said

The American Deprivation of a Camelot

2008-07-30T20:18:00.000-07:00

Here's how the Republicans can win.

Now, I'm not advocating that they should win. I certainly hope that they don't. But I know how they could do it, if they really wanted to.

America has been void of a royalty in our history. Camelot, or the popular culture fascination with JFK and Jackie, is the only truly American regal story. Until Barack Obama gets sworn in to office next January.

Why him? He's epic, charismatic, and his wife, Michelle, complements his work rather than decorate him at public appearances. She could stand as a public figure in her own right. I don't think I know Mrs. McCain's name. I think it's Cindy. I doubt anyone else I know would even venture a guess.

There seems to be a political reliance on having The Perfect Spouse. Someone who won't jeopardize you, for sure, but someone who enhances you as an individual is even better.

Only one president that I can think of was elected as a bachelor.

But what is a wife? What makes the couple royal? What is the king sans a queen?

A wife has become a political requirement as an accessory. Women would find it even more difficult, however, to get into office without a husband rather than the other way around.

The royal couple, and everything that goes along with the concept of royalty (divine right of kings, absolute power, inbreeding and the like) all got rejected when we put forth that list of crap the king did to us as Colonies, and that's why we're an independent country. So what about the nature of the relationship a candidate has makes them more electable? Were we so deprived of having a royal leadership to guide us that we need to have a facsimile of that in elected office?

I want to see a single woman have the same viability of a married man in politics. I want to see a single old man have the same viability as a young married man. Michelle and Barack look fresh, fertile, young and charismatic. John and Cindy (?) look whithered and menopausal. They'll lose for that reason, but they shouldn't. They have plenty of other reasons for deserving a loss.

About The Author

2008-07-29T21:40:00.000-07:00

I realized just now that I've been posting a million comments on the www.nin.com photoblog from the Lights In The Sky Over North America 2008 tour. And I also realized I haven't posted here in ages, mostly because I am tremendously busy with work, school, and driving to Seattle and back to see the first OFFICIAL show of this tour, etc etc.

So, for those of you who clicked my profile on that photoblog and found lil ol me, yeah, I talk politics a lot.

But I care much more about Nine Inch Nails.

Politics as usual will resume after I've finished listening to the bootleg from the show about 8,239 times.

I'm feeling rather Margot Tenenbaum today

2008-07-18T13:01:00.000-07:00

As I'm sitting here, after noon, wearing pajamas and eating toasted Ritz chips, I realize I'm not living up to my full potential, and, the thing with characters in Wes Anderson movies is that nearly NONE of them were. Max Fisher was so smart, but focused all his attention on rivalry and extracurriculars. The Bill Murray character was a failure who fell from grace. Switch to Royal Tenenbaums. The only character living up to their potential was Ethelyne. Margot used to be a genius. Ritchie was a star. Chas became overwhelmed by grief and stayed successful in business, ignoring the emotional needs of his sons. Royal was another man who fell from grace. And Life Aquatic. And The Darjeeling Limited. Etc etc.

I've wanted so desperately, from the time I saw The Royal Tenenbaums, to be a character in a Wes Anderson movie. I wanted to be Margot. I wanted to be beautifully depressed. I wanted to be a new interpretation of Sylvia Plath (and I'm not just saying that because Paltrow played both characters at rather close intervals). I want to be sickly thin and sit at typewriters with heavily-made eyes and a cigarette absentmindedly being smoked as I construct my opus. I want to be as nuts as Anne Sexton or Edie Sedgwick or a million other women who were so brilliant or adored they had no choice in their insanity.

I want to create something important. A book. A legacy. A movement.

And all the traditional things about being "female" seem to be superfluous. What men were so brilliant but stuck their heads in ovens?

I'm kind of a little obsessed with Sylvia Plath lately.

Finishing "Bitch" yesterday, and taking so long to do it (to savor it) solidified certain things for me (see my previous entry), but also made my mind think about certain "difficult women" I'd never much considered before. Like Anne Sexton. Like Delilah. Like Amy Fisher.

It kills me that when you Google for pictures of Edie Sedgwick you get pictures of Sienna Miller. That's like searching for pictures of George W. Bush and getting only Josh Brolin.

She was famous for being Warhol's muse.

Do female artists need a male muse? Does such a thing exist (female artist, male muse, either or)?

The beautiful thing about being famous for something tragic is that it usually has a more lasting impact that being famous for something lacking that sensationalism. I learned that Sylvia Plath is certainly more famous now than she was at the time of her death. Is that because of her art, or because of that whole oven thing?

I don't think people spend enough time thinking about what kind of person they want to be. I know the type of job I want to have. The house I want to have. The cat I want to have. But I don't much think about who the person is who will have that job. The person it is who owns that house. The person that will be feeding my cat.

I've just about got all the "whats" figured out. I certainly haven't considered the "who" until right now.

I think the tragic, amazing, psychotic women who died young and let the world confused probably had that problem. They let circumstances define them. The Poet The Wife The Mother The Model The Author The Playwright The Artist The Professor. Those are all just titles. It's like defining a word by using it in the definition. That's not really telling you anything more than you already know.

Who was Sylvia Plath? And don't say a poet. And don't say someone who killed herself. And don't say Ted Hughes wife, and oh he was the Poet Laureate etc etc etc.

Who was she? Not what was she?

And for that matter, who am I? And who are you?

Is it even possible to answer that question without describing what that person has done?

I don't know.

Zimbabwe: It really does deserve your attention

2008-07-07T10:38:00.000-07:00

Today, my team and I start practice for the first time in several months. Usually, we get our debate resolutions 15 minutes before the round actually begins. This time, however, due to the long break, we were given the topic beforehand. I don't know what side we'll be on, or who my partner will even be, but removal of Robert Mugabe from power in Zimbabwe will be the discussion of the day.

I've known what's up there for a while. We didn't have much to really debate (other than this sort of topic) up until now, and the only real obvious problem was the MASSIVE inflation in the country. Thousands upon thousands of percentage points later, people in Zimbabwe can hardly afford to feed themselves. Mugabe, in power since 1980, clearly needs to go. But how do we go about that? Elections, in any democracy, are a good first step.

But that doesn't work in Zimbabwe.

In March, neither candidate got over 50% to get a clear win. The person who was awarded more votes, Morgan Tsvangirai, got several points more, even after all of Mugabe's vote rigging. There was to be a run off election a few weeks ago, which technically did happen, but Mr. Tsvangirai abandoned his candidacy in order to save the lives of people being threatened by Mr. Mugabe's "thug-like" Zanu (PF) cronies.

It is a sad day in democracy when a candidate has to make a choice between electoral legitimacy and lives.

But that's precisely what happened. There are several accounts that Mr. Tsvangirai is no angel either, but many are seeking him out to be the lesser of two evils. Some news agencies predict that if he were to assume power, the situation would flip-flop as to who starves and who bullies the weak in Zimbabwe. But there is no question that the election results were illegitimate. He was not allowed to campaign, people have been murdered, and Mr. Mugabe will not let go of his tight grasp.

This is a country that has endured colonialism, complete strife, and now people are amassed on embassy doorsteps to be shielded from the violence. Most countries that are concerned about the politics there either can't (African ones) or won't (European or North American ones). What is to be done?

Here's my breakdown of the options:

1. Assassinate him - but that will leave a power vacuum to be filled by Zanu (PF) thugs, and there might be backlash at the perpetrator (or assumed perpetrator, because who really knows who shot him if the sniper was good). This would no doubt cause more violence toward Mr. Tsvangirai, who would be a likely candidate as a culprit.

2. Get the African Union to organize and carry out a military removal. Haha, that's laughable. The AU has been made impotent by all of the politiking in Africa, and won't do shit for Darfur, so it won't here either. Countries in the AU are tsk-tsking Zimbabwe, but have made no indication that they'd do anything.

3. The United States could do it! No doubt capable, the U.S. would be unlikely to get a neighbor of Zimbabwe to allow a base of operations. Furthermore, the United States should refrain from preemptive wars, let alone wars where it's an intervention that has no direct relationship to American affairs (even Iraq had those, as bad an idea as it was).

4. Negotiate? That's been the status quo for 28 years, and Mugabe is demanding that the opposition there will have to do it with him as well. Not likely to change anything, but a better option than...

5. Diplomatic isolation... which would alienate Zimbabwe even more, give them more enemies to vilify, and fuck more shit up.

What's left do to except cry?

Hope... maybe?

This is sad. People are dying. The world needs to, at the very least, start paying attention. And, given enough motivation, careful consideration of all costs and benefits, Zimbabwe can become stable. I'm just not yet sure how that will happen.

Say what you will, but the Old Testament god sure was exciting

2008-06-24T22:40:00.000-07:00

For the source of today's ire, as usual, you need only turn to the Moral Majority pulling their usual bullshit. And, of course, I like to vent when I'm angry, and discussed that issue with a friend to kind of sort my mind out about it. And then the conversation turned to religion. Fun times.

The article discusses the moral refusal that I've already heard some about when pharmacists won't prescribe the Morning After pill (Emergency Contraception, or EC, as I've usually heard Planned Parenthood refer to it), but goes on to talk about EMTs who now refuse to transport patients to abortion clinics under that exemption. Even if they are in dire need, medically, of an abortion. Because they'd rather have a woman die and her fetus rather than be morally culpable in the death of a fetus alone? Maybe. My friend, trying to explain what that rationale might be, thinks it is outrage at promiscuity, and that women who are sexually active must bear the consequences and deal with it. She didn't make this claim, but it sounds like people who say "God has a plan" and "You're being punished for your sins," blah blah blah, like The Duggars, who had miscarried when Michelle was on birth control. They felt like god was punishing them for the sin of using any family planning, and now they're atoning for that sin by having as many babies as that prolapsed uterus can pop out. I digress.

My question about this moral shield from committing sin kind of had two parts - and I'll quote myself directly from the conversation: "This is one of those debates you can't ever resolve about how far the state can limit religion. I totally feel this is an appropriate limitation of religion (forcing them to prescribe and treat), but at what point does the government overstep its role? The government can restrict your right to religion, or liberty in general, at the point where the exercise of that freedom harms someone else. So I can't practice human sacrifice, no matter how fundamental a tenant of my faith that is. So, why doesn't this fall under that heading? Because we haven't resolved the "when does life begin" debate? And if we limit religion here, does that open the door for religion to be curbed in its exercise elsewhere?"

I think I'm still kind of confused about that. This shit just doesn't really make sense to me - the government has the ability to act, and can save lives, but won't? For some ideological reason? That not everyone agrees with? I'm stopping myself from ripping my hair out, just barely.

"Do they even get that forcing them to carry the pregnancy to term is likely to kill them in certain instances?" I asked in the conversation. I think they ignore that, because it's an inconvenient fact (Al Gore didn't come up with that phrasing, and even if he did, I'll borrow it. Like it's an inconvenient fact for Creationists who think that humans coexisted with dinosaurs that none of the fossil records have been found in the same sedimentary layers.)

My friend went on to discuss her problem with people who are anti-abortion up until the point that a woman hasn't chosen to become pregnant (ie: she's been raped). It's kind of reaffirming her previous statement that some people believe you just have to live with the decisions you make. But if you don't make them, you're absolved? Maybe intention does work into the moral calculus, but I find that highly inconsistent. I was reading more of "Bitch" by Elizabeth Wurtzel (go figure, right?) and I am far too lazy to find the direct quote, but this is what came next from me in the conversation: "Essentially a man in congress said that the only way he'd ever deem an abortion as being appropriate is if an innocent, helpless virgin was not only raped, but brutalized in the most unimaginable way possible. It isn't good enough to be raped. You have to be innocent and a virgin (or else you probably asked for it). And you have to be brutalized (or else you liked it). Fuck him and all his cronies. I got so mad when I read that."

"I know I'd probably never have an abortion. I don't think i could bring myself to do it, no matter the circumstances, but I don't want to let my opinion dictate how other people live, or even close off options to myself. The funny thing is that those people who consistently think the government is too big and infringing upon our freedoms are the same people who want to create legal enshrinements (like gay marriage bans in state constitutions) so we all have to live under the mandate of their opinion."

"I see the inherent contradiction in that, so why don't they?"

My friend replied that they had been struck dumb by god or something to that effect. And then we got into a conversation about Old Testament god and how interested he was (Old Testament god was an asshole, really, but very interesting.) And then I remembered what today's Overcompensating comic was, and it seemed to fit quite appropriately.

I don't think this discussion is over (about god as an asshole, or where our liberties and responsibilities begin and end.) I know what I think is right, and I know what I think is wrong - it just confuses the hell out of me that so few other people seem to see it my way. Not that I want my opinion to be the law of the land, by any means, but why don't other people think this way? Obviously, because I hold my opinion in high regard, and I value it, I think it is the superior opinion. Like, I will never understand why people prioritize vanilla over chocolate when I believe chocolate is clearly the superior flavor. Everyone's different, and everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I don't understand why some people hold the opinions that they do. It boggles my mind.

I don't want to kill babies. But I also don't want someone else's zealotry to kill me. If other women want an abortion, regardless of why, I definitely believe she has the right to make that decision and utilize resources to do so. When those resources, which are supposed to be neutral, helpful, and non-judgmental turn into proselytizing Jesus freaks, I get scared. I have no problem with Jesus. I have a fuckton of problems with people who "listen" to him. Because they're dumbasses and selective of which things they'll abide by, and which they'll ignore.

"God" is supposed to be the one who judges us in the end. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If you're so concerned with preempting sin, why do you hold up the 2nd Amendment like crazy? (Guns are a contributing factor to death by bullets, just so you know.) But you stop a woman in her tracks. You have not earned the right to deny someone the opportunity to mess up royally. If abortion is a sin, let your god be the one who determines and metes out the consequence. Same thing with gay marriage. Same thing with all the other moral abominations you all want to identify. Let me be the one who has to look in the mirror each day. Let me be the one who has to discuss this shit with god, if there is a god. Let me be the one who dies and walks up to the Pearly Gates going "oh, shit, I was totally off on this one." I'll take care of my soul, you take care of yours. Everyone is entitled to imaginary friends and guardian angels and gods and saviors to their own liking. Just don't you dare impose one on me.

On Europe

2008-06-23T12:48:00.000-07:00

Of all the places in all the world, the area that fascinates me the most is Europe. I think that Europe is the pinnacle (thus far) of human civilization (albeit imperfect), and while the rest of the world does get a lot of attention from me, I am try drawn to all things European.

It might be that I've finally gotten to visit The Continent. My mother is from Germany, and I kind of felt robbed of the European heritage I felt that I'd been entitled to. Europe is culturally rich, beautifully flawed, healthy, well-educated, politically active, and a bit dirty on the surface, but quite green if you look at the statistics.

A Western European politics class I took about two years ago was taught by a woman from France, so we got a lot of insight. Learning about the European Union wasn't a new thing; the previous summer an International Relations class discussed the EU's psychology of a spiderweb of interdependence, so no great continent-wide war can break out. If Italy depends on, say, Romania for its timber, and Romania depends on Italy for tomatoes, then the money and food and commodities needs are going to make them think twice before they start shit, essentially. The EU was created in a post-WWII environment. WWII, we have to remember, followed WWI nearly immediately (on the global civilization time line), so Europeans were starting to get the idea: we can't make our land so susceptible to total war.

What causes total war? Good question. Alliances, often drawn on cultural lines, lack of common defense, acrimony rather than harmony, and about a million other things. There is a proverbial domino that can be seen (especially during the first World War), and Europe is far less fragile now.

The United Nations acts as an arbiter of interests, and Europeans like to sit down and have conferences to discuss things. If a mediation can iron an issue out, these countries (mostly) would rather go the nonviolent route. Now, some do have good strong military figures, but they're more for defensive purposes rather than offensive force. Also, with so many Europeans sitting on the Security Council (more representation there than any other geographical designation), there's a certain burden of knowledge of what conflict actually entails.

But that's not to say Europeans are entirely pacifists. The United Kingdom has a nuclear arsenal (as do France and others, although Germany's doesn't count because it's American warheads American bases within Germany), and NATO membership has a lot of Europeans involved in Afghanistan at the moment (as well as Canada, and the United States, obviously). Since the NATO principle is "an attack on one is an attack on all," and was seen as a counterbalance to the Soviet Warsaw Pact, which no longer exists, any European country would be damn insane to attack a NATO country, and there's hardly any reason for attacks against Europe from external origins. Most countries think Europe is a proverbial "pretty cool dude," with exceptions of terrorist actions occurring within France, Germany, Spain, and England, which are far from being considered acts of war. Most of these are a response to "racist" domestic policies (France, Spain), or because of their involvement on the War on Terror (although England will never refer to the struggle against Global Extremism as a "war" because Tony Blair, having known the shit that went down in Northern Ireland, is cautious to give legitimacy and/or Geneva Convention protections to anyone by referring to them as "warriors.")

Aside from the fact that in a space that we're used to seeing as being that big, yet just one country (like America), we have a lot of way smaller countries, there is a European Mentality arising. People in this generation (around my age, which is 23) are now saying that their loyalties go to Europe first, their country second. I was watching a taped European Journal this morning, and due to some disputes about trash removal, one Italian man was ranting and raving about being ashamed of being Italian, and he wanted to leave, but he wanted to be a European, and that was holding him back.

So, what's so great about Europe aside from the aversion to out and out conflict now?

Americans will want and want everything Europe has to offer, but we are unwilling, mostly, to put into the system as much as we'd like to take. Some countries in Europe pay around 60% of their income in taxes. However, they never have anyone go bankrupt for medical costs. Schools are fully funded. Higher education can be as well. Tuition to Oxford University, last I heard, was about 1/3 of what I pay at a state university here in the U.S. Oxford, as elite and impressive as it is, after all, is a state university, too.

Nutrition is something else altogether. None of this artificial shit. Real cheese, real cream, olive oil, real yogurt sans artificial sweeteners, no high-fructose corn syrup, much less reliance on pre-packaged frozen food, and lots of fresh produce. They eat well, in taste as well as quality, and live well as a result. Obesity is only an issue in areas where American-style eating has come to the fore, and places like England, which I can tell you, is not a pleasant place to eat.

Aside from this being a love affair with Europe, I think it should be known, America could be like this too. We have the tools.

We should stop refusing taxation increases when they go to fund social programs. We should scrutinize taxation that goes to Nancy Reagan buying a new set of china for the White House dining room, and reject taxation that goes to illegitimate sources. But taxation is a universal good if it means we're all healthy and educated, because we're already shouldering the costs through our own pockets, and doing a piss poor job of it.
Stop involvement in foreign lands that DO NOT WANT US. We never should have gone into Iraq. We should have listened to France and Germany. We should not go into Iran. We should elect Barack Obama (not perfect, but it's a start).
We should reduce carbon emissions. Europe is all about that. More people use public transit, trains, and bikes than drive compared to the United States figures, and even though Paris could be scrubbed down a bit, the air is clear and fresh there, even with the rats.
We need to stop super-sizing our lives. We've always been told to go big or go home. The only time Americans had to get used to going without was during the Great Depression. Europeans had to bear it during WWII, and some even longer, such as East Germany. Europeans have it ingrained in them, through centuries of strife and modest living, that there are more important things than buckets of potato products. If you've ever been rationed chocolate, you know you don't need a Slurpee or pile of processed food to feel happy. We're addicted to our over-abundance, and it's killing us in multiple ways.

I won't move to Europe, at least not now. I've been thinking about Canada. It's like Europe had a baby with America, except Europe obviously had much stronger genes. It's imperfect, but the society is in general leagues ahead of the American way of life.

Don't get me wrong. There's a LOT I love about America. But I'm not going to be a dumbass like Sean Hannity and say it's the best country known to man that "god" put on the face of the earth. Because I may love my country, but it hasn't made me blind. America's like a mean mother in law that I'd have to love regardless. Canada's like my cool cousin I'd go get a tattoo with and drink coffee. Europe would be the one I'd marry, though, given opportunity and ability. So someday, then, I'll finally be home. I'll walk everywhere, drink amazing coffee, read more than I've ever read before, throw away my television, speak multiple languages, and be healthy and happy for once in my life. No, not right now, but someday, I'll be able to do more with this amazing continent than just think about it longingly.

Edit: By the way, whoever left a comment in my previous two posts, I can't access your profile and don't know who you are, but thanks for reading and leaving great comments, even if I don't entirely agree with you. This is all about discourse, and I knew there had to be someone out there willing to engage in it.

As she reads Simone de Beauvoir in her American circumstance

2008-06-17T10:12:00.000-07:00

I got a response to my post about feminism (A Long Night's Journey Into Day), and since I didn't write anything yesterday (because I was waaaay to busy reading "Bitch" and arguing with someone about the American political system and how [im]possible it is to be adequately informed in this system; I believe it's completely possible, but N E Way), I thought I'd share this discussion and see if it raises any more discussion, or helps solidify the conclusion.

My friend Tom wrote this:

"So I was thinking about this post the other day, and I thought, what the hell, here's a can of worms to open...

At the risk of TMIing you, an important thing I've learned over the past few years is that women can be assertive and powerful, and yet find submissive roles to be extremely hot. Romance novels don't have servant girls for nothin'. So, while it is important that women be viewed as people, with assertiveness and aggressiveness and independence, messages meant to have some sexy may be enhanced for a significant proportion of men and women by submissiveness. It's one of the really interesting things about changing gender roles: some sensitive men and assertive women are realizing that the unfair power inequalities that they fight the good fight against are, often to their initial dismay, a total turn-on.

There's a completely different discussion to be had on when sexual messages in advertising are okay. (In clothing ads it seems like it will frequently be the entire point.) And obviously, being on the yielding end of the power dynamic is not the only way women can be sexual. But submissivity is not identical to subjugation."

And I, without thinking too much and not having enough coffee yet, wrote this in response:

"I draw a distinction between voluntarily being submissive and being submissive because of a power dynamic. Anything that is a "traditional gender role" can be done with a feminist spin if a woman is educated, assertive about what she wants, and truly wants to do that. I don't even go into power dynamics within relationships (which is what I think the territory you're discussing goes into). When it comes to that, I'd prefer not to be making decisions in relationships. And I like baking cupcakes. It's not anti-feminist if it's what someone actually, truly (and armed with complete knowledge of options) wants. But women, I feel, can get subjugated so much that it becomes easier to then opt to be submissive so as not to raise the ire of patriarchs.

I read another 150 pages of "Bitch" last night, and I think what I can take from it is that sometimes women lack options due to multiple factors (bad parenting, low socio-economic status, depression), and make bad decisions because it's just easier than going after what they want, because they don't know what they really want and how to articulate it. Women are constantly told to suppress their urges for fear of being called a slut, and suppress their ambition for fear of being called a bitch. Men aren't, and are called studs. So while a woman may genuinely "like" being submissive now, I have to question what situation she has come from and how she was socialized, and if that had any bearing on her preferences.

I don't know enough about all of this yet. This is still definitely a learning process, and I expect I'll be hitting the Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir this summer, and see if I can better articulate what I think I'm trying to say."

Aside from that annoying penchant for starting sentences/paragraphs with "I," what do you think? Are we necessarily talking about the same type of "submissiveness?"

When we were doing the "Bitch" debate at In Other Words last week, I made the argument that if you're trying to fight feminist battles in an operating room by banning cosmetic surgery, you're entering the game much too late. You have to analyze where those social ills come from, and by the time a woman is talking about getting bags of saline inserted into her chest, it's too late to solve whatever feminist problem brought her there. Telling her to "love her body" is not going to resolve the issues. Women who don't feel good about themselves and resort to sexuality as a means of validation (as Wurtzel writes) probably had distant parents, unloving/uninvolved fathers, mothers who never told them that they were valuable without the validation of a man proving their worth, etc etc.

So, I think the same type of thing goes into analyzing why a woman is submissive rather than suggesting "if she likes it, clearly it's okay." What if she just thinks she likes it because she wasn't socialized to believe anything different? Women who are assertive are looked at with scathing scrutiny and are widely considered to be pains in asses. Wurtzel does a great deal of work talking about how from Bible stories onward, women who go for what they want or show emotions are deemed conniving, immoral, impure, and ugly. Whereas women who are dutiful, obedient wives who never show sorrow are beautiful, pure, moral, and good. Women who are emotional (Lot's wife, looking back longingly at her homeland as she's leaving it, Wurtzel brings up), are punished (she's now a pillar of salt). Women who want power and have the means to extract it are never called beautiful and are regarded as bitches (the bad kind, not the good kind), such as Delilah in the whole Samson story (Wurtzels' chapter on the Bible essentially revolves around the Samson and Delilah dynamic, and I've come to the conclusion that Delilah is MY kind of Bitch).

There's a Tori Amos song called "God" out there. There's a quote from the Bible in it. "Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings." That always pissed me off. Why not? Delilah emasculates Samson, stealing his strength by cutting his hair. Wurzel also discusses "castration complex," where men feel that intercourse metaphorically (or maybe literally, who knows) "saps" them of their masculinity and power as they're being drained by women.

What the hell is so wrong with women getting power? And why the hell are so many women submissive? And of those, how many actually *want* to be submissive, and how many are doing it because they don't know what the hell else to do?

So that Bible quote is from a proverb, 31;3. I'll admit a couple things here: I'm pretty much an atheist, or perhaps a very willful agnostic. I want to believe in capital-g God, but I don't know if I can. Furthermore, I am really not a Christian, although I'm strangely attracted to Catholicism (virgin worship *and* pretty art? Fun). So, it should go without saying that I have not really read any Bible verses and am not educated too damn well with theology. I know that various interpretations of the Bible are out there. Some take it literally (Google/Wiki the Quiverfull people, and goddamn, see what I mean), and some believe the Bible teaches by parable and story. I believe the problem with teaching by parable is that people get wrapped up in the storytelling rather than the intended message (read the current issue of "Bitch" magazine for a great article about a woman who wrote a feminist guide to the Bible, called "Eve's Bible;" the author is Sarah S. Forth. She says there are TWO creation stories, and the one we have attached ourselves to has the better storytelling, so I felt that tidbit goes to prove my point that messages are hard to discern if they're wrapped up in pretty prose sometimes, especially if there are competing versions.)

So I did some of Ye Olde Googling, and found the "Give not thy strength..." to be used as a support in analysis of 1 Timothy, Chapter 2. I have provided all of this part of the Bible. There are some links within the text that I can't figure out how to remove. If you want to check on my accuracy of collecting the quotes, I got this all from HERE. I will bold all of the things that piss me off, accordingly:

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (Just men?)

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; (SHAMEFACEDNESS?)

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. (Whut in the FAWK?)

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (The OTHER creation story, the one that appears FIRST in Genesis, says God made Adam and Eve at the same time. Seriously, read that article)

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (This is the whole apple eating thing. Don't even get me started, but there is a funny shirt I've seen that says "Eve Was Framed.")

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (To work off Eve's sins, you need to spread your legs, modestly, and do your holy duty of childbearing. Don't worry about being assertive or having a responsibility that belongs to a man. Woman, your lot in life, for having eaten the apple, is to bear the pains of childbirth.)

So, do women want to be submissive? Maybe some, but why? It's easier to avoid conflict, and pick your battles sometimes, no matter who you are. But what's the overriding need for a woman to back off toward men? Men fear women sapping their power. That's what Susan Faludi says in "Backlash," that's what the story of Delilah tells its readers, that's what every film that portrays an ambitious woman who goes for what she wants and ultimately causes her own downfall is saying. Women should not be assertive. It scares the men

I'm tired of being the type of person who can't be assertive because I look like a bitch when I do it. Bitches get shit done, to paraphrase Tina Fey during her monologue on Saturday Night Live a couple months ago. I'd rather get shit done and have everyone hate me than see everything crumble around me, keeping a sweet demeanor and having a boyfriend who opens doors for me.

But then again, I've never read any Bible stories that told me to do otherwise.

Politics, Take One

2008-06-15T19:26:00.000-07:00

My former debate partner didn't like politics at all. He viewed it, entirely, as a psychological (and often time actual) war to achieve one's ends. That's true, in part, but politics as a phenomenon is something much bigger than that.

Politics is, I believe inadequately, defined as:
1.
the science or art of political government.
2.
the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
3.
political affairs: The advocated reforms have become embroiled in politics.
4.
political methods or maneuvers: We could not approve of his politics in winning passage of the bill.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't much tell you what politics means in its application. This is how we organize society. It is the process by which things get done. Everything that has a process toward actual, rather than conceptual, results has some element of politics in it. Just as I've often said that economics is everywhere (I'll discuss that in another manifesto, no doubt) because motivation to affect behavior is an economic principle, I believe political goings-on to be ubiquitous as well. Furthermore, economic and political actions are often linked, or perhaps even one and the same, since so much of the studies revolving around both of these are a study of how to get to the ends people desire using specific means.

Whether you've got office politics, cliques, city councils, or the United Nations, you've got politics. Yeah, the worst is often brought out in people when they attempt to achieve political ends. But the best can be as well. For every person who attempts to use politics for their own self interest (either monetary or power-based, in most instances), there are other actors within political systems who want to engage in issues to help people other than themselves. There is little inherent interest in a state attempting to change the political atmosphere of the world by advancing human rights, even in conflicts that they are not party to and won't have bearing on their own citizens.

I am a political science major. Maybe it's the burden of knowledge I carry, but I know how unscrupulous politics can make people. I know how bitter political battles can get. I know how the world grapples with issues such as war, the environment, societal disparities, human rights, ethics, and a myriad of other issues. I also know that political processes have advanced society to the level that it is right now, and looks to make us a more elevated society in the future.

We have civil rights, advancing concerns for the environment and the rights of homosexual people, women, and non-citizens of any given state. Education is at a level unprecedented in history, both in its depth (how much we know), and breadth (how many people get to know it all). To say politics is a dirty game is to ignore Brown vs. The Board of Education ever happened. Or that Susan B. Anthony ever lived.

What's the point in this all? I'm not really sure yet. I just... I think we should give politics a chance. Hear out people who want to talk politics (no matter how boring you think it all is), and examine the good *and* the bad that's come out of it all. I'll discuss particular issues as they come up. There are so many things that get under-rug-swept due to the sensationalism of a couple other major issues (like Jeremiah Wright, for instance). There is a world of political information none of you have any idea about, and I wouldn't had I not been studying it for the past four years.

This is fun, I promise.

A long night's journey into day

2008-06-14T20:08:00.000-07:00

When I first started to learn about feminism, I was hesitant. I had always been cautious about all words that ended in "ist." Elitist, racist, ist ist ist. That implies superiority. And the more I learn about what it is to be a feminist, the more I don't think this word lives up to the trend of its suffix.

This sounds typical, but my first real exposure to it all was a women's studies class roughly a year ago. I'd read some independently, and learned about good concepts (like bodily autonomy and 3rd Wave, and all that great stuff), but that's when I really had my eyes opened. Now, my teacher was ill-equipped to lead a class (pedagogy is less valued than knowledge in a university system, it seems), but the survey nature of this class was good for getting a wide array of viewpoints.

I took umbrage at the idea that women who are stay-at-home moms are necessarily commodifying their labor. This teach made it seem like they're always, without a doubt, being exploited. Which confused me - we spent so much time talking about 3rd Wave, and the idea that women could regain "traditionally female roles" as long as they're doing it voluntarily and with full knowledge of it. You see a lot of evidence of 3rd Wave feminism with things like Stitch'n'Bitch (feminist knitting!) or "I Like You...," Amy Sedaris' book about entertaining people, baking amazing cupcakes, and other domestic things. She's quite blissful, it seems, doing this type of stuff, and graces the most recent issue of "Bust," (a feminist mag that I totally recommend anyone reading - it's good stuff). Amy is not commodifying her household labor - she's single and childless. And she's profiting. And getting high all at the same time.

What I liked the most from this survey into feminism, however, was the venture into media literacy that I had only gotten previously from debate practice. I was used to critiquing anything put out by Rupert Murdoch, but now I had to critique all art and advertisements. The prevalence of women being placed into subservient positions (a footrest, or an animal skin rug, for instance) and never in assertive ones was frankly disturbing. Women could only get men if they were passive, silent, and traditionally beautiful. Women who were assertive were rarely seen in advertising, and were caricatures in other forms of media (film and television). Face it, girls, we don't have a Roseanne this generation. "Grace Under Fire" is only on in reruns. Normal women who sass us aren't in our faces... what happened?

I was reading Susan Faludi's book "Backlash" and it seems to have lashed back once more. "Backlash" was written about the male/patriarchal/political response to the initial Women's Movement. Scary statistics about women having a higher chance of dying in plane crashes than getting married if they were over 40 gave Wymyn's Lyb a complete 180. This was, oh, late '80s, early '90s. Then you saw Brett Butler and Roseanne (Arnold? Barr?) come out and give them the what for. What happened since?

Elizabeth Wurtzel wrote a fabulous book called "Bitch," which I am currently (and slowly) reading. It was written in the late '90s (about a decade ago, to be approximate) and talks about the types of grrls who don't follow the rules, and live happy lives despite not having that man. I need to get through this more to probably get the deeper message. But that was written for women who were my age in 1998 - what is there for 23-year-old women in 2008?

(Maga)'zines are where it's all at if you're in Portland. I read "Bust" already, and recently started reading "Bitch," published out of PDX. A team member of mine works for them, and at their most recent release party, we were invited to take place in their Pop Culture Debate Club (or something to that effect - the name slips my mind). It was held at In Other Words, a Portland bookstore geared toward women and the LGBTQ (please tell me I got that correct!) community in the area. It was so liberating being in that environment - surrounded by amazing books by amazing feminist writers, being in a room full of intelligent people with strong opinions about society, and engaging in that discussion about women, race, and representation that I've been craving for years.

But what if you don't live in Portland?

The major portrayals of women in the media come at us, still, in advertising and film/television. "Sex and the City," as I read in the "Oprah" magazine, gets a lot of "postmodern feminist cred" (and having read the surrounding article, I'm not sure that writer knows much about postmodern feminism; she also said that women crave indulgences like Manolo's and bittersweet chocolate, both of which are uncomfortable and unsavory to this chicka). Here's the deal - "SATC" is feminist in some regard (in my humble opinion) for having a few things going for it: a counterbalance to major ageism in the media (hello, 50?), portrayal of women who have careers (although Charlotte does end up sacrificing hers to be a mom and a wife), and a flattering (though at times... vivid) representation of the gay community. However, it is still just as superficial as it seems. Women care about clothes, shoes, men, gossip, and waxing. They don't talk about politics. They are educated but seem not to utilize that brilliance. I am fully entertained by "SATC," but I don't know if I am done any favors with it being out there.

Teen girls, my god, have it worse than I did. Alanis Morrisette and Tori Amos were my musical heroes in middle and high school. Courtney Love was still on the edge of sanity, and I'd watched Gilmore Girls since it came on. All of the females here were still very feminine - but smart, assertive, independent, and did NOT take shit about being a girl from any goddamn asshole.

Yeah, we had Britney Spears then, and you still do now. That's zero sum. But who else? Miley Cyrus? Lindsey Lohan? Ashlee Simpson? Paris Hilton? The only "sub" culture that girls seem to absorb (from my aged perspective) is Avril Lavigne (manufactured and displaying a brand of faux feminism that's frankly insulting) and I don't know what else. The indie music scene which is probably this generation's grunge has a lot of female singer-songwriters... who all appear to be pretty, sweet-voiced, baby doll dressing girls with bangs who could be in American Apparel ads (and DON'T *even* get me started about how those ads subjugate women). Where's the grit? Where's the Fuck You? Where's the "When I scratch my nails down someone else's back I hope you feel it... well can you feel it?!" The screaming lyrics of "Violet?" My beloved "Cornflake Girl?" Tori Amos got married. (Although she wrote "Piece by Piece" with Ann Powers, which has a beautiful articulation about feminism and I'm also pouring over that at the moment - so her riot grrl status hasn't decreased too much in my mind.) But... Alanis went blonde, Courtney went crazy, and you all have to be skinny and pretty to get record deals once again. But I screamed with delight a couple years ago as Rory Gilmore turned down that marriage proposal from Logan to pursue her career dreams. Way to go, Yale Grad!

The best feminist idol in popular culture (and "Bitch," the mag, seems to agree with how rad she is) has to be Tina Fey. The former (first female) head writer for "Saturday Night Live" has created and starred in "30 Rock," which is the most subversively pro-female TV show I may have ever seen. Dealing with glass ceilings, body image, societal pressures about marriage, and kicking rhetorical ass all the while, Fey's portrayal of Liz Lemon has to be the reinvention of "Mary Tyler Moore" for the generation that can actually talk about sex. "Bitch" agrees with me. They may have gotten the words on paper first, but I look at Fey's Lemon and see the type of woman that I really want to be - smart, assertive, funny, single, career-oriented, driven, and truly, absolutely, wonderfully herself - even as she struggles to find out who that "self" actually is. It speaks to the real concerns that women have to face in this stage of society.

I feel like gender roles are going through a strange, and overdue, transition and redefinition. Within that, women who were raised by the generation that began the Women's Movement are struggling to reap the benefits from their mothers' efforts. We want careers. We go to school. But we also like lip gloss and want to be moms. How do we reconcile these desires that feel like they are in competition?

This is a beginning of an exposition into the realm of feminism. I'm sure that some of my opinions are highly unfounded, and damn straight, they might be incorrect. My feminism is so incredibly new compared to most of the women around me who are already feminists. I still fear being assertive, and I want so much to find out more about this topic as a whole. I think the reason "Bitch" magazine speaks to me so much is because it deals specifically with the pop culture side of representation of women. Media literacy with women's issues, it seems, draws the most attention out of me. I welcome any suggestions for where else to turn to learn about feminism. Unless your name is Gayle, in which case I already know I should be reading some bell hooks. Although, Dana sad "Feminism is for Everybody" was awful, so I might avoid that.

Until my next intelligent rambling on an issue of importance...

Fin.