So, this semester has been rough for me. This past week has been exceptionally rough for me. Details aside, I have been going through an array of emotions on a daily basis, ranging from anger to euphoric joy at points. Lots of us go through times like this. You feel like you have no control, like your life is spiraling and moving around you without you having any say in what comes next. At times, you feel hopeless. [Well, at least, that's how I feel some times...lately].
Of course, ways of coping with this include spending time with friends, seeking consolation and help when needed, and just trying to remind yourself of happy things that happen each day [I have recently taken to making a list each day, and it certainly helps]. All of these things provide a certain sense of hope. Now, of course, this hope is fantastically helpful and emotionally healthy, but sometimes I know I want something a little more, shall we say, tangible. I want to be able to do something that actively makes me realize my hope...in little ways.
After some self-reflection, I have come to realize that my way of little-by-little bringing my hope into reality is via my manners. That's right--when I feel exceptionally upset or at a loss for hope, I consciously try to have very, very good manners. I try more than usual to smile and say hello to people when our eyes cross, I focus on little polite rules like holding doors and saying "please" and "thank you," I carry myself in an upright and forward looking fashion despite feeling bogged down [of course, I only intentionally apply these manners when in public...around friends, I think it's important to be able to scream and say whatever you think, since coping with feelings is important]. Essentially, I engage more in my femininity, that is, my inherent desire to reach out warmly to and care for other people.
I have found that this intentional politeness inevitably brightens my day, because the people to whom I am polite almost always smile or say "thank you." Such kindness and gratefulness from strangers fill me with hope and joy, even when I feel like all else is a mess. Although having supportive and caring friends is helpful, it's that unexpected kindness that gives me an often needed boost of joy and positivity. It just goes to show that an awareness of your being, your feminine instinct to reach out to others, is more than just an identity--it is a source of true fulfillment even when you feel at your worst.
20 November 2010
24 August 2010
Bra-Burning Feminism: The Exposition of Women
A little over a month ago, my B.F.A. [Beloved Friend Andrea] and I decided to learn more about pro-pornography feminists by watching a documentary entitled "The Naked Feminist" [hey, it was only 99cents on itunes...and we followed it up with the latest DieHard movie to give us a decent dose of misogyny]. The goal in watching the movie was to better understand how people who felt differently from us thought about the sex industry; we just wanted to learn about the "other side" [we like to be informed].
Well, needless to say, it was quite an interesting viewing experience. It wound up being fairly informative about the sex industry and the role that women have had in it. Even though I don't personally support it [surprise! I find it rather demeaning to all parties involved] and have lots of issues with the situations [health risks, personal safety, etc.] that these women put themselves in, at least I can now say that I kind-of-sort-of understand where they're coming from. Much of the film focused on the supposedly positive aspects of porn, including women empowering themselves and making their own decisions about when they perform, with whom they perform, how often they work, and oftentimes women even producing or directing pornography scenes. The sex industry was presented as a kind of normal business in which women can work their ways up the hierarchical ladder.
And all these arguments are swell [kind of], but the movie neglected to seriously address the recent rise in negative pornography, that is, performances that include acts of violence or crudity that intentionally dehumanize female performers. In the film, all of the women interviewed spoke out against such trends, saying that the women participating in these violent films are not as empowered as they should be---if they were, they wouldn't partake in them. True; these women probably do have deep seeded psychological issues. BUT, it is also true that the introduction of the porn industry is precisely what opened up the doors to such violent actions.
No matter how much the women in the documentary wanted to undermine recent trends in porn and vehemently spoke out against its practices, the fact remains that the very industry they support, the "positive porn," is the grandmother of these new trends. As Nathan Harden writes in his recent article reviewing a new book [Pornland],:
That's right. Pornography sights are advertising degradation and dehumanization. Lovely.
So, what does this reveal about "good" porn? Well, personally, I think it shows that there really is no such thing as "good" porn if it led to something as terrible as the degradation that happens today. Even though some porn may be objectively better than others, the fact remains that the initially "well-intentioned" pornography wound up leading to a business culture in which certain women do terrible things that truly humiliate them as people.
It was the introduction of the porn industry and the initial female zealous support of it that opened the door to a future that would allow such terrible things. The wave of bra-burning feminism that swept the country in the 1960s was all about sexual liberation of women--liberation from rules, social guidelines and, ultimately, any notion of sexual morality. But this empowerment and sense of liberation, in my mind, was not, and is still not, at all genuine. Sometimes strictures are precisely what allow for true liberation. In the case of female sexuality, I really think concepts of modesty and chastity are essential to female empowerment. Deciding when and with whom to perform agreed upon sex acts on film is not my idea of liberation [it really is a capitalist-driven industry that legally permits the selling of bodies]; rather, being empowered enough to show yourself [fully clothed...& in public] as a person who demands perennial respect is true liberation from male-domination. It is such personal moral guidelines that allow for true equality and mutual respect. Pornography was never destined to liberate women---women are more than sexual objects. And true equality comes from respectable personhood rather than dangerously thoughtless over-exposure.
It's depressing to think about where misguided bra-burning feminism has taken the porn industry---it has exposed women to, perhaps, greater inequality and disrespect than before [even though the minority of women are in these performances, the performances themselves create a culture that fosters disrespect...the average age of exposure to porn is now 11 for boys]. It ennerves me to no end.
I wholeheartedly believe that a lady should have standards for herself and how others treat her. It is the best defense against the threats of frightening misogyny.
Well, needless to say, it was quite an interesting viewing experience. It wound up being fairly informative about the sex industry and the role that women have had in it. Even though I don't personally support it [surprise! I find it rather demeaning to all parties involved] and have lots of issues with the situations [health risks, personal safety, etc.] that these women put themselves in, at least I can now say that I kind-of-sort-of understand where they're coming from. Much of the film focused on the supposedly positive aspects of porn, including women empowering themselves and making their own decisions about when they perform, with whom they perform, how often they work, and oftentimes women even producing or directing pornography scenes. The sex industry was presented as a kind of normal business in which women can work their ways up the hierarchical ladder.
And all these arguments are swell [kind of], but the movie neglected to seriously address the recent rise in negative pornography, that is, performances that include acts of violence or crudity that intentionally dehumanize female performers. In the film, all of the women interviewed spoke out against such trends, saying that the women participating in these violent films are not as empowered as they should be---if they were, they wouldn't partake in them. True; these women probably do have deep seeded psychological issues. BUT, it is also true that the introduction of the porn industry is precisely what opened up the doors to such violent actions.
No matter how much the women in the documentary wanted to undermine recent trends in porn and vehemently spoke out against its practices, the fact remains that the very industry they support, the "positive porn," is the grandmother of these new trends. As Nathan Harden writes in his recent article reviewing a new book [Pornland],:
[T]he goal of much [pornography today] seems to be to depict the maximum amount of humiliation for the girl on screen. One website proudly offers its customers the opportunity to "access total degradation."
That's right. Pornography sights are advertising degradation and dehumanization. Lovely.
So, what does this reveal about "good" porn? Well, personally, I think it shows that there really is no such thing as "good" porn if it led to something as terrible as the degradation that happens today. Even though some porn may be objectively better than others, the fact remains that the initially "well-intentioned" pornography wound up leading to a business culture in which certain women do terrible things that truly humiliate them as people.
It was the introduction of the porn industry and the initial female zealous support of it that opened the door to a future that would allow such terrible things. The wave of bra-burning feminism that swept the country in the 1960s was all about sexual liberation of women--liberation from rules, social guidelines and, ultimately, any notion of sexual morality. But this empowerment and sense of liberation, in my mind, was not, and is still not, at all genuine. Sometimes strictures are precisely what allow for true liberation. In the case of female sexuality, I really think concepts of modesty and chastity are essential to female empowerment. Deciding when and with whom to perform agreed upon sex acts on film is not my idea of liberation [it really is a capitalist-driven industry that legally permits the selling of bodies]; rather, being empowered enough to show yourself [fully clothed...& in public] as a person who demands perennial respect is true liberation from male-domination. It is such personal moral guidelines that allow for true equality and mutual respect. Pornography was never destined to liberate women---women are more than sexual objects. And true equality comes from respectable personhood rather than dangerously thoughtless over-exposure.
It's depressing to think about where misguided bra-burning feminism has taken the porn industry---it has exposed women to, perhaps, greater inequality and disrespect than before [even though the minority of women are in these performances, the performances themselves create a culture that fosters disrespect...the average age of exposure to porn is now 11 for boys]. It ennerves me to no end.
I wholeheartedly believe that a lady should have standards for herself and how others treat her. It is the best defense against the threats of frightening misogyny.
23 July 2010
Oh! I love your burka
As many already know, the burka has become a hot topic lately because of its recent ban in Syria and the inevitable finalization of its ban in France. The French parliament cites that the burka challenges secularist ideals and that it contradicts modern values of women's rights [whatever that means].
Well, I'm not going to get into France's idea of secularism [mostly because the idea of secularism is completely muddled in France, and the discussion would involve deep unraveling of general terms like "religious freedom" and "freedom to worship"]. But, I will get into the idea that the burka is a direct affront to women's rights.
Yes, some women wear the burka because their husband forces them to do so. But there are some women who wear it because they actually want to. Case in point:
Well, as I see it, whether you are demanding someone wear something or telling them they cannot wear it, you are infringing on his/her individual freedom. With the issue of the burka, I find it ridiculous that parliaments are defining what it means to be a modern woman, firstly because most of the people making these decisions are not women and secondly because it's all rather silly and illiberal rationale. The burka is not causing direct harm to anyone; in fact, it could actually be central to a woman's personal idea of femininity [such as valuing being modest and respectable in public]. Yes, the burka may be a sign of some kind of abuse or forceful relationship, but it is not at all a certain indicator of such.
I, personally, respect a woman who wants to cover herself, whether it be because she's simply more comfortable covered or out of respect for the culture and traditions in which she was raised. I even respect her for wearing the burka out of deep respect for her husband's wishes for how she present herself [of course I have a problem if she is doing so out of fear of her husband...but no one (esp. the government) will be able to tell if this is the case].
So, why do governments suddenly think they can decide that which defines the modern woman and what is truly best for her? I suppose the answer is a desire to control...but in trying to control what women are wearing, they are inevitably undermining a woman's right to define what exactly it means to her to be a woman. Of course, I am a proponent of certain things being undeniably feminine [the grace of motherhood, especially], but there is also an array of ways in which to express such understandings [whether it is by wearing a burka, an apron, a mini-dress, or an evening gown]. My hope is that such understandings of femininity will be expressed in a respectable fashion, but it is not the government's job to ban, say, muffin-tops in public...it is a matter of judgment and reason, guided by culture and traditions.
It's days like this that I'm actually grateful to live in the United States, where women can wear anything from burkas to bikinis in public [however reprehensibly tasteless the latter may be].
Well, I'm not going to get into France's idea of secularism [mostly because the idea of secularism is completely muddled in France, and the discussion would involve deep unraveling of general terms like "religious freedom" and "freedom to worship"]. But, I will get into the idea that the burka is a direct affront to women's rights.
Yes, some women wear the burka because their husband forces them to do so. But there are some women who wear it because they actually want to. Case in point:
A friend of mine studying abroad in Africa this summer was placed with a Pakistani immigrant family. The head of the household's wife, a very young and attractive young lady, had recently married him and arrived from Pakistan. Around the home and immediate town, she would wear "normal" clothes usually, but when she entered more traditional Muslim areas, she would don her burka. One day, Tim [my friend] suggested they all go to the beach. They were all very excited, especially the wife. Then, next thing they knew, the husband and wife engaged in an intense debate [in Urdu...Tim didn't understand it]. The end result: the husband didn't want his wife wearing the burka--he wanted her to wear normal beach-going clothes, but the wife refused to wear anything but her burka. They didn't go to the beach.Not the expected outcome, right?
Well, as I see it, whether you are demanding someone wear something or telling them they cannot wear it, you are infringing on his/her individual freedom. With the issue of the burka, I find it ridiculous that parliaments are defining what it means to be a modern woman, firstly because most of the people making these decisions are not women and secondly because it's all rather silly and illiberal rationale. The burka is not causing direct harm to anyone; in fact, it could actually be central to a woman's personal idea of femininity [such as valuing being modest and respectable in public]. Yes, the burka may be a sign of some kind of abuse or forceful relationship, but it is not at all a certain indicator of such.
I, personally, respect a woman who wants to cover herself, whether it be because she's simply more comfortable covered or out of respect for the culture and traditions in which she was raised. I even respect her for wearing the burka out of deep respect for her husband's wishes for how she present herself [of course I have a problem if she is doing so out of fear of her husband...but no one (esp. the government) will be able to tell if this is the case].
So, why do governments suddenly think they can decide that which defines the modern woman and what is truly best for her? I suppose the answer is a desire to control...but in trying to control what women are wearing, they are inevitably undermining a woman's right to define what exactly it means to her to be a woman. Of course, I am a proponent of certain things being undeniably feminine [the grace of motherhood, especially], but there is also an array of ways in which to express such understandings [whether it is by wearing a burka, an apron, a mini-dress, or an evening gown]. My hope is that such understandings of femininity will be expressed in a respectable fashion, but it is not the government's job to ban, say, muffin-tops in public...it is a matter of judgment and reason, guided by culture and traditions.
It's days like this that I'm actually grateful to live in the United States, where women can wear anything from burkas to bikinis in public [however reprehensibly tasteless the latter may be].
25 April 2010
G-L-A-M-O-R-L-E-S-S
The other day, I came across a most interesting article entitled A Power to Persuade: The deeper meaning of glamour. In it, Postrel explores historical takes on glamour and the question as to whether a genuine glamour [a kind of modesty in actions] persists today or not. Most normally think of glamour as fancy dresses and expensive things, but when I say "glamour," I don't mean glitz and shine...I mean mystery, grace, and charm [albeit, often accompanied by some kind of classy "glitz"]. Thus, for example, Paris Hilton would not be considered glamorous whereas Grace Kelley would. Ke$ha would not be considered glamorous whereas Aubrey Hepburn would [you get the picture].
Now, I'm not going to sit here and get into the nitty-gritty social and political discussion that Postrel takes on [it's very interesting, though...please read if you have the chance]. But what she was saying got me thinking: "Hm, there really is no glamour today. We just put it all out there." And this is true with respect to clothing and even details of our personal lives. Nothing is private anymore. We dislike mystery. We want to know everything and conequently want everyone else to know everything about us. The worlds of tabloids, reality TV shows, and immodest Britney Spears inspired clothing have taken over much of our pop culture and infiltrated the average-Jane's idea of how to behave.
If anything, we aspire to be known rather than admired. And where does wanting to be "known" get us? Nowhere. It gets us mothers [like Kate Gosselin] who are more interested in their appearance and possession of material items than they are in personal and familial development. It gives us pop stars who go for shock-factor [yes, I am thinking of you, Gaga] before cultivating talents and truly inspiring others. It encourages people to focus on the external and rather unimportant aspects of our lives. And, unfortunately, women appear to be fairly guilty [at least more overtly guilty] for taking on this incorrect vision of "glamour."
While women were once known and admired for their demure and graceful personas, it seems that there is an overwhelming push to lose all modesty [I find true modesty to be synonymous with the definition of "glamour" put forth by Postrel]. Like those "naked" girls on the lawn or those booty-short dawning chubby girls, many women feel they must put it all out there to be recognized. And I blame the media as well as a societal misunderstanding of that which makes one glamorous and admirable.
There is something to be said for maintaining dignity and privacy of both self and family; there is value in keeping certain parts of our lives personal and--it is a way of honoring ourselves and our experiences. Such ideals, though, seem to have been lost in a society dominated by compulsions to lay our lives in the open [Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc.]. But we are fooling ourselves if we think that these lifestyles are at all glamorous, beneficial, or admirable--it's just the opposite. We are drowning in materialism and our own incompetence as soon as we put "being known" before being truly glamorous.
It is sad that characters like Grace Kelley have been "replaced" by attention-getting stars like Miley Cyrus or Paris Hilton. Glamour is a concept that was once embodied by well-known women, and it now seems to have been lost by both women and everyone else. I sincerely think that if women were to again respect themselves and truly embody glamour, our culture might be able to regain some of its modesty [/glamour]. Thus, it's kind of up to the women to "save" us all from our own foolishness.
Will glamour ever become respected and admired once again? I certainly hope so.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and get into the nitty-gritty social and political discussion that Postrel takes on [it's very interesting, though...please read if you have the chance]. But what she was saying got me thinking: "Hm, there really is no glamour today. We just put it all out there." And this is true with respect to clothing and even details of our personal lives. Nothing is private anymore. We dislike mystery. We want to know everything and conequently want everyone else to know everything about us. The worlds of tabloids, reality TV shows, and immodest Britney Spears inspired clothing have taken over much of our pop culture and infiltrated the average-Jane's idea of how to behave.
If anything, we aspire to be known rather than admired. And where does wanting to be "known" get us? Nowhere. It gets us mothers [like Kate Gosselin] who are more interested in their appearance and possession of material items than they are in personal and familial development. It gives us pop stars who go for shock-factor [yes, I am thinking of you, Gaga] before cultivating talents and truly inspiring others. It encourages people to focus on the external and rather unimportant aspects of our lives. And, unfortunately, women appear to be fairly guilty [at least more overtly guilty] for taking on this incorrect vision of "glamour."
While women were once known and admired for their demure and graceful personas, it seems that there is an overwhelming push to lose all modesty [I find true modesty to be synonymous with the definition of "glamour" put forth by Postrel]. Like those "naked" girls on the lawn or those booty-short dawning chubby girls, many women feel they must put it all out there to be recognized. And I blame the media as well as a societal misunderstanding of that which makes one glamorous and admirable.
There is something to be said for maintaining dignity and privacy of both self and family; there is value in keeping certain parts of our lives personal and--it is a way of honoring ourselves and our experiences. Such ideals, though, seem to have been lost in a society dominated by compulsions to lay our lives in the open [Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc.]. But we are fooling ourselves if we think that these lifestyles are at all glamorous, beneficial, or admirable--it's just the opposite. We are drowning in materialism and our own incompetence as soon as we put "being known" before being truly glamorous.
It is sad that characters like Grace Kelley have been "replaced" by attention-getting stars like Miley Cyrus or Paris Hilton. Glamour is a concept that was once embodied by well-known women, and it now seems to have been lost by both women and everyone else. I sincerely think that if women were to again respect themselves and truly embody glamour, our culture might be able to regain some of its modesty [/glamour]. Thus, it's kind of up to the women to "save" us all from our own foolishness.
Will glamour ever become respected and admired once again? I certainly hope so.
11 April 2010
Being Modest When it's Hottest
Once again, the temperature is rising and more and more Georgetown students are taking advantage of the warm weather by running outside, walking around, picnicking, and [YES] wearing inappropriate clothing. I am well-aware that I already gave my two-cents about ridiculous summer wardrobes about a year ago [see: "Why I hate Spring"], so I'm not going to rant about that again...but I am going to complain about girls donning bikinis on the front lawn.
Yes, bikinis. All Georgetown students, administrators, faculty, and staff have witnessed the Georgetown "Jane's" tanning on the front lawn in their barely-there swimsuits [my personal favorites are the ones who go topless and then try to cover up the fact that they are topless in a half-ass attempt at faking modesty]. For whatever reason, tanning on Healy lawn between classes, as professors and priests walk by, has become a rational decision. In fact, it has become so seemingly acceptable that girls, like one with whom I have class, think they can just throw on a mesh cover-up over their bikinis and then go to class and be taken seriously [think again].
Now, why on earth would you want people to see you as such? I understand that girls want tans so that they can sport their odiously short mini-skirts [of which I do not approve] without ghastly pale legs...but, really? In front of Jesuits and teachers? It's just a bad idea. And here's why:
There is something to be said for enjoying the weather, but the most enjoyment can be experienced when young ladies uphold modesty that helps them to respect themselves and, in turn, others to respect young ladies. It's as simple as wearing real clothes.
Yes, bikinis. All Georgetown students, administrators, faculty, and staff have witnessed the Georgetown "Jane's" tanning on the front lawn in their barely-there swimsuits [my personal favorites are the ones who go topless and then try to cover up the fact that they are topless in a half-ass attempt at faking modesty]. For whatever reason, tanning on Healy lawn between classes, as professors and priests walk by, has become a rational decision. In fact, it has become so seemingly acceptable that girls, like one with whom I have class, think they can just throw on a mesh cover-up over their bikinis and then go to class and be taken seriously [think again].
Now, why on earth would you want people to see you as such? I understand that girls want tans so that they can sport their odiously short mini-skirts [of which I do not approve] without ghastly pale legs...but, really? In front of Jesuits and teachers? It's just a bad idea. And here's why:
Firstly, it is going to make people take you less seriously. Anyone who flaunts tanning in a public sphere where such behavior is certainly outside the norm [at least I like to think tanning is not a traditional part of the Georgetown experience] is going to come across as sadly needing attention and lacking self-awareness.
Secondly, it is going to be ridiculously immodest. No matter how attractive or shapely a young lady may be, there is absolutely no need to "show it off" in a primarily academic environment...or most environments. It shows a lack of self-respect and an ill-understanding of appropriate attire [very immature]. Girls are essentially sitting around in fancy, weather-proofed underwear [!!!].
Thirdly, it objectifies women. By sitting on the lawn, tanning in a bikini, young ladies make themselves objects to look at rather than people with whom to converse. It is just further solidifying ancient roles of women as "pretty things to look at."
Fourthly, it's not all that good for your skin. You might get skin cancer [and die].
There is something to be said for enjoying the weather, but the most enjoyment can be experienced when young ladies uphold modesty that helps them to respect themselves and, in turn, others to respect young ladies. It's as simple as wearing real clothes.
08 March 2010
Banning the F-Word
March 8, 2010: Happy International Women's Day!
As I looked over the news/blogs of the day about International Women's Day, the only one that especially caught my attention was one about the F-Word ["feminism"]. The article addresses the argument that for women to advance, the word "feminism" should no longer be used. Of course, the author, Sara M., vehemently rejects the idea that the word "feminism" is holding back women; she supports her claim with the argument that feminism is precisely what has brought women to where we are today and, therefore, should not be abandoned.
Hmmmm...I cannot help but disagree with Sara. I even remember discussing modern feminism in my high school Theory of Knowledge class and reaching an overwhelming consensus that "feminism" no longer means anything good, and I cannot help but think that anything with such negative perceptions would only hold the cause back. While I do not think that "feminism" has always been a "bad" word, I think it inevitably carries negative connotations today. Why is this?
Well, I cannot help but blame it on the fact that there are SO [too] MANY different understandings of what it means to be a feminist today: Anti-femininity, spiky haired, anti-shaving woman; Full-time working mother with emphasis on career before family or marriage; Stay-at-home mother who has no job outside of home; etc. None of these definitions are, per se, wrong, but [as you can tell] there is no general idea of how women should assert themselves in the world. And without any general understanding, people are going to understand it as whatever definition stands out the most---in this case, the most loudly negative.
I, for one, do not find "feminism" an attractive term, because I tend to associate it with women who deny intrinsically feminine qualities in favor of more masculine tendencies. And I think that that's what most people think of when they think of feminists [and it's not all that appealing OR helpful in advancing women]. People have such a negative understanding of feminism based on what some women do to assert themselves that it can potentially prevent other women from asserting themselves and their femininity with any success. If women think that in order to be "feminists" and assert themselves in society they must behave in a somewhat negative and rudely assertive fashion, chances are they're not going to do it...or anything else that might help advance their role in society.
Even though I do consider myself a feminist, I would never introduce myself as such because of the negative stereotype and that it would give people a very wrong idea of what I stand for [I mean, how many self-identified "feminists" that you know like aprons, brooches, and cardigans?]. I much prefer to introduce myself as a strong young woman who wants the best for all women.
Thus, I truly believe that for women to continue to advance in society, we must ban the F-word and simply focus on our actions rather than our name-identity. Leaving behind the word "feminism" is not an abandonment of causes to advance women; rather, it is a recognition that women are moving into a new era where the word "feminism" is not needed. In this era, we can act rather than worry about rallying/naming our cause...actions do speak louder than words.
Let's just move on, already.
As I looked over the news/blogs of the day about International Women's Day, the only one that especially caught my attention was one about the F-Word ["feminism"]. The article addresses the argument that for women to advance, the word "feminism" should no longer be used. Of course, the author, Sara M., vehemently rejects the idea that the word "feminism" is holding back women; she supports her claim with the argument that feminism is precisely what has brought women to where we are today and, therefore, should not be abandoned.
Hmmmm...I cannot help but disagree with Sara. I even remember discussing modern feminism in my high school Theory of Knowledge class and reaching an overwhelming consensus that "feminism" no longer means anything good, and I cannot help but think that anything with such negative perceptions would only hold the cause back. While I do not think that "feminism" has always been a "bad" word, I think it inevitably carries negative connotations today. Why is this?
Well, I cannot help but blame it on the fact that there are SO [too] MANY different understandings of what it means to be a feminist today: Anti-femininity, spiky haired, anti-shaving woman; Full-time working mother with emphasis on career before family or marriage; Stay-at-home mother who has no job outside of home; etc. None of these definitions are, per se, wrong, but [as you can tell] there is no general idea of how women should assert themselves in the world. And without any general understanding, people are going to understand it as whatever definition stands out the most---in this case, the most loudly negative.
I, for one, do not find "feminism" an attractive term, because I tend to associate it with women who deny intrinsically feminine qualities in favor of more masculine tendencies. And I think that that's what most people think of when they think of feminists [and it's not all that appealing OR helpful in advancing women]. People have such a negative understanding of feminism based on what some women do to assert themselves that it can potentially prevent other women from asserting themselves and their femininity with any success. If women think that in order to be "feminists" and assert themselves in society they must behave in a somewhat negative and rudely assertive fashion, chances are they're not going to do it...or anything else that might help advance their role in society.
Even though I do consider myself a feminist, I would never introduce myself as such because of the negative stereotype and that it would give people a very wrong idea of what I stand for [I mean, how many self-identified "feminists" that you know like aprons, brooches, and cardigans?]. I much prefer to introduce myself as a strong young woman who wants the best for all women.
Thus, I truly believe that for women to continue to advance in society, we must ban the F-word and simply focus on our actions rather than our name-identity. Leaving behind the word "feminism" is not an abandonment of causes to advance women; rather, it is a recognition that women are moving into a new era where the word "feminism" is not needed. In this era, we can act rather than worry about rallying/naming our cause...actions do speak louder than words.
Let's just move on, already.
28 February 2010
Sexy Thursday Talk
Below is a response I gave to a talk entitled "The Joy of Sex: A Christian Perspective." I found writing it to be great time for reflection and thought on marriage. Even though the response isn't explicitly feminine, it certainly was a distinctly feminine perspective. I hope that you get something out of my [rather organized] ramblings:
I’m sure that everyone is at least somewhat familiar with the ever-popular Taylor Swift song, “Love Story.” But just in case you don’t remember it, some of its lyrics include:
Nice, right? Many of Swift’s lyrics ring true with me and with many of my peers. A lot of us feel an overwhelming sense of loneliness and hopeless waiting when it comes to our desires to have a great and joyfully intimate relationship. I know that I am personally very excited about the prospect of marriage and finding that “special somebody.” All too often, though, many of us, Swift included, put immediate gratification, whether it be emotional OR physical, before what I think the true love story is—Some might delve into relationships simply to stop feeling alone, others might simply “hook up” to try to fill this void. The love story, for me, though, is more than the ring, the white dress, or the “wedding night” sex—the love story is the actual relationship that comes before, during, and after the physical intimacy, and it is precisely this story, this history between two people that I think makes sex and any intimate relationship genuinely joy-filled.
While the fairytale idea is nice to sing about and important to have in that it establishes ideals, I firmly believe that a real love story should be understood as so much more. It should be founded in an understanding that the relationship should deeply acknowledge Christ’s love for us and Christ’s call for us to walk together, especially in romantic relationships, as His disciples. The problem with people wanting an immediate fairytale in which their partner asserts, “I love you and that’s all I really know,” is that there seems to be no room for either person to grow; and in not recognizing any space for growth and fooling oneself of perfection, we are depriving ourselves of the joys and the closeness to Christ that come from bettering ourselves and more deeply recognizing our sinfulness. Such recognition is what I find to be an essential part of being a disciple, part of wanting to not only better serve God but also our fellow humanity; and a truly intimate relationship should encourage us to be the best disciples we can be.
But what I think is even worse than trying to have an unattainable fairytale relationship is settling for immediate physical gratification and intimacy in having casual sex—“hooking up;” even though this could bring about some sense of elation, it is not at all the joy that is intended to accompany sex. It completely lacks any idea of growth or discipleship—it is based in an almost primal desire to fulfill “wants,” wants that I imagine sex void of any genuine friendship and understanding can never meet. People are more than physical beings; we have souls that should be nourished by all that we do, especially such deeply intimate actions as sex.
But…what college kid wants to have to deal with “rules and standards” that would come from deep contemplation about what a romantic relationship means? Rules and standards, for many of us, scream of losing freedom, and a loss of “freedom” inherently means less happiness…right? [pause] Well, I think that’s wrong. It is in maintaining certain rules, like saving oneself for marriage, remaining chaste, and looking at any solidly intimate relationship as being based on more than sex, that I believe we can free ourselves to more openly experience God’s grace and the joy that accompanies physical intimacy in allowing us to more deeply connect with another person who truly understands us at all levels of human complexity.
But Georgetown students simply don’t “make” (or we might prefer to say “have”) the time to build a genuine love story—doing what feels good and is easily pleasurable fits much better into our planners and calendars. Many don’t even take the time to build the truest kinds of friendships—and if we cannot even find time to build friendships that are based on more than temporal pleasures like partying and drinking, it is unlikely that we will find time for any kind of genuinely joy-filled romantic relationship. Just as having an immensely joyful, genuine, and respectful platonic relationship takes a certain amount of time, experience, and understanding to develop, any truly fulfilling physically intimate relationship requires the same…and, most likely, even MORE time. For me, the true “love story” to is a story of friendship, helping, learning, and growing, accompanied by joyful sex and intimacy while building a domestic Church.
It’s probably clear now that I’m not the biggest fan of Swift’s rather vacant take on the love story. And even though Taylor Swift’s love story might seem to promise a “happily ever after” ending, the fact remains that she uses Romeo and Juliet, one of literature’s most tragic romances, as an allusion for her idyllic relationship, and in doing so, the song implies her story’s unrealistic expectations...chances are…any relationship’s excitement that comes from the prospect of a white dress and overwhelming emotional love, is not going to bear the fruits or the joy that a relationship founded in the idea of discipleship would. In fact, it will probably end, possibly even tragically.
So, seeing as I might have ruined “Love Story” for some diehard T. Swift fans, I feel I must leave you with another song that I think more beautifully captures all that one should really hope to have in a romantic relationship and physical intimacy: “For Good” from Wicked.
Glinda says to her friend, Elphaba:
I truly believe that the best friendships challenge us to grow. And since sex is so deeply connected to the different levels of the self, the most freely given sexual intimacy is based in this best form of friendship. And it takes time for this essential friendship to be built…it takes time to live a genuine love story…and I am confident that it’s certainly worth the time commitment and the wait.
I’m sure that everyone is at least somewhat familiar with the ever-popular Taylor Swift song, “Love Story.” But just in case you don’t remember it, some of its lyrics include:
“Romeo, save me, I’ve been feeling so alone. I keep waiting for you, but you never come. Is this in my head? I don’t know what to think. He knelt to the ground pulled out a ring, and said, ‘Marry me, Juliet, you’ll never have to be alone. I love you and that’s all I really know. I talked to your dad, go pick out a white dress. It’s a love story, baby, just say yes.’”
Nice, right? Many of Swift’s lyrics ring true with me and with many of my peers. A lot of us feel an overwhelming sense of loneliness and hopeless waiting when it comes to our desires to have a great and joyfully intimate relationship. I know that I am personally very excited about the prospect of marriage and finding that “special somebody.” All too often, though, many of us, Swift included, put immediate gratification, whether it be emotional OR physical, before what I think the true love story is—Some might delve into relationships simply to stop feeling alone, others might simply “hook up” to try to fill this void. The love story, for me, though, is more than the ring, the white dress, or the “wedding night” sex—the love story is the actual relationship that comes before, during, and after the physical intimacy, and it is precisely this story, this history between two people that I think makes sex and any intimate relationship genuinely joy-filled.
While the fairytale idea is nice to sing about and important to have in that it establishes ideals, I firmly believe that a real love story should be understood as so much more. It should be founded in an understanding that the relationship should deeply acknowledge Christ’s love for us and Christ’s call for us to walk together, especially in romantic relationships, as His disciples. The problem with people wanting an immediate fairytale in which their partner asserts, “I love you and that’s all I really know,” is that there seems to be no room for either person to grow; and in not recognizing any space for growth and fooling oneself of perfection, we are depriving ourselves of the joys and the closeness to Christ that come from bettering ourselves and more deeply recognizing our sinfulness. Such recognition is what I find to be an essential part of being a disciple, part of wanting to not only better serve God but also our fellow humanity; and a truly intimate relationship should encourage us to be the best disciples we can be.
But what I think is even worse than trying to have an unattainable fairytale relationship is settling for immediate physical gratification and intimacy in having casual sex—“hooking up;” even though this could bring about some sense of elation, it is not at all the joy that is intended to accompany sex. It completely lacks any idea of growth or discipleship—it is based in an almost primal desire to fulfill “wants,” wants that I imagine sex void of any genuine friendship and understanding can never meet. People are more than physical beings; we have souls that should be nourished by all that we do, especially such deeply intimate actions as sex.
But…what college kid wants to have to deal with “rules and standards” that would come from deep contemplation about what a romantic relationship means? Rules and standards, for many of us, scream of losing freedom, and a loss of “freedom” inherently means less happiness…right? [pause] Well, I think that’s wrong. It is in maintaining certain rules, like saving oneself for marriage, remaining chaste, and looking at any solidly intimate relationship as being based on more than sex, that I believe we can free ourselves to more openly experience God’s grace and the joy that accompanies physical intimacy in allowing us to more deeply connect with another person who truly understands us at all levels of human complexity.
But Georgetown students simply don’t “make” (or we might prefer to say “have”) the time to build a genuine love story—doing what feels good and is easily pleasurable fits much better into our planners and calendars. Many don’t even take the time to build the truest kinds of friendships—and if we cannot even find time to build friendships that are based on more than temporal pleasures like partying and drinking, it is unlikely that we will find time for any kind of genuinely joy-filled romantic relationship. Just as having an immensely joyful, genuine, and respectful platonic relationship takes a certain amount of time, experience, and understanding to develop, any truly fulfilling physically intimate relationship requires the same…and, most likely, even MORE time. For me, the true “love story” to is a story of friendship, helping, learning, and growing, accompanied by joyful sex and intimacy while building a domestic Church.
It’s probably clear now that I’m not the biggest fan of Swift’s rather vacant take on the love story. And even though Taylor Swift’s love story might seem to promise a “happily ever after” ending, the fact remains that she uses Romeo and Juliet, one of literature’s most tragic romances, as an allusion for her idyllic relationship, and in doing so, the song implies her story’s unrealistic expectations...chances are…any relationship’s excitement that comes from the prospect of a white dress and overwhelming emotional love, is not going to bear the fruits or the joy that a relationship founded in the idea of discipleship would. In fact, it will probably end, possibly even tragically.
So, seeing as I might have ruined “Love Story” for some diehard T. Swift fans, I feel I must leave you with another song that I think more beautifully captures all that one should really hope to have in a romantic relationship and physical intimacy: “For Good” from Wicked.
Glinda says to her friend, Elphaba:
“People come into our lives for a reason, bringing something we must learn. And we are led to those who help us most to grow if we let them and we help them in return.”
I truly believe that the best friendships challenge us to grow. And since sex is so deeply connected to the different levels of the self, the most freely given sexual intimacy is based in this best form of friendship. And it takes time for this essential friendship to be built…it takes time to live a genuine love story…and I am confident that it’s certainly worth the time commitment and the wait.
21 February 2010
Learning to Relax
I've never been good at relaxing. Never. My mom even recalls that I was a terribly serious baby [it's part of who I am]. But, who can blame me for being this way? I mean, growing up, my mother was all about the "being productive" and "getting things done;" sitting around and relaxing usually meant laziness and a lackadaisical attitude [and, I am not a fan of laziness]. Even now, in adulthood, resting bears these same negative connotations [especially for women, who constantly feel a drive to "prove themselves"].
In response to these reflections and realizations, as any decent scholar of Aristotle would do, I have recently embarked on a journey to force myself to
What does this entail, you ask? Well, for me, it means setting aside one day a week where I do not allow myself to do any work [homework, school related emails, grocery shopping, or anything of these sorts]. It means setting aside this day for prayer, contemplation, leisurely reading, letter-writing, wine [and bourbon] drinking, and spending time with friends.
While many may think this sounds like an "easy" task, it really is quite difficult. An extraordinary amount of self-control is involved in making this day of respite work. I have to have all my homework done, plan meetings around it, and give up some social outings when work must be completed in order to permit my resting day. But, while these other consequences might seem like major negatives, I am beginning to appreciate the beauty in giving myself this much needed break.
I am enjoying my work more than ever, and I enjoy any "fun" time I do have, because it is completely of my want/will and not out of pure convenience or boredom. I am starting to seriously reflect on my life and better understand where I am and where I need to go. Despite the occasional gut feeling that I should be doing something more clearly "productive," these days of rest have become the highlight of my week, and the peace that comes with them tends to permeate my working days.
In a world where we are all so focused on completing tasks, it's nice to escape from that mindset, even if only for a day. I think if more people took on the challenge of setting aside a day to rest, we would begin to enjoy life much much more. Through such respite, people could grow in ways that over-productivity does not allow, because rest allows reflection. For women, this would mean taking time aside from proving ourselves in order to truly know ourselves. For mothers and fathers, such reflective time would help them be be better and more joyful parents. Everyone would simply appreciate life more.
We need to take breaks so that we can briefly stop proving ourselves and simply let ourselves be and grow. We need to just let ourselves soak in life, free of worries.
In response to these reflections and realizations, as any decent scholar of Aristotle would do, I have recently embarked on a journey to force myself to
chill the [*insert (dainty) expletive of choice*] out.
What does this entail, you ask? Well, for me, it means setting aside one day a week where I do not allow myself to do any work [homework, school related emails, grocery shopping, or anything of these sorts]. It means setting aside this day for prayer, contemplation, leisurely reading, letter-writing, wine [and bourbon] drinking, and spending time with friends.
While many may think this sounds like an "easy" task, it really is quite difficult. An extraordinary amount of self-control is involved in making this day of respite work. I have to have all my homework done, plan meetings around it, and give up some social outings when work must be completed in order to permit my resting day. But, while these other consequences might seem like major negatives, I am beginning to appreciate the beauty in giving myself this much needed break.
I am enjoying my work more than ever, and I enjoy any "fun" time I do have, because it is completely of my want/will and not out of pure convenience or boredom. I am starting to seriously reflect on my life and better understand where I am and where I need to go. Despite the occasional gut feeling that I should be doing something more clearly "productive," these days of rest have become the highlight of my week, and the peace that comes with them tends to permeate my working days.
In a world where we are all so focused on completing tasks, it's nice to escape from that mindset, even if only for a day. I think if more people took on the challenge of setting aside a day to rest, we would begin to enjoy life much much more. Through such respite, people could grow in ways that over-productivity does not allow, because rest allows reflection. For women, this would mean taking time aside from proving ourselves in order to truly know ourselves. For mothers and fathers, such reflective time would help them be be better and more joyful parents. Everyone would simply appreciate life more.
We need to take breaks so that we can briefly stop proving ourselves and simply let ourselves be and grow. We need to just let ourselves soak in life, free of worries.
09 February 2010
Lamenting the Loss of Hospitalty
Picture this: Frank stops by his friend [not acquaintance] Julia's house to return a book he borrowed. Julia opens the door enough to grab the book [a movie is playing in the background], thanks Frank for bringing it back, and starts to close the door. There is no mention of a busy schedule that prevents hospitality, no inquiry as to how Frank's day was...not a single remnant of polite conversation.
-------
We live in a world where people constantly whisk friends out of their houses so they can return to their homework, emails, or TV show, and where people generally lack charity in dealing with others. And I just don't get it.
Growing up, my mother always taught me and my sisters not only proper guest etiquette but also proper hosting etiquette--both such lessons were deemed proper, especially for young ladies, to learn [such etiquette applies regardless of age]. Simple gestures like offering a glass of water or a cup of tea, or even just offering a seat, to a friend who drops by are lovely ways to show someone that you truly care. These gestures provide opportunities for you to grow closer to your friends or even open the door to rewarding and fruitful discussions that you might not otherwise have shared [Of course, if you are genuinely too busy to talk to someone, it is fine not to offer, but you should then express your apologies for not having time at the moment and explain why].
So, why are we no longer embracing simple hospitable behaviors? I cannot help but blame our overly-busy lifestyles. In fact, I imagine that many people of my generation did not have the pleasure of learning how to host from their mothers because their mothers worked and didn't have time or a desire to impart such "domestic" knowledge upon their children. Many typical feminists might even assert that such knowledge about etiquette would only serve to unravel recent times' championships...they might say that we should reject such lessons in order to completely "overcome" our terrible past in which women were stereotyped as domestic housewives who simply doted over their family and all guests.
Hmmmm...Rejecting the idea of actually demonstrating that you care....How rude [and mean].
I find the inherently caring nature of women to be one of the most beautiful gifts that comes with being feminine. It is a shame that I have sometimes found my male friends to be more hospitable and generous than my female ones [this is not to say that I am not happy that guys are being so generous---I think it's fabulous that the burden of hospitality no longer only falls on ladies]. At the same time, it's not girls' faults if they don't know how to show compassion and charity in the little things...I truly do blame parents [especially mothers].
In a world where manners and politeness are commonly left for "special" occasions, we seem to have lost sight of the importance of kind [little] gestures' in establishing and maintaining good friendships [I don't care how close you are to someone; standards of politeness must always be maintained].
The sad thing is, I don't know how this will ever change...unless young ladies [who haven't had the pleasure of learning such etiquette from their mothers] start recognizing the loss of their more caring sides and change their behavior accordingly.
-------
We live in a world where people constantly whisk friends out of their houses so they can return to their homework, emails, or TV show, and where people generally lack charity in dealing with others. And I just don't get it.
Growing up, my mother always taught me and my sisters not only proper guest etiquette but also proper hosting etiquette--both such lessons were deemed proper, especially for young ladies, to learn [such etiquette applies regardless of age]. Simple gestures like offering a glass of water or a cup of tea, or even just offering a seat, to a friend who drops by are lovely ways to show someone that you truly care. These gestures provide opportunities for you to grow closer to your friends or even open the door to rewarding and fruitful discussions that you might not otherwise have shared [Of course, if you are genuinely too busy to talk to someone, it is fine not to offer, but you should then express your apologies for not having time at the moment and explain why].
So, why are we no longer embracing simple hospitable behaviors? I cannot help but blame our overly-busy lifestyles. In fact, I imagine that many people of my generation did not have the pleasure of learning how to host from their mothers because their mothers worked and didn't have time or a desire to impart such "domestic" knowledge upon their children. Many typical feminists might even assert that such knowledge about etiquette would only serve to unravel recent times' championships...they might say that we should reject such lessons in order to completely "overcome" our terrible past in which women were stereotyped as domestic housewives who simply doted over their family and all guests.
Hmmmm...Rejecting the idea of actually demonstrating that you care....How rude [and mean].
I find the inherently caring nature of women to be one of the most beautiful gifts that comes with being feminine. It is a shame that I have sometimes found my male friends to be more hospitable and generous than my female ones [this is not to say that I am not happy that guys are being so generous---I think it's fabulous that the burden of hospitality no longer only falls on ladies]. At the same time, it's not girls' faults if they don't know how to show compassion and charity in the little things...I truly do blame parents [especially mothers].
In a world where manners and politeness are commonly left for "special" occasions, we seem to have lost sight of the importance of kind [little] gestures' in establishing and maintaining good friendships [I don't care how close you are to someone; standards of politeness must always be maintained].
The sad thing is, I don't know how this will ever change...unless young ladies [who haven't had the pleasure of learning such etiquette from their mothers] start recognizing the loss of their more caring sides and change their behavior accordingly.
03 January 2010
How a Lady Should Ensconce Herself
I was walking through the bookstore the other day only to be faced with a terrifying sight...a young lady sitting as if she were a beer-belly-ridden truck driver lounging on a sunken in couch. She was leaning so far back that her head hit the crease between the cushioned chair's back and seat, and her legs were spread open as if in a second position grand plie. All the while, she sat reading as if nothing was the matter.
I passed by her in utter horror.
This most recent sighting is just the icing on the cake of unladylike postures I've witnessed in recent weeks: Girls sitting spread eagle, young ladies laying down and showing off ALL of their tights [if you know what I mean], women wearing skirts that are both too short for standing and for sitting and being completely unaware of this fact---I don't know what has come over my generation, but whatever it is, it is completely unacceptable.
However comfortable the above-described positions might be, they are so unattractive and unladylike that I firmly believe it should never meet the public's eye [especially any position that reveals intimates of any sort]. Even wearing jeans, young ladies should be very conscientious of how they sit. When in public, crossed legs or legs close together with decent posture should be the goal regardless of the occasion.
It is a matter of pride and politeness. A young lady who shows the least bit of care as to how she physically presents herself is one who takes pride in her person. Just because you are no longer under the watchful eye of your mother who [if she was anything like mine] constantly made sure that you sat like a proper young lady does not mean that your careful presentation should cease---your mother was right. The more you practice proper manners, the less you have to think about it, which inevitably makes future formal occasions less stressful and more enjoyable. First impressions do, indeed, matter.
Sure...sit however you want in the comfort of your home while wearing loungewear...I don't care...No one formulates impressions of you when you're at home.
Politeness always trumps comfortableness in public. No matter what.
I passed by her in utter horror.
This most recent sighting is just the icing on the cake of unladylike postures I've witnessed in recent weeks: Girls sitting spread eagle, young ladies laying down and showing off ALL of their tights [if you know what I mean], women wearing skirts that are both too short for standing and for sitting and being completely unaware of this fact---I don't know what has come over my generation, but whatever it is, it is completely unacceptable.
However comfortable the above-described positions might be, they are so unattractive and unladylike that I firmly believe it should never meet the public's eye [especially any position that reveals intimates of any sort]. Even wearing jeans, young ladies should be very conscientious of how they sit. When in public, crossed legs or legs close together with decent posture should be the goal regardless of the occasion.
It is a matter of pride and politeness. A young lady who shows the least bit of care as to how she physically presents herself is one who takes pride in her person. Just because you are no longer under the watchful eye of your mother who [if she was anything like mine] constantly made sure that you sat like a proper young lady does not mean that your careful presentation should cease---your mother was right. The more you practice proper manners, the less you have to think about it, which inevitably makes future formal occasions less stressful and more enjoyable. First impressions do, indeed, matter.
Sure...sit however you want in the comfort of your home while wearing loungewear...I don't care...No one formulates impressions of you when you're at home.
Politeness always trumps comfortableness in public. No matter what.
***For young ladies who require assistance to remedy their bad habits, please read step-by-step instructions for how to sit like a lady HERE.***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)