Book Update

Two of my yearly goals (1 and 2) are about reading.  I've decided I had better post monthly about my progress to keep myself turning the pages!

So far I've made progress into 3 of the 7 books I hope to read this year.

1) Survival of the Prettiest :  I've made it to page 91 (of 245).  So I'm a little more than a fourth of the way done.

The nature of the writing makes this book a little bit of a easier read that some of the others, so I'm expecting to finish it first.  Although I'm definitely coming across some interesting ideas and new information, I'm becoming a little disappointed in the book.  I did pick it up in order to learn a more scientific view on the issue of beauty, but I am finding a little bit of the discussion of beauty--- especially when the author is being more 'scientific'--- a little superficial.  The first two chapters were pretty solid, but the third chapter--- being more about the sexual side of beauty and gender difference is definitions of physical beauty in the opposite sex--- is the one that felt the most disappointing.  Although I appreciate she is trying to provide the evolutionary context for human sexual behavior and physical attractiveness, I find that she really isn't telling me anything I didn't already know and she is not offering much analysis or comment on what the scientific research and evolutionary theory has concluded.  It seems that men value physical beauty slightly more than women (and more now than they used to); the average man finds the physical characteristics of a never-pregnant teenage girl the most attractive; women factor relational and economic (provider) elements into their mate-choosing more than men.  None of this is really surprising, so I wish she would delve into the ways this impacts our modern lives (which have changed somewhat faster than our genetics and evolutionary development).  She also talks a lot about the 'average' man and woman, but I am really more interested in the range of human preferences and behavior, and how both biology and society interact around this range.

She will also say things like: "A man's talent and star power can override concerns about his age, a woman's does not."  but she won't offer any comment.  It doesn't seem like something like this could be explained by pure biology or evolution---- so what does she think could be happening here?

Inspiration Lately: Mindy Kaling

Thanks to Jezebel, I caught this snippet from an upcoming magazine interview with Mindy Kaling.

I was really caught by her last sentence:

"But while I’m talking about why I’m so different, white male show runners get to talk about their art."

I often think we get so caught up in the saga of how artists and people we admire overcame the obstacles in their way, we forget to actually listen to what they are saying.  We are so interested in the drama of a underdog female comedienne or strong woman-of-color, we spend all our energy creating these comforting origin stories for our favorite celebrities and don't actually appreciate their greatest gift: their art.

I also often read interview with people (female artists especially) that I admire, and am disappointed because they don't ever get a chance to really discuss their art, their process, or how they feel their art has been received/interpreted.  I really want to know about the thought-process and techniques other female artists are using!

And for men, this definitely doesn't happen as much in interview, but I guess I hadn't realized that fully until Mindy pointed it out.  I'd love to stop talking about the artist and think about their brilliant ideas and art too, especially if they are groundbreaking women and people we admire and emulate.

This also sorta reminded me of one my favorite quotes from Zooey Deschanel:

"We can’t be feminine and be feminists and be successful? I want to be a f--king feminist and wear a f--king Peter Pan collar. So f--king what?"

I know Zooey Deschanel is a bit of a contentious issue for some people, but I actually think about this quote a lot.  Sometimes you have to stop overthinking it and just be you.  It is possible to fit into multiple categories.  Other people may label you and argue about what label you qualify for, but if you think you are doing your best and doing what is right and good . . .  that's good enough, and you have to feel confident and comfortable in that.

Soapbox: Sexual assault and clothes

Ok, I'm sorry if this brings everyone down, but I'm having a moment of fatigue.

I think that discussing sexual harassment, sexual violence and violence against women is important.  I often find it annoying that these can be taboo subjects.  I think it is through intelligent discussion that we can overcome the stigma, fear, mystery, ignorance, and hopelessness that surround these issues, and come up with some solutions and maybe open some minds.

Or maybe not.  Maybe I'm completely wrong.  Maybe it is just a pointless exercise.

I'm referring in particular to discussions around rape/sexual harassment/molestation of women and girls and of course the other big thing that comes up in those discussions: what she was wearing.

And just to be clear, I'm talking about in-person, face-to-face discussions, not online discussions (which better people than I have attempted and mostly failed).

No matter how much I've talked, rephrased, listened and tried to see from the other perspective with people who are not already 100% in agreement with me, I don't think I've ever successfully helped anyone to understand that the victim's clothing is fundamentally not relevant.

I had one of these discussions today and it has left me concluding this:  Do not ever bother trying to explain the irrelevance of a woman/girl's clothes in the designation of culpability in an instance of rape/sexual harassment/molestation.  It is futile.

I was having this discussion with an intelligent, feminist woman thinking that we were pretty like-minded and in agreement on this.  I was complaining about how frustrating it was to help people understand something this simple:  What a woman is wearing should not endanger them and never can legitimize violence or violation done against them.

But no.  This woman thought it was important to make me understand that "when a woman dresses to provoke/seduce/titillate and then goes out in public, she needs to take responsibility" and "deal with the consequences."

WTF.  I mean, WTF. WTF WTF WTF.  No.  That is wrong.

Inspiration Lately: Entrepreneurial Spirit and Jennifer Gilbert

"We all have defining moments in our life in our life that can keep us stuck where we are, or can help us move forward and create something."



I'm definitely curious to check out her book!

So I'm on my soapbox: Oz the Great and Powerful

Despite it's pretty fantasticalness, the trailer for Oz the Great and Powerful has consistently left me with a sense of being kinda irritated.  Mainly I am thinking: so, three extremely talented and powerful sorceresses have to beg a vain-glorious man with no clear relevant skills to save them?  Yeah. I REALLY want to see THAT movie!!!!!

I still haven't seen the movie, and I'm not going to pay money to see it, so I'll have to rely on others to prove me right or wrong.  But here is an interesting article on the subject: Why 'Oz the Great and Powerful' is a major step back for witches and women by film.com


Update:  here is a related, maybe more fun, related article from Vogue

TWLOHA and whoa, Men care!

I had the fortuitous opportunity to hear Jamie Tworkowski, founder of the non-profit To Write Love on Her Arms speak at Rutgers University yesterday night.  I literally wandered into the student center while waiting for a friend, noticed the even flyer, and realized that he was going to be speaking in 1 hours, and that I was actually available to go!

I'd been aware of the organization loosely as it had come up a few times when I was working for a research project on self-injury at Cornell, but the real mission of the organization still seemed a bit illusive and vague to me, so I was really chuffed to go hear, from the horse's mouth as they say, what it was all about.

While one could describe TWLOHA as a non-profit organization that works to support recovery for those struggling with suicidal thoughts, depression, addiction, and/or self-injury, after hearing Tworkowski speak, I think the real mission of the org. is something deeper and even more beautiful.  More than anything else Tworkowski spoke about hope, love, and speaking . . . speaking to other people about problems and struggles, sharing our stories with each other, and telling others that we are listening, that they are love, and that their stories are important and that it is ok to have questions and to ask for help.  From this philosophy, the drive to help people with serious, stigmatized, and unspoken struggles like depression or addiction springs, but the real foundation is this place of frankly profound love and fellow-feeling.

This message is what makes finding TWLOHA's 'mission' so difficult to pin-down the way we often want when we want to understand what someone/something 'does,' and to understand quickly.  They don't give us the traditional sound-bite about preventing suicide or debunking myths about self-injury, for example.  What they really want us to 'get' is this idea about loving, hoping, sharing, and truly living whether we are living through the good and the bad, and knowing that we are never living alone.  This concept is so powerful yet so amazingly simple, and maybe even more amazingly tough to actually do!

But the other thing I took away from this talk was how great it was to see a man up on a stage talking to people about loving and caring for other people and for ourselves.

In a lot of discourses about gender and empowering women/girls, you can hear a lot of us vs. them talk, and this talk is not always readily obvious, but usually counterproductive.  One of the ways that this happens a lot 'under-the-radar' is the assumption/claim/belief/assertion that women somehow have a monopoly on things like loving, feeling . . . caring, is often the word used.

Of course it stands that women do most of the official work that typically falls into the category of what scholars/policy analysts etc. call 'care work' but I think it is pretty ridiculous to assert that somehow women are intrinsically good at 'caring,' and men don't really care about anything (and stumble around the world obsessed with competing with each other, impressing females, and trying to have sex . . . is usually the other half of this story.)  I mean, when you take a millisecond to think about this, how absurd is this?  Of course, men care about stuff: men are passionate about many things (and not just sex, beating each other up, and video games).  Men love their parents, siblings, children, friends, countries, idols, god(s), whatever just as well as women do.  The difference I would assert is that in this gendered society, it is just not ok for men to really transparently acknowledge this reality . . . but that doesn't mean that they don't care or don't know how to care . . . and that women are expected to be perfect at/obsessed with caring and doing 'care work'.

The real problem for both men and women is that women are not allowed to do much without doing carework and making it known that they love doing carework, and that we berate and ridicule men who are brave enough to be transparent about their caring.  Feminists who gloat over how much better women are at caring than the stupid men don't help to solve this problem; rather they reproduce it--- further cementing women in their subjugated role and implying that certain ways of being belong to certain genders, and preventing men from being open about their caring and debunking masculine stereotypes . . . not to mention alienating the very men willing to be their allies.

This is why it was so great to hear Jamie Tworkowski talk about this organization and its foundational philosophy.  Here was a man who was not only doing caring, but who the world was letting share this gift of sensitivity and deep caring, and maybe more importantly, who was not ashamed of his caring.  I mean, this is serious progress happening right in front of our eyes!  Witnessing this, on top of an already profound message, was a inspiring and beautiful privilege.

I can't wait to see more men claiming their caring and showing other men (and women) that its ok for them to do that.  There really is hope! Lots of it!

Rhetoric: a "so-called" homily

I've come to really enjoy going to church on Sunday. It's the one time of the week that I remember to take substantial time to think about the important things and steer myself back to them. The homilies over the past few weeks have also been really good and thought-provoking. Last week, we got a really good one on forgiveness and the poisonous destruction of hate that made for a beautiful reflection on Sept 11th.

This week, I didn't get so lucky. Instead of the presiding priest giving the homily, he got to take a break and the presiding deacon gave the homily. These homilies are usually not terrific, but rather simple and t0 the point: forgive each other, pray---it's good for you, don't judge other people etc. They are not terribly inspiring, but they generally get their message across, and their message is usually a good one.

This week however the deacon somehow started talking about equal pay (well, actually to be fair, it actually makes perfect sense when one remembers the parable Jesus uses in the gospel: Matthew 20:1-16). As he ran through a list of real world examples about arguments over equal pay, he let this slip: "During the so-called women's movement, people were concerned that women were not getting equal pay for doing the same job as men." Or something to that effect. The part I do remember him saying verbatim is: "the so-called women's movement."

What is that about?

What is so "so-called" about the women's movement? By saying this instead of saying "the women's movement" or "the women's movement of the ##s," he implies there is something dubious or illegitimate about the women's movements of the past several decades, and their struggles for equal pay. Why?

The women's movement happened. It consisted of women. They fought for equal pay for women. They, being women. Fighting during the movement everyone calls "the women's movement." What is there to dispute about the statement: "During the women's movement, people were concerned that women were not getting equal pay for doing the same job as men"?

It is a factual statement and a fitting example to use in his discussion of equal pay struggles in life. By saying this statement, he is not saying that he likes the women's movement, agrees with all or any of their other efforts, or even that all women agreed with everything in the women's movement and that everything they did lead to rainbows and peace on earth. It is a mere reportage of fact that requires no personal commitment or implication of endorsement on his part or that of the Church.

So why add the "so-called"? The only purpose that serves is to demonstrate that he does not recognize the women's movement as a legitimate cause worthy of his respect. Rather he casually antagonizes the entire women's movement--- homogenizing all its myriad causes (or dismissing them all, save the One)---- by insinuating his disapproval and by his example, signalling that the congregation should follow suit. To me this is disrespectful, shallow, patronizing, and harmful.

I understand that his motivation for all of this is probably his belief in the immorality and sinfulness of abortion. (Or at least I hope that is where this is coming from, and not from some old fashioned conservative patriarchy--- which considering the track record of the Church in general in this regard, is possible.)

But my problem is that he is not actually making this point (i.e. abortion is bad and encouraging women to engage with it is not actually in their best interest), but rather is, as an authority in the parish, making a vague insinuation about the suspicious, untrustworthy, illegitimate, and maybe immoral nature of all women's movements--- basically making a random dig at feminists. And even ignoring the fact that is had nothing to do with the subject or structure of his homily in the first place, this is grossly unfair.

The women's movement and feminists have done a hell of a lot of good. They have improved labor conditions for women, worked to reduce domestic and sexual violence, championed efforts to improve the health, safety and education of children, reformed rape and divorce laws, striven to reduce delinquent fatherhood, fought against stigma and victim blaming, and the list goes on and on. And many of the women who worked to make these positive changes in the nation, in communities, in families did so while being moral and Christian people.

By equating 'feminists' and 'women activists' with 'pro-abortion,' and failing to recognize the good and Christian efforts of many women due to this miscalculation, the deacon unfairly tars all women and women activists with the same brush, fails to give them respect and consideration by giving them the benefit of the doubt before learning more about them, and most importantly, makes it clear that they are automatically under suspicion, will not be trusted and that they will have something to prove before they will be considered good and righteous members of the Church.

It seems like a small thing, that simple addition of "so-called," but it is things like this that alienate women (and men) from the Church, blocks them from hearing the positive messages and teachings, renders them fearful of being open about their spirituality, doubts, and struggles, and prevents them from feeling truly welcome. I hope that Church leaders will some day soon begin to take this problem seriously.