I have been asking myself this question for years now. And I still don’t have a perfect answer, mostly because it isn’t scary to me. Two people loving each other, regardless of their gender is something that I 100% support.

Spiders scare me.
4 million women a year abused by partners scares me.
Human trafficking scares me.
People toting pistols and making racist statements scares me.
Even the dark scares me.

But Homosexuality does not scare me.

Nonetheless it seems to scare a lot of people, and so I think that spending some time understanding why people are scared, might be a part of identifying ways to educate and reach out to them…..

I will speak to three general categories. I do not think that these categories are the only categories, and I want to make sure to acknowledge that there are most likely many, many other more subtle reasons why people are afraid of homosexuality.
But for the sake of conversation, I have chosen three.

1) Those who have diagnosable mental illness.
2) Those who are afraid of losing social privileges.
3) Those who have not had the opportunity to learn anything different.

1) In the first category you have people like Fred Phelps and Shirely Phelps Roper of the Westboro Baptist Church. This type of “anti-gay” psychology seems to be based on primitive projection and splitting. It is not difficult to tell that this group of people has very little insight or complex cognition skills. It is most likely that they are actually NOT scared of gay, but rather scared of their own issues and perceived “internal badness”, and needing a scapegoat on which to project their “sins”. Even FOX news thinks that these people are crazy.

2) The second category of people is one that is trickier to explain. This category is people who have gained or maintained some social power through some identity, and the culture’s acceptance of their identity as mainstream. For example, a man who has married a woman in a patriarchal setting has often gained certain privileges. He may be able to have the final say in marital decisions or spats, he may be considered the “leader” of the household, he may be exempt from certain tedious tasks like housecleaning and child transportation. IF “gay is ok” as I would propose, then Patriarchy is less important because a woman does not need a man to make decisions, and could potentially partner with another woman. This challenges the assumed power of gender constructs within straight relationships just by suggesting the validity of gay partnerships.
This is scary for category two people because it creates an “unknown” variable that challenges current standards of behaviors. For instance if a woman and a woman can partner, then it seems logical that a woman can be a “leader” when leadership is needed in a relationship. And if a man and a man can partner, it seems logical that at one point or another a man is capable of giving power away, being submissive to another’s will or view. In mainstream patriarchal relationships (and most potently in religious contexts), this is a HUGE fear. Without the dogma of gender roles, culture would need to literally be rewritten. As it stands in these types of contexts, the woman is the receiver or child figure, and the man is the provider or parent figure. Homosexuality challenges these false roles, and therefore is a perceived threat to power structures.

3) The last category is pretty self-explanatory. This is a group of people who have been indoctrinated to believe that God hates homosexuality. They are taught that it is “unnatural”. This can only be remedied through education, and dialogue with people who are gay and can teach about the “natural” progression of their sexuality towards the same sex. The problem here however, is that category three people tend to be somehow tied to category two people. This makes it very difficult for a category three person to branch out and consider different perspectives and opinions as it might mean the loss of a significant attachment for them.

I am very curious what other categories people have in mind when they consider the question, “why are so many people afraid of homosexuality?”

After quickly ending the betrothal, he then launched a lawsuit against the woman and her family claiming “emotional damage”, and asking for repayment for the gifts (over $120,000) that he had given his former fiancee before being introduced to her hairy visage. (The judge allowed the man to end the engagement, but did not rule for the woman to return ANYTHING given to her by him).

Still, the irony is delicious. Require a woman to hide her face and her beauty, THEN when she does not meet “beauty standards”, SUE her ass.

It is entirely mind-numbing that we live in a world where a man would feel entitled to sue a woman for being unattractive. A bride to be having facial hair is “emotional damage to a man”, but the incredibly damaging tradition of head-covering goes on all over the world.

Though it’s possible to conclude this story as a tragedy and loss for this woman, I have to wonder, if in this case, the woman didn’t actually win in the end. If she had in fact been attractive to his liking, she probably had to marry him, have his children, clean his house, and stroke his obviously frail ego for the rest of her life. I have to wonder (and hope) that this woman might have intentionally skipped her waxing appointment to sabotage this marriage.

It seems that this ambassador got what he was asking for by complying with a culture that hides the face of women…..one damn hairy lesson in reality.

I’d like to think that this woman has found the greatest, most loyal and protective lover of all, one that saved her from a life of marital servitude, and loss of dignity.

Prince charming isn’t a frog after all..rather, he/she/it is a mustache.

To my surprise I found my passion for redefining gender reignited by a  Beyonce performance  of “If I were a boy”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzv-nOfm7hc

Beyonce exposes the “armor” of male gender identity in her male dancers, while simultaneously using that armor to represent the strength of women in her own costume, dancing, and the bravado of her voice.

The lyrics expose the nature of male privilege, while the performance inspired a strong feminine character in the midst of our culture’s character of emotionless masculinity.

Thank you Beyonce for reminding us of the reality of the gender gap, while simultaneously giving us hope to subvert it with strength and beauty.

“I’d listen to her cause I know how it hurts, when you lose the one you wanted cause he’s taking you for granted and everything you had got destroyed”.

Sergeant Munley

The shootings at Ft. Hood remind each of us about our human vulnerability. People choose violence. Often. And often we are defenseless. But as we grieve the unfathomable violence perpetrated at Ft. Hood, I hope that we will also honor the unfathomable bravery of Sergeant Munley. A woman who risked her own life to end a day of terror for so many others. Her valor reminds me of how often I forget that courage is more powerful than destruction.

Here is an article that details her valiant efforts at Ft. Hood.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/us/07police.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

And if the abuser is a senator…..

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/nyregion/25monserrate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

he can make a really really bad excuse:  ”I slipped and fell and the glass broke on her face”. Right, and that’s why you didn’t go with her to the emergency room eh?

Most victims are too scared to document at the time of an abuse event and have often been manipulated into believing that they deserved the abuse. This makes it even more important for anyone who hears the story to WRITE IT DOWN and date it. Send yourself an email, or send it in a letter to your grandmother. Whatever you do, make sure that you document any report of abuse. Otherwise, the lack of documentation will be used as a mockery of the victim’s testimony.

Turns out that both me and my sister are androgynous.

I had three distinct reactions to this quiz.

1) How AMAZING that a quiz is allowing kids to identify their masculine and feminine qualities, and allow for the fact that all people have personality traits that have been classically assigned to one or the other gender. Even the idea that people have qualities of both genders is truly progressive….

but then in reading the actual quiz, I had reaction#2

2) What the??$#%$?^%$^?%$# The quiz assigns behaviors that are aggressive/violent/criminal as “boyish”, and behaviors that are passive/boring/ as female. Ergh. No wonder domestic violence is the number one cause of death for females in America.

3) I LOVED that there was a question where the kid could identify themselves in whatever way they pleased. This allows for self-identification of gender/personality traits as opposed to gender assigned by sex organs.

Here is the quiz in its raw form…..Any other reactions?

How Boyish are you? And how girly are you?

1. What do you do in spare time?

Play outside with friends and pick flowers

Play with dolls

Listen to the ipod or mp3 player

Prank people

Play videos games

2. On a scale through 1-5, how would you say that you act like a girl? (Be honest)

3. On a scale through 1-5, how much would you say you act like a boy? (Be honest)

4. Someone takes your chair? What do you do or say to them?

Get off or else!

GET THE F$%*@ OUT OF MY F$%*@ING SEAT YOU F$%*@ING MORON!

Go to another seat. Who cares?

Push him off. I had it first.

Sit in another seat and watch him.

5. Which one of these movie genres would you prefer?

Comedy

Adventure

Horror

Sci-Fi

Action

Today I ran into this tent on the side of the Burt Gillman Trail just under I-5. It reads: “Lea! Call your F*!king voicemail”, and there is a heart with a question mark, as if to indicate that Lea needs to make a choice as to whether or not she wants love from this particular gentleman. (I use the word gentle-man loosely of course)

Dear Lea,

I assume you’ve checked your voicemail.
I assume that you are aware that this gentleman is looking for you.
I could be wrong, but…
He sounds angry.

Fucking angry.

And I bet he was angry before you stopped returning his calls.

If someone had that level of anger and entitlement to accessing me, I wouldn’t want to call them back either.

So, I just wanted to say,

I hope you don’t check your voice mail, and I hope that you don’t run into this gentleman today, or read his scare tactic, tomorrow, or the next day.
I hope that you are safe.
And far.
From this anger.

Because no one ever deserves to be treated like that.

I love that they make information available at my fingertips. I love that I can research cancer prevention and watch a video of a strange kid after his dentist appoint all in my living room.

But I also love the Internets for another reason: they are helpful in identifying oppressive unconscious social identity stereotypes and expectations.

As a little experiment today, I put on my Google goggles to do some research about the nature of the images that were linked with the word “woman”. I was curious if I would find highly sexualized imagery, or domestic portrayals, or if perhaps (and hopefully), there would be images of women in the working world, or in the academic world, or in spaces other than the kitchen and the bedroom. I was curious…. WHAT WOULD A GOOGLE SEARCH OF THE WORD WOMAN REVEAL ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF WOMEN’S CURRENT STATUS (AND PROGRESS) IN THE WORLD?

and here is what I found…

In searching for “woman” the top five image results were as follows in order of their apparent applicability (and popularity of people who visit their sites on Google)….

1. A picture of a naked woman in a bed with her face hidden with the title “mystery woman”.
2. Julia Roberts in “Pretty Woman”-The “ideal” prostitute image.
3. Wonder Woman.
4. Playboy magazine cover (with a playmate dressed as wonder woman).
5. A woman pretending to give fellatio to a statue.
6. A pregnant woman from neck to the bottom of her belly in a robe.
7. A painting of a pregnant woman by Alice Kneel.
8. A picture of a woman smiling while cleaning.
9. A “virtual woman” from a video game.
10. A picture of a Japanese woman jumping on a bed with the title “woman having fun in bed”. 

(Note: this line-up changes every day because the Google algorithm changes according to Internet activity.)

Here are what I think are the underlying ideological/social statements of each corresponding photo from above.

1. Women’s bodies are desirable and their “face” is not a necessary part of the arousal. (Also the title plays into the notion that having sex with an unknown woman is arousing, as opposed to sexuality that involves intimacy and relationship)
2. Prostitution is acceptable and can even be seen as a “fairy tale” experience for a woman.
3. Women can be strong and powerful (but only if they are also incredibly beautiful).
4. Wonder woman is a hot sexual fantasy for a man. (Also, women on flat paper are much more arousing that women in real life).
5. Even a male statue deserves to have fellatio performed on him.
6. Pregnancy (childbearing, and child raising) is still a central part of what is expected of females in order to maintain their gender identity. (A huge portion of a woman’s value is still found in her ability to make babies and raise children)
7. Pregnancy is such an important female role, there are two images in the top ten.
8. Women are still responsible for domestic work, (and according to this image, they love it!)
9. Women in video games are hot.
10. Another huge role for women is to be in bed, and this woman is “having fun”. (And is probably playing into the highly sexualized image of Japanese/Asian women as desirable for stereotyped passivity and servant hood)

I think it is fascinating that out of ten images of a “woman”, two of them portray PREGNANCY, two of them portray women in BED, one is of a PROSTITUTE, one is a PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGE (soft porn, but still porn), one is of a woman CLEANING, one is a woman performing FELLATIO, and the last two are FICTIONAL characters in male dominated hobbies (comic books, and video games).

There are no images of women in the workplace, no images of women in power, and no images of women interested in their own progress. All of the images maintain the status quo of patriarchy and reinforce the one-sided, terribly boring and disappointing dance of mainstream gender roles.

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE WOMAN AT WORK?

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE WOMAN AT SCHOOL?

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE WOMAN IN POWER?

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE WOMAN WHO IS INDEPENDENT OF MEN?

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE NORMAL LOOKING WOMAN?

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE OLDER WOMAN?

WHERE ARE THE IMAGES OF THE WOMEN OF COLOR?

WHERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE WOMAN REVEREND OR PASTOR OR RABBI?

WHERE ARE THE IMAGES THAT REVEAL THE TERROR WOMEN EXPERIENCE AT THE HANDS OF VIOLENCE ON A DAILY BASIS?

WHERE ARE THE IMAGES THAT ENCOURAGE WOMEN TO LOVE THEMSELVES AND STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES?

Thank you Google for the reminder. We have a long way to go.

A couple of years back I had a limited perception of skinny jeans. I thought that they were only for those who were literally skinny (as in the webster’s definition: “a:lacking sufficient flesh, very thin, emaciated b: lacking usual or desirable bulk, quantity, qualities, or significance”)

When I saw people wearing skinny jeans who fit the definition of “skinny” (and also I am guessing the definition of hungry), I was willing to concur that the jeans were in fact fashionable and attractive.

However, when asked to consider this style of jeans for my own figure, (I am not as the definition would state, lacking in flesh, or emaciated) I argued fervently that the skinny jean would in fact be a detrimental decision for my body type, or for any other body type aside from the tall, long-legged, and hungry.

But somewhere over the past few years something changed.

And it got me thinking…

Did the skinny jean itself improve, or did my perception of its reality change as it became a widespread phenomenon and took on new and more broad definitions of itself?

I am guessing the latter.

The more that I saw people in skinny jeans who were eating three square meals a day, the more that I became comfortable with this notion. And the more that I saw this way of style evolve into body types resembling mine, the easier it was to accept my own toosh into a pair of tight trousers (and now 3 pairs actually….brown, black, and blue).

And as unimportant as it may be, I think that I look good in a pair of skinny jeans. And I think that women with all sorts of legs and backsides can look flattered in a pair of skinny jeans. And my acceptance of this definition of beauty (ie, the expanded definition of who looks good in a pair of tight from top to bottom jeans) is directly related to the non-verbal conversation that I was having with community, and the community was having with me.

Now. At some level, who cares? Jeans? Really? On another level, I think that this exposes something incredibly relevant to everyone.

How do you see the world? Who are you conversing with (on both verbal and non-verbal planes), and what statements are you sending to the rest of the world to read? Simply put, how does what you do impact others?

Questions of kindness, of politics, of lifestyle, of gender roles, of racial identities, (and of course of fashion), are constantly being asked and answered by the way that we show up in the world.

I guess my communication with the world today might look something like this….it is ok for people with adequate flesh to wear skinny jeans, it is good to spend time alone resting, coffee shops are acceptable places to drink beer, brushing your teeth is important, dogs need love too, small computers are better than big ones, etc etc. (ok, so I didn’t have the most exciting day of my life)

And so I say! Wear those jeans, love that person, speak your mind, and defy that “norm” because your “voice” might be able to chip away at some strangers limited perception of the world.

]]> http://onceuponanicecube.com/skinny-jeans-perception-and-reality-a-non-verbal-community-conversation/feed/ 1 http://onceuponanicecube.com/uni-sex-bathrooms-why-i-do-and-dont-love-peeing-without-gender-restrictions/ http://onceuponanicecube.com/uni-sex-bathrooms-why-i-do-and-dont-love-peeing-without-gender-restrictions/#comments Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:25:48 +0000 Eli http://onceuponanicecube.com/?p=38 I went to this hip and happenin coffee shop on 15th in Capitol Hill last Sunday to do some reading and use some Chai to help soothe my cold Seattle hands and feet. The place was packed. There were Americanos with Americanos (no room, two spledas) all over the joint. People were reading and mingling and doing what normal Seattle-ites do when the weather sucks.

And really there wasn’t anything that exciting until….I had to pee. I went up to the register and grabbed the bathroom key and headed for the ol powder room. To my surprise, there were two bathrooms, and I glanced down to the key to make sure that I had grabbed the “girls” key.  But my key was hooked to a plastic spatula with no label. I realized that there was a “spatula” bathroom, indicated by the picture on the door, which linked to the key in my hand. There was also another bathroom designated by some other random kitchen utensil (I didn’t pay enough attention to remember what specifically). But there it was. The bathrooms were defined by the key that opened the door, rather than by the limitations of girl, boy, man, woman etc.

I found this moment to be beautiful.

I sat my white little toosh down on that cold porcelain seat and peed with profound enjoyment that I was not limited by my gender. I have developed a pattern lately of going into Starbucks’ men’s bathrooms (because I know they are all one-person-lock-the-door type situations). Even if the women’s bathroom is open, I march my way into the men’s bathroom and enjoy the benefit of entering a space that I am denied because of my gender. I don’t do this because men’s bathrooms are particualrly enjoyable places to be (in fact, they tend to be the opposite….aiming is apparently a rare talent these days)…I do it because it symbolizes a rebellion for me. A way to step beyond the social constructs that ask me to “submit”, “separate”, or dumb down my strength according to someone else’s idea of who I should be, and where I should be allowed to go.

And it got me to thinking. What other spaces inside myself, and outside of myself have I been hesitant to explore because I have been instructed against it? (Maybe it’s anger, or my love for racing (and winning), or maybe it is my strength to speak boldly and risk being labeled a bitch, or to be sensuous and risk being called a whore….

Well, I guess for now…I feel good about peeing where I’m not supposed to, but I can already tell….this rebellion is lovely and it makes me feel alive, and I think it is going to go far beyond the stall….