as we have done in the past.  As schools in Sweden work to eliminate the teaching of traditional gender roles, they work to create a society in which people can just be people, and gender is no longer an issue.  According to a representative from the Swedish National Agency for Education, “All Swedish schools have a responsibility to counteract traditional gender patterns.”

This sounds beautiful on paper.  A society without gender, without the gender binary?  Fantastic.  Boys no longer oppressing girls, and vice versa?  Excellent.  But there are a lot of things that sound great on paper that are flawed concepts, and I am afraid this may prove to be one of them.

There are several ways in which this plan is extraordinarily beneficial.  First and foremost, it seeks to eliminate the ideas that thus far have helped push women out of fields like Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM), as well as politics and international affairs.  It also seeks to eliminate the rigid gender apartheid that we have seen among children, the same segregation that has been cited as a major cause in intergender miscommunication.  On top of that, it has obvious benefits for those who are transgender or gender-nonconforming, because it relieves the pressure to adhere to a gender identity one does not necessarily feels fits.

However, if Sweden wants to create a society in which gender does not matter, there are going to be several problems.  First, how on earth are you going to teach history without teaching about the historical gender inequalities that have come to shape our present reality?  Second, while this great at freeing children from the pressure to conform to the standards of traditional gender roles, it also portrays these gender roles in a way that makes it seem that traditional masculinity or femininity should be eschewed, which is not necessarily the case.  If the aim is to increase the choices available to young people growing up in Sweden, then a problem arises from the fact that dismissing traditional understandings of gender does not create choices-~-it eliminates some.

On top of that, there is a root issue at play that unfortunately cannot be ignored here: gender is part of people’s identities.  It is inherently linked with other parts of a person’s identity (including sexuality), and it helps form a person’s understanding of his/her/hen personhood.  If transgendered people could just do things that the other gender did without it being an issue, don’t you think they would do so without bothering to actually come out as trans and/or go through surgery?  Gender identity is an important part of a person’s identity if they choose to let it be, and taking that away from someone does NOT increase their freedom.

It would be akin to someone telling me that, since I live in a secular society, we shall simply stop talking about religion altogether.  It won’t be taught in schools, and it won’t play a role in things like what job I can take.  This is, in essence, what is supposed to have happened in America.  But my religion IS a part of who I am; it influences how I behave and in some cases how I connect with people.  All of these pieces of our identities shape the people who choose to become, and de-emphasizing or dismissing a part of that identity does a disservice to those who do care about their genders, and to whom gender identity might matter.

I am in no way saying that gender neutrality is a bad concept, or that de-emphasizing the gender binary is a bad plan.  I think these are fantastic plans.  But when we write off gender as something that we should ignore altogether it is almost an admission that as long as gender exists, gender equality may be unattainable, and that the only solution is to take gender off the table.  I would hate to be asked to give up what it means to be a woman in my society, or to be a woman in our global society, and I can only hope that we will someday find a way to eliminate this rigid false binary without forgetting that in some cases, gender does matter, and that it can matter very much.

While the media and the talking heads sling headlines and talking points, we’re all just left to slug it out. Or, more likely, to reserve the slugs and instead talk behind each other’s backs, feel guilty, worry that we’re doing whatever it is we’re doing wrong. That what we’re doing is wrong.

Which is bad enough. But what kills me is this: When was the last time you saw a magazine cover asking “Are You Dad Enough?” or a piece worrying for the women married to “career-driven” men who deprive them of parenthood? (Then again, men rarely “enforce childlessness” because they generally don’t have to choose between career and parenthood… because mom–whether she’s career-oriented or not–will be there to do the lion’s share. Not to mention the gestating, the birthing, and the breastfeeding. As a friend once observed, for men, parenthood is an addition to everything else in their lives; for women, it’s a choice. The trade-offs are more stark.) Would a man’s choice to embrace his traditional breadwinning role with gusto be marked as an end to progress, or to opt out of parenthood as a harbinger of the downfall of society as we know it?

Men’s roles haven’t changed much. Yes, the dads of today are likely more involved in their children’s lives than their own dads were in theirs. Yes, they probably do more of the chores than their dads did, but these are incremental moves we’re talking about. And precious few worry that a dad picking up the dry cleaning or making dinner somehow constitutes an attack on “family values”—or that a man who doesn’t want to have kids is somehow defective or unnatural. A man’s minor deviations beyond the confines of his traditional gender role are rarely seen as cause for alarm.

Women are the ones who have changed – and who have fought, every step of the way, for those changes… changes that have, in turn (and slowly) affected the incremental changes in men and (slower still) in the structures of society. Perhaps it’s because our rights remain under attack, because our position still feels tenuous, because we still have such a ways to go, that our reflexive response to trend stories about opting out or real-life trends toward attachment parenting or aprons as fashion statement is that it will undermine feminism. We’re still on shaky ground.

And because it’s shaky, we cling to our positions ferociously. With our newfound freedom to do things any which way, it’s harder to feel that what we’re doing is right. Or even just good enough. And because women today have been raised on the message that we can do anything, we do whatever it is we do with a certain amount of ferocity. The same ambition some might turn on in the boardroom, some will focus onto their children.

And because it’s shaky, there will be those who will insist that the old way was the right way.

The thing is, there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. The parameters of women’s lives have changed. We have our reproductive rights—and will fight for them no matter what right-winged extremist boogieman appears claiming God and the Founding Fathers wanted women beholden to our uteri. We have access and opportunity and can do all kinds of things with our lives. We can parent—or not parent—as we see fit. And that is a good thing.

The “enough” I worry about is this: when will there be enough change–enough change to the structures, attitudes, finger-pointing, and self-doubt–that “choices,” in all their forms, will be available, realistic, safe, and workable for all women?

The last time I felt this way was over a hundred pages ago, with a brief interlude about a businessman having lost a package from a professor and his secretary saying she’ll find it.

Now, apparently, we’re getting back to that plotline. Nothing makes any sense, mind, but we’re back to that. So yay?

Chapter 17 opens in a “faraway secluded valley”, in a “little cluster of unlabelled buildlings hidden by rocky crags”. There’s a huge office complex where 200+ people are running to and fro, packing up their entire operation onto trucks. Then we meet this woman:

She was tall and slender, with long, jet-black hair; she wore black, loose-fitting clothes, and she clutcher her shoulder bag close to her side with pale, trembling hands. [...] She reached into her bag and brought out a pair of dark sunglasses with which she covered her eyes. Then she stepped down from the porch and started across the plaza toward the office building.

The nervous goth is referred to by her coworkers (?) as “the Maidservant”. Article included.

“What does the Maidservant require?”

“No idea, but the Hulk is still waiting on that crate of new pants, if you don’t mind.”

The Maidservant asks to run some copies on their copier, with the office manager bowing and scraping before her in a way that honestly feels very “Look at me, I’m in a cult!” and not very “manager in a large business”, if that makes any sense to you. She makes some copies from a little book and scurries back to the large house she had initially came from. She then re-wraps the book into a package so it will look like it bears no evidence of her tampering.

This package has a return address from J. Langstrat.

Obviously this is the woman from the previous clip; the businessman’s name, or at least the alias Langstrat sends mail to, is Alexander M Kaseph. So why is the Maidservant secretly rebelling against Kaseph? I have no idea.

Kaseph is described as such:

a middle aged, roundly build man dressed in loose trousers and tunic sat Indian fashion on a large cushion.

Exotic, particularly Indian or Asian, stylistic elements means demons, by the way. And doesn’t it seem like loose fitting clothing is a clear sign of demonic influence? Real True Christians wear spandex, apparently.

The fine furnishings of a man of great prestige and power surrounded him: souvenirs from around the world, such as swords, war clubs, African artifacts, religious relics, and several grotesque idols of th East;a battleship of a desk

This is where I begin to lose track of the sentence; next to war clubs and swords, I’m picturing an actual battleship. Allow me to listify:

The fine furnishings of a man of great prestige and power surrounded him:

• souvenirs from around the world, such as:

• swords
• war clubs
• African artifacts
• religious relics
• several rather grotesque idols of the East

• A battleship of a desk with:

• built-in computer console
• multilined telephone
• an intercom

• A long, deep-cushioned couch with matching hand-carved oak chairs and coffee table
• hunting trophies of

• bear
• elk
• moose
• lion

Tell me that’s not way too full for one sentence.

Anyway, while the narration wants us to derive from the furnishings that he’s accomplished, I’m mostly getting that it’s a very large room. What I do see, however, is a clear trend toward violence (weapons and dead animals adorn the walls) and a bit of a power fantasy (hand-carved chairs means he made someone else toil for his own pleasure, albeit indirectly; having the latest and greatest of everything is another way of flaunting power). On that note, this book originally came out in 1983. That was the year Lotus 1-2-3 came out, the year the Apple Lisa (the first gui computer) was released as well as the more famous Apple IIe, the year PC world began, the year Microsoft Windows was announced. This was the era of DOS 2.0, BASIC, FORTRAN, COBOL, Tron, and the Commodore 64. So what the heck is he doing with a computer built into his desk?

The Maidservant’s name turns out to be Susan. She brings him his long-awaited package, and he takes a while to bother opening his eyes. He accuses her of being troubled, but she blames it on the moving and the upheaval. We find out she grew up in Ashton, couldn’t wait to leave, and now claims to be hesitant about returning.

See, these guys are obviously evil; they’re trying to get into Ashton, when decent people are all leaving.

“On the one hand, you have no desire at all for the town, and on the other hand, you sneak off to attend the carnival.”

[...] “I was searching for something from my past, something from which to envision my future.”

He held her hand and said, “There is no past. You should have stayed with me. I hold the answers for you now.”

“Yes, I can see that. I couldn’t before.”

Creepy.

In one sense, though, this reads as a bit hypocritical. Doesn’t conversion to Christianity wipe away all your previous sins, make you over into a “new person”? Isn’t that the whole premise behind being “born again”? So isn’t it accurate to say that within certain Christian circles, the hope is that the past will be wiped away and that the reformed sinner will stay by Jesus’ side for all eternity,blindly trusting Jesus to hold all the answers? So the only thing she did wrong here is sticking with the wrong messiah. I don’t know about anyone else, but one of the driving factors towards my becoming pagan was that I was sick of being told I had no control or say in my own life, that it was all up to Jesus. Sitting on my heels waiting for Jesus to provide had never gotten me results, and I was tired of blaming that condition on my own wavering faith when I had the power to choose my own path in life rather than follow the one laid out for me.

So anyway, go Susan.

It turns out the meeting at the carnival was about retrieving Susan.

“But why did you even have to come looking for me? Why did you have to drag them along?”

He sat at the desk and began handling a wicked-looking ceremonial knife with a golden handle and razor-sharp blade.

Looking over the edge of the blade at her, he said, “Because, dear Maidservant, I do not trust you. I love you, I am one in essence with you, but…” He held the knife up to the level of his eye and peered down the edge of the blade at her, his eyes as sharply cutting as the knife. “I do not trust you. You are a woman given to many conflicting passions.”

Once again, a nice passage, well written (except for that clumsiness about his eye). But my analogy from earlier keeps nagging at me. A lot of Christian sects hold that man is innately sinful to such a degree that following one’s own passions, trying to do what is right based on one’s own judgement, is innately evil; the only judgement that can be followed is the judgement of Christ, distorted and warped through the centuries. Furthermore, there’s a history of treating women’s emotions like some kind of dark sorcery, something to be feared and mistrusted, much like Alexander does here with Susan.

Am I far off the mark here?

Homosexual men are unmanly. They suffer from a manhood deficit. Something in their social formation went awry. Some psychologists trace this to a dysfunctional father/son relationship.

That’s not necessarily incurable. Not necessarily something be ashamed of. Many adults suffer from aftereffects of inadequate parenting. And in many cases, their parents were poor parents because their grandparents were poor parents. For many men and women, psychological maturation is a life-long game of catch-up.

Not only are homosexual men unmanly, but straight men who defend sodomite marriage are unmanly as well. Indeed, straight men who defend sodomite marriage carry on like sob sisters. It’s embarrassing to read.

Men have a duty to uphold basic standards of masculinity. To be good fathers, husbands, brothers, friends, and mentors. To be good role models for their sons and daughters. Or coaches, teachers, and scoutmasters. To set an example for the up-and-coming generation.

The manhood deficit is one result of rejecting God’s design for men and women.

Hays followed this post with another good one, “Ministering to homosexuals:”

How should the church minister to homosexuals? Nowadays it’s becoming a dilemma.

Ideally, homosexuals, or men who struggle with homosexual urges or sexual identity confusion, need straight male friends. Need natural normal male affection and camaraderie.

However, the homosexual community is making itself a threat to heteronormative standards. Passing laws that prosecute and persecute Christians who maintain Biblical standards of manhood and womanhood. Threatening their livelihood.

It’s like the insanely jealous psycho boyfriend (e.g. Mark Wahlberg in Fear) who stalks a girl in high school. When she tries to let him down gently, he turns vindictive.

How do you befriend someone whose bottom-line is: “Love me or die!” It would make it a lot easier if he put the gun down.

To oppose the forced legitimization of homosexuality is not to engage in “bashing.” [“Bashers” do exist; they have their own psychological disorders.] Instead, it is to love and encourage the good; in this case, proper masculinity. Men, especially we fathers, do have a duty to uphold basic standards of masculinity.

It is wicked to lie (and it is especially wicked for the authorities to lie) about things of fundamental importance such as the proper natures of love, sex and family. We should strive and pray for the reestablishment of a properly (or at least adequately) ordered society in which the authorities no longer lie about sex, as they currently do.

The Good Wife’s Guide
Image collected from http://j-walk.com/other/goodwife/images/goodwifeguide.gif

The text reads:

• Have dinner ready. Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal ready on time for his return. This is a way of letting him know that you have been thinking about him and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they get home and the prospect of a good meal is part of the warm welcome needed.
• Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you’ll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh-looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people.
• Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.
• Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives. Run a  dust cloth over the tables.
• During the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too. After all, catering to his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction.
• Minimize all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vacuum. Encourage the children to be quiet.
• Be happy to see him.
• Greet him with a warm smile and show sincerity in your desire to please him.
• Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first – remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours.
• Don’t greet him with complaints and problems.
• Don’t complain if he’s late for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through at work.
• Make him comfortable. Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or lie down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him.
• Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soothing and pleasant voice.
• Don’t ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity. Remember, he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him.
• A good wife always knows her place.

I get it.  I get the point that this is supposed to be humor, and that we’re supposed to realize how far we’ve come in the nearly 60 years since this “article” was published.  Leaving aside the fact that this is probably a hoax, the problem I have is that for a lot of Christians, this is how they see men and women.  Oh, I don’t mean that anyone really thinks that a woman should follow these steps to the letter.  I mean that we have roughly the same expectations, just dressed up a little differently.

When women are challenged to be “godly, Biblical wives,” there is a certain reading of the text that leads some people to conclude that a good wife’s duty is to “manage the home.”  To be honest, I’m not even sure that anyone knows what that means.  I’ve heard it all—everything from being a stay-at-home mom to keeping things neat and clean to making sure that everyone’s relational needs are met.  Time and again, we’re told that these are the things women are good at, because we are “different” from men.  Being in possession of a vagina somehow magically makes us better at cooking, cleaning, and applying band-aids to scraped knees.

And never mind working wives and mothers.  Work isn’t seen as something women should want to do.  We’re not supposed to be powerful or have careers and try to advance them or feel passionate about our jobs.  Working is just something some women do because they’re single parents or their families are financially insecure or they need something to pass the time while the kids are at school.

On top of that, we are supposed to be superwomen.  We get compared to the Proverbs 31 wife all the time.  She’s held up as some kind of ideal, the woman we’re supposed to admire and emulate.  She feeds everyone, even the servants!  She works!  Her kids think she’s awesome!  She does it all with a smile, in her pearls and high heels! (Okay, I made that last one up.)  Even if we have jobs, even if we do volunteer work in the community (and maybe especially then, since it isn’t “real” work), we’re still supposed to make sure that the house runs smoothly, the kids get to bed on time, and everyone is taken care of.  Sure, men can be asked to do some basic chores, or maybe make sure the lawn is mown and the trash is taken out to the curb.  But it’s wifey’s job to make sure she stays on top of what needs to be done.  After all, we can’t expect her powerful, manly husband to come home from his powerful, manly job and do it.  If a woman works, it had better never interfere with her ability to care for her family.

What a lot of people don’t understand is that this isn’t just a problem for women.  This hurts men, too.  What if a woman is a corporate CEO, and her husband is a stay-at-home dad?  What if both parents work, and both enjoy their jobs?  What if a man is the one who is better at taking care of little one’s boo-boos and sniffles?  What if mom is a slob and dad is a neat freak, so he takes care of the tidying and cleaning?  What if the wife is good with power tools and the husband is a master chef?  And what if it’s because she’s a mechanic and he’s a cook in a restaurant?  Are they supposed to suddenly reverse roles in the home?  And do any of those things make him less of a man?

I know that some people will say, “Well, of course there are exceptions.  These are general principles.”  But when the message we hear, week after week, is that a woman is good at _____ and a man is good at _____, it’s hard not to believe something may be wrong with you if it isn’t true.  It’s especially upsetting when it’s treated as though these are things we can find in the Bible regarding proper male/female roles.  When we don’t fit those roles, we wonder if it’s some kind of sin in our lives that we need to address.

My husband and I chose to have me stay home with our kids.  But the reason we did it this way is that his salary was higher.  We believed that one of us should stay home, at least while the kids were little.  It could just as easily have been my husband taking care of the kids while I worked.  Because I’m home, I tend to do more of the chores, although I certainly don’t do everything.  My husband is usually the one to help with homework, partly because he’s a teacher and partly because the help required is usually with math (which I can do just fine, but I struggle to teach it).  And he’s certainly the more sympathetic and nurturing parent.  (Example:  One of our kids falls down.  Me: “Are you bleeding?  No?  Good.  Go play.”  My husband: “Oh no!  Are you okay?  Do you need a hug?”)  So are we “traditional” or not?

The whole thing stems from the basic idea that our differing biology somehow makes us unequal to each other.  Over and over and over we’re taught that we have societal roles to fill and that we should not deviate, because it’s not how we were made.  We’re told that the Bible “clearly” says this.  In fact, the Bible has far more to say about hospitality, social justice, mercy, brotherly love, forgiveness, kindness, and caring for one another than it does about male and female roles within society or the church.  Yet we dwell on the latter rather than the former.

Church, is it any wonder that young people are leaving in droves?

http://naperville.patch.com/articles/who-runs-the-world-still-not-girls?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001

Money.  In the modern world money drives everything.  What is funny is that money drives everything in the natural world too.  Obviously I’m not talking about coins and paper.  They just represent energy which is what all life is based around – a finite amount of energy.  An animal has a limited amount of energy to get everything it needs – food, water, and procreation.  It has to make wise choices of where to spend that energy and if it chooses wrong then it dies.  Evolution only has so much energy to give an animal and if a certain mutation isn’t worth the amount of energy it takes (to grow a tail for example) then that mutation disappears or that species goes extinct.

In the modern world sometimes it doesn’t make sense what money is all about.  I know a lot of people who wish money didn’t exist and that everything was free.  But as my mom (happy mother’s day!) likes to say, “everything costs something, and you’re lucky if you can pay with money.”

Gender roles.  It is really unclear to me in our current world what a man is supposed to do and what a woman is supposed to do.  It is hard to even talk about the subject without ruffling someone’s feathers.  In the natural world male and female plants, animals and everything have very different jobs.  Division of labor and specializations are everywhere in the nature.  In native cultures it is very common that the women gathered and the men hunted.  Something that I have noticed while practicing primitive skills is that all of the traditionally “male” skills like hunting, flint knapping, bow making etc. require a type of focus that makes holding a conversation really difficult.  “Female” skills like processing plant foods or making baskets always inspire excellent, relaxed conversation.  This is funny to me.

I think being open to men and women having different strengths and different roles in society would make some people a lot happier.

Violence.  Society says that violence is bad (although we do promote an incredible amount of it).  The truth is that violence is an inescapable part of life.  We live in a system where things have to die for us to live.  I think that the only reason to kill something is for basic survival needs – food, water and shelter.  Today we are killing millions of things and people not for survival but for luxury.  If you drive a car, own a house, take showers, etc. then you are contributing to deaths and the destruction of countless species, people and habitats.  All for these luxuries.    Its a sad fact of modern life.  I don’t even like driving.

Charity.  Religions around the world do very important charity work but sometimes it makes zero sense when you look at it from a naturalists perspective.  One example is digging wells for communities in Africa.  Many of these wells are tapping aquifers that took millions of years to fill up.  Now that water is being drained and it is happening too quickly to be replenished.  This is occurring in the United States too.  Large populations have been developed based on a water source that is not renewable.  It is nice to try to help people but often it is setting them up for an epic disaster.  Providing food to a country who’s population has exploded past the carrying capacity of the land is the same thing.  It is just putting off a disaster that will only become worse with time.  Bailing out bankrupt countries and corporations is prolonging the exact same, inevitable natural law.  Its all economics and its all natural resources.  Governments and businesses explode past what the market (i.e. carrying capacity) can support and then they crash.

The rate of change.  If left alone, ecosystems on Earth change very, very slowly.  But in society, our advancements happen rapidly.  New inventions that change the entire world are happening more and more frequently and each new advancement is like introducing a new species into an ecosystem.

When a new species enters an ecosystem it follows a very predictable curve.  Just like communities who have developed around non-renewable water sources, the population explodes past the carrying capacity of the land, then it crashes.  It takes a long time for the species numbers to rebound and eventually come into balance with the ecosystem.  It takes a very, very long time for everything to balance out.   The other part of this graph is the impact that a new species has to an ecosystem.

It might seem weird calling humans a new species that was recently introduced but in biological terms we clearly are.  Typically, the new species exploits the environment which hasn’t developed any defenses against it.  This can drive many other species into extinction.  Every advancement in technology makes us a brand new species requiring thousands of years to become balanced with its environment.  This is one of the most fundamental differences I see in a modern perspective from a natural one.  If we were a wise world then I think we would do things much slower.  There is no way to know what affects we are having on our future generations by carelessly doing so many things differently than the way we’ve done them for thousands of years.

I know this is all depressing and I’m sorry.  But it troubles me that we are living in a natural system; in fact we are a natural system, and yet as a culture, we don’t try to understand everything in our lives from a natural perspective.  Its like trying to do calculus without knowing how to add and subtract.  And I believe that the longer we wait to pay our debts, the harder we will crash.

It made me smile and think back, over six years ago now (was it really that long ago?), to when I decided to try to become a mom. I knew it would be hard to do it on my own.  I had thought through the logistics, the finances, the physical and emotional challenges.

Because I was choosing to be a single mom, I thought that meant I had to prove to everyone that I could handle it all on my own.  No help from the studio audience for me!  Why would you need to hold the baby while I’m eating?  I can do both!  Why would I take you up on your offer to do my laundry?  I can get up and down the basement stairs after my C-section…if I sit on my bum and drag the laundry up behind me (or in front of me…depending on how you look at it)!

I look back on that time and wonder who exactly I was trying to prove something to.  Certainly not to my friends or family, who knew if anybody could make it work, I could.  No, I had created my own Myth of Mommy-hood.  I told this myth to myself over and over until it became necessary and real and valid.  And then I went out to eat dinner while still on maternity leave with my good friend from work. She offered to hold the baby while I ate.  I valiantly declined.  She looked me in the eye, told me to shut up, and took the baby (who simply adored her) from my arms. I began to eat with two hands: how refreshing to cut a piece of meat with a fork AND knife simultaneously!  The spell was broken! The myth had fallen by the wayside.

This got me thinking about some of those other Mommy Myths that have been passed down through the generations. Myths that have been clung to, told and retold. Myths of epic proportion.  Myths that need to go down…

Mommy Myth #1: You will not remember the pain
To put it bluntly, this pure and utter b.s. Luckily, or not, I wound up having to have a C-section, so I did not have to go through the entire, full throttle birthing process, although I was in labor for about 12 hours. But if you think for one minute that I don’t remember how sore my throat was from the breathing tube (yes, the localized anesthesia didn’t work and I had to be knocked out), the thrill of the catheter, and every time I forgot to get out of bed without twisting at the waist (and the blinding pain resulting from said movement), you are c-ra-zy.

Perhaps this myth would be more feasible if it were renamed “you will not CARE about the pain.” Of course you care about the pain at the time, but in retrospect, withstanding that pain seems a decent enough trade off for the freshly minted person you get at the end. I remember the pain, but I didn’t hold it against my little man.  And it didn’t stop me, or most other women, from considering another one.

Mommy Myth #2: You will instantaneously and magically fall in love with your child
I cannot tell you how many times I heard this when I was pregnant: that magical moment when they hand you your child, your eyes meet, your minds meld, and if anyone so much as moves a hair on their head, you will immediately rip out the heart (and eat it will some fava beans, and a nice chianti).

No myth caused me more angst than this one (except maybe #3). Perhaps it does work this way for some moms. It did not work this way for me. As far as I know, I did not have postpartum, yet the magical moment eluded me.

Firstly, I was unconscious when he came into the light, so I did not even get to see him until I was back in my room. I woke up with a sore throat, and having never had any kind of surgery, I was quite discombobulated by this, as I was sure all the action had happened further south.  They brought him into my room, but I wasn’t quite fully functional yet and was afraid my arms would not hold him.  My best friend brought him to my side.  He was adorable, squeaky clean, and perfect in every way. He looked at me with his little old man face and it was clear that he was mine. There was most definitely a maternal connection.  But no shaft of light from the heavens.  No Hallelujah choir. No jolt of lightening. What was wrong with me? I was already a horrible mother before I’d even had a chance to get started!

After a few days, I took him home, my best friend went back to Texas, and I was left alone with the boy and my inferior thoughts.  I most assuredly adored this wee person I grew, but I waited for that amazing wave of something…mythical…  It did not come. I began to panic.  Perhaps I would never bond properly with my baby.  I did not share my fear and guilt with anyone, lest they realize what a truly terrible mother I was. After a week or two, my friend from work (the same one who shattered my personal myth), came over to visit.  We were sitting on the couch talking, when suddenly I burst into tears, weeping uncontrollably about my inability to “connect.” She hugged me and rubbed my shoulder.  “What took you so long?  It took me less than a week to freak out with my kids.” She assured me that there was nothing wrong with me and that very few women were blessed with an actual light beam from on high. And of course, she was right.  One would be hard pressed to look at my son and me today and think we had not “bonded.”

Mommy Myth #3: There is something fundamentally wrong with you as a mother if you cannot or will not breastfeed your child
My angst over a lack of angels singing in the in the recovery room was doubled down by the fact that I was not able to breastfeed.  I believe there was a combination of reasons for this, medical and physical, but the fact was, I could not make it work and I was utterly distraught. I was sure I was destroying my child’s life through this shortcoming of mine. I actually had one nurse tell me I was “ruining” him by giving him a pacifier. Really?  He’s hot off the presses and I’ve already ruined him? Damn, talk about a heavy cross to bear.

I pumped.  I took meds. The results were unimpressive. It was my attending doctor who helped dispel this one.  An older woman than I by a generation, she assured me that while we knew breast milk was the best if possible, her entire generation was bottle fed, and they seemed to have turned out ok. God bless her wisdom.

Mommy Myth #4: You must sacrifice yourself and your needs at all times for your child
Here, again, we have absolute and total b.s. Of course there are times when you put your child’s needs and wants above your own—I mean, did you REALLY want to read One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish for the 46^th time…today? No, you did not.  But sometimes, you do it anyway. Sometimes you give your child the last drink of water, even though you are really thirsty.  Sometimes you don’t buy something for yourself so you can get something special for him or her. Sometimes the sacrifice is real and deep. But let’s face it, women are trained by our society to put other people’s needs ahead of their own, and there are those that take great pride in the fact that they never, ever do for themselves because they are too busy taking care of everyone else.

I personally believe in two basic guiding principles here.  The first is the old adage: ‘if Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.’ That doesn’t mean that Momma gets everything she wants all the time and to hell with everyone else.  But it does mean that Momma needs to have a life that is somewhat happy and fulfilled so that she can reflect those qualities to her children and teach them how to find these things in their own lives.

The second is from your basic flight attendant instructions prior to takeoff: ‘in the unlikely event of a loss in cabin pressure, please secure your own mask before assisting your child.’ If you do not take care of yourself, you cannot take care of someone else.  Plain and simple. What good is it to run yourself into the ground for your child when you will eventually break down, and then who will take care of them?  Keeping a happy healthy you gives you the ability to take raise happy and healthy them.

Mommy Myth #5: You must treasure and adore every single moment with your child
A few months ago I read a great blog post about this very topic that puts it more eloquently than I ever could.  Some friends were passing it around on FB and it is a great read. It’s by Glennon Melton, titled “Don’t Carpe Diem.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glennon-melton/dont-carpe-diem_b_1206346.html).

It is about being a mom and how other (usually older) moms will come up to you, at random, and tell you how much they loved every moment of motherhood and how you should enjoy every single minute, too.  She is usually telling you this in the middle of a the grocery store or your local Target, at a time when your children have driven you so close to the edge that you have contemplated, even for a brief, fleeting moment: A.) strangling them within an inch of their life or B.) simply walking away and pretending they do not belong to you. You know that moment I’m talking about.  If you don’t…you will. Of course, you do NOT do either of these things, because you are a responsible adult in charge of their well-being.  But having someone tell you you should be savoring this very moment really makes you want to turn around and commit choice A upon her.  But you don’t do that either, because she means well, and that would only get you arrested, and then who would look after the children? (although the woman would probably assure you, as you were choking her, that you would someday look back fondly on this very moment. Making you want to squeeze even harder…).

There are many moments of motherhood I have not enjoyed.  Being vomited on. Discovering the six-foot scratch my son etched in his bedroom furniture.  Mysterious medical maladies that come and go with no known cause or cure. I do not treasure them. I do not cherish them. And like Glennon, I do not think it makes me a bad mom to admit that I do not hold them near and dear to my heart.  There are many, many other memories that I do, but not these.

I’m sure you’ve heard other Mommy Myths; these are just the ones that came to mind at the close of this lovely spring on which we celebrate all things maternal.

In truth, I find motherhood, like most things, is a dichotomy. Amazing. Exasperating. Inspiring. Infuriating. Frightening. Awesome.

An old ad campaign for the U.S. military (Army, I think) had the tag line “the toughest job you’ll ever love.” I think that sums it up pretty well, don’t you?

Happy Mother’s Day, ya’ll!

So enjoy this award winning  poem “ALWAYS MOTHER” which I wrote especially for her a few years back. I re-dedicate it to her today! It resonates with both males and females because even if we are not all mothers, we all have or have had a mother and usually, she has been our original teacher of unconditional love. And to all mothers who read my blog,  have a great day!

Always Mother

I sat

on her lap

digging little fingers

under square white nails.

There was no polish there,

no shiny “cutex”

like the glamour girls

of Mod-Squad fame.

She never sported a ‘fro

or carried

heavy-shadowed eyelids;

just a small dusting

of pink-powder

and a broach,

with millions of jewels like a peacock’s tail

preening with pride

on a partial safety-pin.

It was the only glamour

the church allowed then,

that and the dusky gold

of a simple wedding-band

barely glinting

on a knuckled hand,

that and the glory of being woman,

the glory of being mother.

She always smelt

like sweet-flour dumplings

and like the spice

sprinkled in my “cocoa-tea”;

there was comfort

in the corner of her pink neck

where no moles grew.

My mother is high brown

or so the teacher said

at my school;

it somehow made her

more important

more queenly;

that

and the fact that

she never worked.

In fact

I had thought

that all mothers

stayed at home

and cooked soup on Wednesdays

or steamed fish into neat rolls

for their little girls to eat

with cubes of white bread

and orange gravy.

My Mother didn’t cling

like a vice,

she let me slowly go

like an eagerly bouncing Easter kite

nearly touching clouds,

‘till I grew up,

down the aisle

with the white dress

she had also made,

leaning ever so slightly

on the arm of my reluctant father

and when

my first son

she held,

she sang

a song of sweet remembrance,

a song of

always Mother.

© Denise J Charles 2012: All rights reserved.

* cocoa-tea is a special warm beverage made from powdered cocoa with spice added, used in the Caribbean.

exactly.
via google images

WTF, Judge Mathis?  Weaker members of society?  Did he seriously just say that? Oh, yes, he did.  He just called me a weaker member of society.  That’s the kind of thing that makes me want to kick his ass just to prove that I can.  And now I’m also pissed off at Judge Joe’s completely absurd statement that women need a man to take care of them.  So I’m going on the record right here and now about gender roles.  I am a mother of a daughter and a son and it’s really, really important to me to get this right so they don’t fall into society’s categories.

Historically, yes, the man was the one to take care of the family.  Women were sheltered and protected by a father or brother until they could be handed off to a husband.  Like a massive relay race with women as the baton.  Anyway, that’s the way it was and history doesn’t change, folks.  But everything else does change.  It is absurd, in the year 2012, to suggest that a man needs to take care of the women in his family.  Am I saying men should trash their sisters’ cars?  Of course not.  What I’m saying is that it’s a family’s responsibility to take care of each other and it is each individual’s responsibility to look out for themselves.  As I mentioned, I have a son and a daughter.  Should we assume that my son will be in charge of taking care of me when I’m old and feeble, because he’s male?  Oh, hell to the no.  Both of those kids will be taking care of me, and you’d better believe that I intend to be cranky, demanding and expensive enough to require two caretakers.  And anyway, what if I didn’t have a son?  Then would I be on my own in my old age?  This is awfully bad news for my parents, then, since they didn’t have the foresight to have any boys.  Is it also safe to assume that my husband is ‘in charge’ of our decisions because he is male?  Oh, please.  More than one car salesman has made that mistake, but it’s a mistake they never make twice, I assure you.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let us move on to the hitting issue.  I know this is a very serious issue and I don’t have any intention of making light of it.  Men should not hit women.  Not ever, not for any reason.  It’s also not acceptable for a woman to hit a man.  Essentially, we shouldn’t just go around beating on each other, no matter how much we might want to.  It isn’t civilized.  I concede that most men are physically larger and stronger than women.  That’s how they’re made, it’s not an issue of equality or anything like that; they’re just different.  I just do not, for one second, believe that women are weaker.  Physically?  Sure, in some ways.  I couldn’t beat Hubs at arm wrestling if you had a gun to my head.  But I guarantee you that if he ever hit me (and he would never, never, NEVER do such a thing), he would be in for a nasty surprise.  I might not be as strong as he is, but I am fast, I’m mean, and I’m perfectly prepared to fight dirty.  So can a woman beat a man in a fight?  Of course she can.  That doesn’t mean that it’s okay to hit us, it just means that we don’t need Judge Mathis casting his protection spell over us poor weak women and lumping us in with children.

Gender roles are critical to me, not only because I am a human, but because I’m trying to raise children.  I don’t want to them to grow up trying to fit stereotypes.  I don’t want my daughter to be afraid some man might hit her and I don’t want my son to marry some woman who expects him to take care of her (unless that’s what he wants, but if I do my job right, he won’t want that).  Ignorant bullshit like these TV judges are spouting is undermining everything I’m trying to do.  No, my kids aren’t watching it, but think about this.  When these things were said, the audience cheered.  People think that this is okay.  It is most decidedly not okay.  It is not ever okay to tell my daughter that she is weak by virtue of being female and it’s also not okay to imply the same to my son by telling him that he must take care of the womenfolk. 

Can’t we ever stop grouping ourselves into groups of male and female and just be people?  Everyone likes to have a door opened for them.  No one likes to get hit.  Everyone likes to feel like someone’s got their back.  I just don’t understand why gender matters.  We can all do many great and wonderful things with the gifts we were given, no matter what equipment we were given.  We’ll all be happier once we can accept that, Judge Mathis.  And I’ll just bet Judge Judy would agree.

Marriage Equality.

It’s Saturday 12th May 2012, and all across Australia, rally’s are happening in order to protest for same-sex marriage.

I’ve been to plenty of these things before, which is a little disheartening. I mean, why? Why should we have to have rallies for this? Sigh.

At the end of the day, the institution of marriage is fundamentally flawed in that it places necessity on gender roles, and that marriage implies enforces that one is not a good wife or husband unless they are the epitome of their gender. However, that patriarchal concept could so easily be struck down and made witless, with the simple notion of allowing people of the same gender to marry. What a harrowing concept it is. To strip ourselves, and the dynamics of family, from these restraints of gender, of expectation, of the male/female dichotomy and its ever present destructive nature.

Currently, marriage is where all vestiges of gender roles fester and gain the most credit. One must be a caring, loving, empathetic, gentle wife & mother, while the other must be a committed, strong, bread-winning, resilient husband & father. This man made construct places men in a position of authority, power and leadership, which then extends outside the family unit, it is expressed everyday in how men are represented and seen, how men are placed in society, how men achieve.

I think I have taken a very different tangent to what I had originally intended, but that doesn’t matter. I think what I just want to say, is that same-sex marriage WILL destroy the current structure and ideals surrounding marriage today, because that’s what we need! That’s what HAS to happen, else we will forever be stuck in a gender defined, socially constructed, women hating world.

Also, I’d like to get married.

Tom Gabel of rock band Against Me! recently came out as transexual and plans to live as a woman.

Many people might have heard the story that Tom Gabel (of Agaisnt Me! fame) has come out as a transgender (and is planning to start living as a woman). This might lead you to wonder what exactly transgender means and what the science of sexuality has to say about such cases. Transgender, like many sciency words, basically gets its meaning from the smaller words that it consists of. Trans means opposite (as anyone suffering through organic chemistry will know) and gender….well…. here we hit a slight problem. There is no scientific definition of gender, it is not a scientific word and to some extent it is just a social construct. It is usually taken to be some combination of sexual identity and sexual orientation (although I would hesitate to view it this way as it seems to imply that those two change together, which is not the case).

For example, a homesexual (homo meaning one or the same and sexual here referring to the preferred sex partner) does not feel like or desire to be of the opposite sex. Their sexual identity (which is a (more) scientific term referring to the subjective feeling of belonging to a certain sex) matches their actual sex. They simply have a sexual orientation of preferring the same sex partner. So whilst that is a difference of sexual orientation (but not of sexual identity) transgender is an issue of sexual identity: it is basically a disconnect between the physical sex of a person and their sexual identity. These people have a very strong pervasive feeling of belonging to the opposite body and being ‘trapped in the wrong body’.
      So why do these differences (of sexual orientation and sexual identity occur)? Short answer: we don’t know. Long answer: it seems to be biological. There has not been any convincing social explanation that has held any weight and all evidence points against the notion that it is simply a lifestyle choice and anyone who tells you it is has no defencible basis in fact. The question then becomes what (biological) mechanism explains these phenomena and it is unlikely to be a simple answer. Having ruled out social explanations many people jump straight to DNA, thinking sexual orientation must then be programmed into their code but it is not an either/or situation and other factors may well play a role. For example, exposure to hormones (likely prenatally) could be a factor. An explanation like this could explain why some pairs of identical twins (identical DNA) report having different sexual orientations (they could possibly have had different exposure to hormones). Research into hormonal exposure has not revealed any obvious answers to questions about sexual identity and sexual orientation but it still may (or maybe not) be a relevant factor.

Honing in to the topic of being transgender there is some (uncertain) evidence to support a more biological aspect. Parts of the human brain are sexually dimorphic; that being a complicated label to mean that there are differences in the brains of the two sexes (for example some obvious ones like the neural control of breastfeeding). One such area is the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalus (the stria terminalus is a small fiber tract in the brain). This nucleus of the brain is large in males (both heterosexual and homosexual) and small in females. However in male transsexuals it is small like in women and in female transsexuals it is large like in men. So it seems to correlate to sexual identity. We have to be careful in interpreting this since it could be a link causing transgenderism, or equally something caused by transgenderism or could also be irrelevant, but it’s a start.

Testosterone is a male sex hormone derived from cholesterol

The last thing I will leave you with is an incredible syndrome which, to be honest, I didn’t believe the first time I heard about it (from a friend) but it was later confirmed by a professor in a lecture on sexuality and the brain. There is a (very rare) genetic disorder called 5 a reductase deficiency where the receptor for testosterone does not work in the body, so despite being genetically male (XY) the testosterone can not cause its effects and so the baby is born as a female (which is sort of a default result whenever there isn’t active testosterone). However at puberty a different receptor starts being used (which is functional in this syndrome) and so suddenly the body starts reacting to the testosterone and starts growing into a man. The overall course of this syndrome is a patient being born physically as a girl (with undescended testes) who at puberty starts to grow male sex organs and turns into a man. I would imagine that it is not quite so simple and straightforward but the syndrome does exist.

Interesting Extras

• Although overall very rare, the 5 a reductase deficiency is relatively common in a certain area around South America due to a small gene pool. They call it ‘guevedoces’ which means (pretty much literally) ‘penis at 12’
• People used to think that homosexuality was more related to your mothers side because it seemed more gay people were reported on the mothers side. However this is now believed to be a case of reporter bias. The bias is this: who knows more about their family (going back a while) your mother or your father? Thought so. That doesn’t really tell us very much about where sexual orientation comes from but it is an interesting gender difference.
• Epigenetics means the link between genetics and the environment (meaning environment effects gene experession). Schizophrenia for example seems to have epigenetic influences and sexual orientation might as well.
• There was a theory that each subsequent boy born to a mother had an increased chance of being homosexual (the researchers suggested a hormonal effect where the mothers body reacted slightly differently to each subsequent male child). There is no evidence for this theory (and no real reason to subscribe to it) but if it was true, by about the 4th boy of a family there would be a fairly high chance of them being gay
• Some research has looked specifically for the ‘gay gene’ but it is very unlikely one single gene codes for sexual orientation. Genetics is actually always a vast interplay of many genes and if the answer does lie in the genome its probably not simple.

Quotes

• ‘There is no greater mystery in the world, as it seems to me, than the existence of the sexes’ – Charles Darwin
• ‘An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.’ – Aldous Huxley
• ‘There is nothing wrong with going to bed with someone of your own sex. People should be very free with sex, but they should draw the line at goats’ – Elton John
• ‘I think what you’re seeing is a profound recognition on the part of the American people that gays and lesbians and transgender persons are our brothers, our sisters, our children, our cousins, our friends, our co-workers, and that they’ve got to be treated like every other American. And I think that principle will win out.’ – Barack Obama

I’ve always been particularly fond of his “Mum and Anarchist” piece. (I’m not even sure what the “official” name of the piece is, but that’s not relevant right now.)  Is this piece subversive?

Now go out there and fight the capitalist system, sweetie. I packed you a vegan sandwich.

Superficially, it presents a binary.  The soft, nurturing mother alongside the tough, dangerous-looking anarchist.  One is an older woman and the other is a young man.

Culturally it presents another binary.  When people think of “Anarchy” they think of the Escape from LA.  They see molotov cocktails, looting, and wild crowds in the streets.  Mothers, on the other hand, are soft, gentle, nurturing people who are constantly reminding us to stay out of trouble. Our mothers are worriers.

Disco balls not included.

In fact, the cultural joke is that your dad will stand behind you, all the while reminding you, “Don’t tell your mother.” Don’t we know that our mothers are women? She has her quirks, her likes, dislikes, her fantasies and her hobbies. She had her birthday wishes, her experimental phases in her early twenties, her one-night stands that she never forgot. She is sweet and nurturing, yes, but if a bear is threatening to eat you, your mother will fight off that bear. How she does it depends on your mother’s own personal style, but she is fierce and strong and will protect you, no matter what.

I am not a mother, but I have been lucky enough to have a mother who supports me in my actions. She is chanting next to me at the anti-war rally, she is giving me tips on how to collect signatures for petitions, she is packing me muffins and tea for tonight’s Take Back the Night. She knows who I am and supports me in my endeavors.

I see this image, and I see my mother, strong in her femininity, fierce in her motherhood.  It’s subversive in that it presents what should be, instead of what is then yes, this is a subversive pieces.

Happy mother’s day, mom!