Gender Essentialism in Your Stocking This Christmas

This showed up on my Pinterest feed yesterday:

Source

It's a list of stocking stuffer ideas for Christmas, by age.  I groaned inwardly when I saw that it was divided into a list for boys and one for girls.  Then I got a little optimistic when I saw that the first half-dozen or so items on the list were identical.  Play dough, art supplies, bubbles, stickers.. I can totally get behind this list.

And then as I continued to scroll down, my heart dropped with an almost audible sitcom trombone chorus - You know the one... wah wah waah waaaaah. About six or seven lines down, we get to the inevitable.  Cars and action figures for boys, dolls and jewellery for girls.

*sigh*

Can we step out of our boxes for a minute and consider the fact that some little girls just might enjoy playing with cars?  Or maybe there are little boys that enjoy playing with dolls?

I know many people will jump up with "But My Daughter LIKES dolls! My Son Likes Trucks! They wouldn't WANT to play with trucks/dolls!"  That's awesome.  Really, it is.

Your kid is not EVERY kid.

How many kids out there aren't getting what they would really like for Christmas because lists like these reinforce gender stereotypes that dictate what toys are appropriate for what gender? I'm not even going to get into the assumption of a gender binary here, because people tend to lose their shit when faced with the suggestion that a kid may be anything more than all-boy or all-girl.

What I wonder is why the creator of this image couldn't have amalgamated these items into one list and done away with the unnecessary gendering of sunglasses, jewellery, Nerf Guns and Barrels of Monkeys?

Speaking as a former little girls I, for one, LOVED Barrel of Monkeys.  It was a goddamned barrel of FUN.

UPDATE: So last night I posted a comment on the blog where this image originally came from asking, very diplomatically, why split the list into boys/girls, since parents clearly would already know whether their kids were into dolls or trucks, regardless of gender.  I wish I had taken a screen cap, because I went back to see if there was a response and my comment has been deleted.  I followed up, although I doubt my response will garner a response.

There's also a disclaimer at the top of the blog now asking not to leave harsh comments regarding the splitting of the lists into boys/girls.  That may or may not have been there before I commented.  I hadn't really paid attention, so if it was already there, my bad.

Conversations with my sister's kid: defining masculity

My sister has a giant Newfoundland dog.  Giant puppy, actually.  So all the playful exuberance of a puppy in a package roughly the size of a mastodon.  The kids, I'm sure, love her, but it's pretty safe to say the novelty has worn off.

R: I think when I get my own place I'm going to get a cat, just so I won't be lonely.

R: That's not too gay is it?

*facepalm* (He's a teenager, so I try to have patience, but really?)

Me: No, I'm pretty sure having sex with men makes a guy gay, not owning a cat.  Besides, who cares?  Are you worried your masculinity is going to be called into question if you live with a cat?

R: Yes, kind of.

Me:  Just make sure to give it a really hyper-masculine name.. like Machine Gun Larry.  Even if it's a girl.

R (in suavest manner a 16-yr-old can muster): "Hi.. this is my cat, Machine Gun Larry." 


In other news, I'm totally making plans for the imaginary cat that my nephew doesn't even own yet.

Oh, Toronto Sun, I guess I shouldn't be surprised..

But this seems sad, even for you.

I stopped reading the Sun years ago, not being able to take the sensationalist, pearl-clutching, chicken-littling right-wing rhetoric. I got tired of the blatant objectification that is the Sunshine Girl, Michael Coren's rampant bigotry and homophobia, and hell I even got sick of the snarky little comments in the letters section.

For a publication that started out as a youthful voice in the face of the Old Guard of Canadian news media, they're not exactly a bastion of progressive thinking.

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised when they show a distinct lack of sensitive for trans issues, by referring to Former-now-current Miss Universe contestant Jenna Talackova as a he/she on their front cover.

Source

Keep it classy, Sun Media.

I had hopes when I saw the headline on their homepage that read "A True Heroine" that Mike Stroebel's column about Talackova would be a little less insensitive and transphobic, but again, I was disappointed.

Disappointed but not surprised.

I can't put my finger on it but both yesterday's column and the follow-up today  seemed to ring with a bit of snarky condescension.  Maybe it's the reference to 'men-turned-women' and their 'advantages' in the beauty pageant circuit.  Because, sure expecting a contestant to drop trou in order to prove that they 'meet gender requirements' when none of the other contestants are expected to (I could be wrong.. is the lack-of-swimsuit or 'most-legitimate-vagina' competition a new thing I haven't heard of?) is nothing compared to the advantage of leaner muscles and no monthly bloating.

The Sun's lack of sensitivity not-withstanding, there are issues with the idea of having to 'prove' oneself as a woman in order to compete that are wholly problematic. Let's pretend for a minute that there aren't a MILLION AND HALF things about Miss Universe that are problematic.  One's gender and how they identify goes so much deeper than simply what kind of equipment resides in one's crotchal area.  I, for one, even without her having had gender reassignment surgery, would be willing to give Jenna Tarackova the benefit of the doubt when she says she was 'born' a woman and would thus meet the guidelines of being a naturally-born woman, since being a woman is more than the presence of a vagina or breasts.  Why shouldn't the Miss Universe pageant do the same?

Once again I offer the caveat that my knowledge of transgender issues is limited, so my grasp on some concepts and terminology may be shaky, and I totally invite people to call me out in the comments if I fucked up.

That said though, I would think that advising a major publication to avoid terms like He/She is a pretty obvious no-brainer.

Come On, Canada.. we're dropping the ball on that 'human rights' thing.

Okay, so first there was that story a while back about how all those same-sex marriages that people rushed to Canada to get weren't actually valid if they weren't recognized in the place where the couples actually lived.  That was some kind of fuck-up indeed.  I'm not sure what the point of travelling somewhere to get married is if it's not going to be recognized elsewhere.

Free tourism, I guess?

Now, it seems that there is a regulation on the books that essentially bars pre-op transgender folks from boarding airplanes for travel.  (I just want to mention that I'm not totally comfortable with the term 'pre-op' as it implies that all transgender folks WILL eventually opt for SRS - not all do.)

From blogger Chris Milloy's website:

The offending section of the regulations reads:

5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if …
(c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents;

Milloy points out that the rule, which came about last July is not actually a piece of legislation, but a regulation put forth by the Ministry of Transportation, and as such didn't have to be subject to a lot of pesky votes and such.  No, they pretty much just said so and that was that.

Really, guys?  We have a reputation to uphold, here.  We're supposed to be the bastion of human rights in North America and we're kind of failing miserably.

Unlike the constant attacks in the U.S. on pretty much anyone who's not at the top of the kyriarchy, which have been well publicized and put right out there for our amusement and/or horror, these kind of things seem to be happening pretty quietly, with an air of 'Oh, well that's not what we meant.'

It's been said before, and Imma say it again:  INTENT.  IT AIN'T MAGIC

So even if a law is not 'meant' to be discriminatory, if it causes issues for a commonly marginalized group, then it's discriminatory.

It strikes me funny that, in the wake of the election of a Conservative Majority these governmental microaggressions seem to be popping up more frequently, but always in such a way as to allow for plausible denial and magical intent.  My inner conspiracy theorist, who makes an appearance every so often, would probably think that no, suddenly backsliding on gay marriage would be a bad political move.. but what if the law was just written poorly?  It'd reflect poorly on the government to just say 'Hey.. we aren't gonna let transgendered folks fly' but if we wrote the regulation in the name of safety?  Who doesn't like safety?

Tricky, tricky, tricky.

But then again, you'd have to be kind of a jackass, or have not had ANY exposure whatsoever to gender issues to see how such a regulation would fuck with people who don't necessarily gender-identify with what's in their pants.  In which case, makes this some pretty fucking blatant discrimination.

*Privilege disclaimer:  My experience with transgender issues is pretty limited, so if I've made use of some iffy terms or concepts here, please feel free to call me out in the comments.

Avatar Generators, Body and Gender Normativity

So, having too much time on my hands and possibly some bizarre form of narcissism, one of the things I like to do is make cartoon avatars of myself.  If I stumble across a cartoon generator, I have to make a version of myself.  I just have to.

And since I am somewhat of a chameleon, changing looks fairly often, I sometimes have to update them.  But some examples:

Myself, as a Pickle. 

Sadly, there's more where that came from.  I'm not sure why the need to cartoonize myself.  Maybe it's because I see myself as vaguely cartoonish to begin with. Maybe, like I said previously, it's some bizarre manifestation of a narcissistic personality disorder.  More than likely, I'm just bored and spend too much time on the intertubes.

What I've found that irks me somewhat is that, with the exception of the Simpsons generator and the South Park generator, it's very difficult to find my body type represented in these generators, so a certain suspension of disbelief is required.  I'm sure it just comes across that I totally see myself as some skinny broad but no, truth is, the cartoon generators don't give me much choice but to be some skinny broad.  The Simpsons generator, if I recall, did allow for a choice of two female body types.. a slim build, and a slightly thicker build (as shown in my own av above).  The South Park generator is the only one (that does a full-body av) that I found that doesn't default to a slim female body, mainly because it defaults to the short, dumpy form that everyone in South Park Colorado is blessed with.

Being recently shorn, I found it less difficult to find my hairstyle represented as well.. Most generators have a wide assortment of long hairstyles for female-presented characters, but not so much for the short styles.

I'm also perturbed that one generator, called Rebel Girl, didn't have an option for glasses.

Anyway, that's a few observations I found.  In all honesty, I'm sure a book could be written on the ways some of these sites, like girlsgogames.com and dressup247.com enforce a whole whack of gender and heteronormative crap onto the young, web-savvy preteen girls which seems to be their market.  Likewise, generators like the Marvel Make-Your-Own Superhero enforce their own ideals on boys and girls (when you choose your initial character shape, you have three choices.. a huge muscly dude, a grotesquely huge and muscly dude or a slim, large-breasted woman).

It'd be kind of awesome to see avatar generators that are capable of incorporating a wide array of body types, shapes, colours, hair types and less gender-normative options as well.  Does anyone have any examples of good sites like that?

Maybe they should have called the baby 'Shitstorm'*

..because it seems that's what the parents in Toronto who decided to keep their baby's gender a secret in an attempt to keep zir unfettered by gender policing and expectations, have effectively created.  For the good or the bad, is what I've got to wonder.  In my honest opinion, if anything damages this kid, ambiguously named Storm, it'll be the media hype surrounding zir lack of gender definition, rather than a lack of defined gender*.  I'm unclear as to who actually alerted the media to the couple's plan, although I think it may have been relatives of the child in question.


Myriads of commenters on the Yahoo article I read, as well as at least one columnist for the Toronto Star questioned the ethics behind this couple 'treating their child as an experiment'.

Thing is, parenting IS an experiment.  There's no strict set of rules for this stuff. 

Myself, I can totally see where the parents are coming from, in wanting their children to explore their own personalities and gender identification without having expectations pressed on them based on what is between their legs.  I'm still completely lost as to what connection there is between a Y chromosome, a penis and an aversion to pink.

As far as 'damaging' this child we should probably remember that baby Storm is four months old.  Zir main concerns at this point in time are "I'm Hungry.  I'm Shitty.  I'm Bored."  Somehow I don't think "I'm Having a Crisis of Identification" comes into play at that age.  Besides, I think zie will figure it out.  I think the idea is not to raise an indefinitely ambiguous child, but to allow the baby for it's first few years to be less restricted by those gender expectations that are thrust upon us from the earliest of ages. 

From the very moment we are born and the doctor declares "It's a Girl/Boy!" - at least, in instances where it's clear from the beginning - we treat baby boys and baby girls differently which in turn helps to shape how they see themselves in the context of gendered expectations.  Not having a 'gender'** could result in people responding to baby Storm's individual personality rather than a preconceived notion of babyhood.

Interestingly enough, the number of people who have wagered that Storm is a boy is staggering.  This may have to do with a common societal trope that uses feminine markers to identify as female, so

Baby - feminine identifiers = default = boy.

I'm gonna laugh my ass off if Baby Storm is indeed a girl.  At this point, I'm not wagering any guesses.

Which brings me to where the potential for backfire comes in.  Columnist Caroline Porter of the Toronto Star presented the idea that by refusing to acknowledge their child's gender they may inadvertently make it a bigger issue, by "trapping him in an endless discussion."  I think there is something to be said for this view, as it does seem possible that Baby Storm could end up being defined by the unending "Well, what is he/she?" question.  Because you KNOW, people aren't going to let go of that one easily.

I think, underneath the question of gender anxiety, another issue is at hand that has people wringing their hands, and I think part of it is the refusal of the Wittericks to enforce gender expectations on any of their children.  The older children, both boys, play with nailpolish and the older one frequently wears his hair long and in pigtails.

Somehow people think that by not adhering to strict gender guidelines, they are setting them up for trouble later, from being bullied at school, or that they are going to be gender-confused.  My question is, how many 'gender-confused' people grew up in homes where gender rules were enforced but still re-identified later in life?

As far as kids teasing them, call me crazy, but I think the way to combat bullying is not to try and force potential victims into conforming to expectations (see the case of the teacher who kicked a kid out of class for wearing high-heels "for his protection"), but rather to teach people to just fucking relax already and if a little boy wants to wear nailpolish, or a little girl wants her hair short, it's not the end of the world, just like it's not the end of the world if you don't know what pronoun to use around a four-month old baby.

As for Baby Storm, as the media frenzy dies down, I think he'll figure out who he is.. long before he has to answer the 'which bathroom to use' question.


*For the record, although I've named my own children rather unique names, I would never advocate actually saddling a small child with the name Shitstorm.

**Keeping in mind that sex and gender are often two different things.  Sex is generally (although there are many different schools of though on this) defined by a) genitalia and b) presence or non-presence of a Y chromosome.  Gender's more complicated and has more to do with how one identifies themselves. Someone may identify as female, while presenting as male, and vice versa.  Some gender theorists have eschewed the idea of the binary model and presented ideas that there could be up to as many as nine different genders.

Today, I questioned a cartoon's manhood.

I received a text from the Danno today.  He likes to send me the occasional brain teaser, like the one below.  I am convinced he's absolutely batshit insane sometimes think he might have some issues (you know I'm just kidding, right?).

Danno: Question: Which one of the looney tunes do you suspect had the biggest penis?

Me: Well, Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam are out.  The violent temper and affinity for firearms indicate insecurity and a need to over-compensate.

Me:  Based sheerly on the laws of proportion, I'd say the abominable snowman.  Biggest character=biggest penis.

Me:  Incidentally, my phone forces me to spell out penis.

Danno: Yeah, I was in the same boat, combining Pen and Is, but my phone learned it after the first time I used it. :-)

Danno: Your insights into this sensitive matter are much appreciated.

Me: Hey, I'm here to help.

This is a man with some masculinity issues to work out.  Source

Take that, Canadian winter - another half-assed post

I got my snow tires today, finally.  It meant spending a good two hours in the seventh circle of hell that is Wal-Mart, but holy crap it's done.  Just in time to drive two and a half hours to Kitchener on Tuesday night for the Finger Eleven concert.

I also auditioned today for a local production of The Vagina Monologues that's being put on for our local women's shelter.  I think I did pretty good, and it was fun trying out.  I got to say fuck, cunt and vagina a whole lot.  I think my chances of getting even a small part are pretty good.

I was listening to our local station's classic rock Saturday night and I'm reminded once again of the under-rated talent of the Animals and of the equally under-rated hotness of the young Eric Burdon.  In my very honest opinion he should have easily taken Mick Jagger in a battle of British Invasion hotness.  Jagger looks like a troll.

Burdon in foreground - Photo Credit

Holy crap. Loverboy. Classic rock night is AWESOME.



This video embodies every terrible 80's cliche imaginable, while having the added panache of being a CANADIAN 80s rock video. Can-rock in the 80's was a very special kind of terrible. Like Enid says in Ghost World "This is so bad it's gone beyond cool and back to bad again."

Anyhoo folks, this has been another half-assed weekend post, brought to you by myself and the Simple Dude in a Complex world.  Go give him some love.

WWWednesday - Avert your eyes boys, we're talking lady stuff.

Let that be a warning to you.. veiled references to icky lady stuff ahead.

So, down 1.5 lbs this week, so yay for that.  I feel like that's fair for the amount of effort I put in this week.  I managed to track up until Saturday morning before I kind of fell apart and stopped writing.  No, wait, friday night.  The post-bar snacky-time got to me.  The liquid points 'tweren't too bad.. one beer at the Legion, then later one beer at Bleachers.  In all though, I think I only went a little over this weekend.  So yay me.

I think part of my issue last week may have been horomonal... It sucks, near the end of my cycle (and I'm sure others can relate to this) I put on about 2-3 lbs regardless of my weight-loss efforts, which tend to be hampered by that general sense of lethargy/frustration/outandoutbitchyIDON'TWANNAness that comes with PMS.

And I get ravenously hungry.  All. The. Frickin' Time.  I'm not talking emotional/bored hungry.  Like, I mean I've just had breakfast, and while driving to work my stomach starts growling.. so I drink a bunch of water and have a banana or something mid-morning.  Then by Noon I'm STARVING all the while going "What the effin' eff?? I've eaten twice already!!"

By three o clock I'm irritable as all hell.. have a sensible snack, like some fruit, or a yogurt, all the while craving something battered, fried, greasy, with lots of cheese and.. oh hell.. chocolate and a giant Mocha-frappo-dappo-choco-cino to wash it down with.. and beer too.

Did I mention I work right above a Tim Hortons?  And that their Cherry Cheese Danishes are freaking amazing?  Yeah.  I'm almost glad they're not letting vets sell poppies, because it gives me one additional reason not to go down there and further sabotage myself.

But long story short, all this premenstrual BS (the guys who have been brave enough to read this far are cringing now... MENSESMENSESMENSES!!! PEEEERIODDDDD!!!  Here guys, here's a video to distract you.  You may just learn something..) leads up to a whole lot of frustration.  Two Steps forward, one step back, and so forth.

So here's a couple of small steps I made this week:

• Bought whole wheat bread.
• Did some pushups and curls at home, completely of my own volition
• Added cucumbers and substituted wheat bread to my regular 6" Roast beef sub

Oh, here's something disturbing I found today while trying to calculate my points for said sub:  My Roast Beef Sub with lite Mayo and cheddar cheese works out to about 8 points on the weight watchers plan (by the way, here's a good link for people who are trying to follow the plan but may not have all the tools - it's got the points calculator, and a chart for tabulating what your point allowance should be based on your weight and height.  Mind you, it doesn't take into account your job, or gender or age.) Curious, I checked out my other favorite Subway sub, the Pizza sub.  11 freakin' points! Not even including the extra cheese i usually get, and the fancy bread (Italian herb and cheese).

That Roast Beef sammich is sounding a whole lot better.

Flashing Gender Arrows.

My girls recently got their hair cut, like uber-short.  Pixie cuts, basically.  Not to brag, but my kids are pretty damn adorable, dare I say GORGEOUS, with very feminine facial features.

Today the receptionist at the dentist thought they were boys.  This is the first time this has happened since they got their hair cut.  I'm not terribly bothered by it, and as far as their feelings go, well, they were out of the room at the time the little faux pas was made, so no worries there.

It's easy to overlook the bright pink winter coat on the one child, and the pink pants on the other.

They have unique names that while predominantly used in the feminine, can be boys names as well.

But how.. HOW, I ask, do you miss the T-shirt that says in giant letters "I LOVE BEING A GIRL"

Really?

Reminds me of when T. was a baby and a nice couple oohed and ahhed and asked how hold 'He' was.

"Six Months," I said "but actually she's a girl."
"A girl?! But she's wearing blue!"
"uhm... a blue dress."


Just goes to show that people have specific things they look for as gender-markers, while ignoring other markers.  For some it's as basic as P vs VG (although most people don't have them on display, and I've learned it's considered rude to ask).

For others it may be hairstyle, whereas for others it may be clothing, or posture.

In other news, this may have been the best dentist visit in my children's history.  No cavities, no freakouts, no tears.  Good times.

A little clarification, slightly out of context.

It's happened in the past, both in conversation and in past blog posts such as this one, that I have played with the idea that one's sexual orientation may be fluid, rather than a static state.  That is to say, that I don't necessarily agree with the idea that one's orientation is decided at birth. 

Keep in mind, I know I'm speaking as a woman who identifies as straight, thus far (in keeping with where I am going with this), so I will try to keep my privilege in check and not make assumptions.

This is where people either respond with A) "That's ludicrous!  You can't choose whether to be gay or straight!" or B) "Aha! So you agree, it IS a choice!"

No.  That's not what I'm saying. If I say one's orientation can change, that doesn't mean I'm saying it's a choice.  It's based on the difference between the following two adjectives

Changing: Something that is capable of change.

Changeable:  Something that can be changed by force or manipulation.

So while I would agree that one's sexuality is unchangeable (that is to say, you cannot force change upon it - you can't 'cure' someone of being gay/straight, nor can someone say 'I've decided not to be gay/straight today') I would question the idea that it is a completely static birth-to-death state of being.

The Mrs. Lovejoys have their priorities out of whack.

You know who I'm referring to, correct?  Those that wring their hands crying 'Please, think of the children!'

Over the last couple of weeks there have been a string of teen suicides involving gay teens who were being tormented (bullying is so overused.. ) by their peers.  One kid was outed on the internet by his college room-mate.  Imagine, if you will, someone you were forced to live in close confines with playing a video of you having sex ON THE INTERNET.  Without your consent, or knowledge.  Imagine how horrifying that might be for you.  Regardless of who you are having sex with.

Dan Savage, who writes a sex advice column, came up with the brilliant idea for the "It Gets Better" project... basically, a collection of videos where gay adults can let young people who may be grappling with their sexuality know that there is life after high school and that life will get better.  Frankly, I think ANY kid who is being bullied can benefit from this.  I sure could have.  It was a huge relief finding out that all those heirarchies that exist in a high school and even public school environment DON'T MATTER when you're finally out in the 'real world'.

Of course, we get the dissent, as I mentioned yesterday like this jackass here (Again, trigger warning.)  A commenter at Here and Now pointed out this story as well:

Some School Anti-Bullying Programs Push Gay Agenda, Christian Group Says

Imma file this under "Are you F***ing Kidding me??"

"What parents need to be aware of is there are activist groups who want to promote homosexuality to kids because they realize if they can capture hearts and minds of our children at the earliest ages they will have for all practical purposes won the clash of values that we are currently experiencing," - Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family, said on recently launched website TrueTolerance.org.

Seriously?  I have to laugh at the irony of the 'TrueTolerance.org' I also love the idea one can sell a certain sexual orientation to kids.  No, sorry.. the idea is not to promote, the idea is to let kids that are having issues with their sexuality to say 'You're okay.  Be who you are'.

Now, I have issues with Anti-bullying legislature (yes, even as a former victim) because frankly, I think a big part of the problem is that parents need to stop teaching their kids to be such little shit-heads.  Seems pretty friggin' simple to me.  However, some parents refuse to do this, as I learned at a young age when the parent of the kid who spent a year throwing pine cones, then iceballs, then eventually ROCKS at me at my bus-stop until I finally got hit in the mouth, responded to my mother's complaint by saying "Well, YOUR daughter was swearing at my daughter."

SHE WAS THROWING ROCKS AT MY FRIGGIN' HEAD.  DAMN RIGHT I'M GOING TO SWEAR AT HER!!!

So, there are Those Parents who won't teach their kids not to be shit-heads, and there are kids who, for some reason or another, won't bring it to their parent's attention when they are the ones being victimized.  I was one of those kids, and why, I have no idea.  Hell, I was skipping school in the third grade to avoid the douchebaggery of my fellow classmates.  I had no reason not to tell my parents, I just didn't.  For this reason, it is necessary to have some boundaries in place in schools to prevent this behaviour.  But to say that the legislature shouldn't have any focus on one of the more marginalized groups of students because of a 'clash of values' is absurd at best, dangerous at worst.

Basically, the message I get from their stance is "What's a few gaybo's offing themselves if it means our kids don't catch 'teh ghey'."

Mrs. Lovejoy's of the world, I think you need to rethink your priorities.  Think of the children, indeed.

Think of YOUR children.  If this was your child, would you not want someone to stand up for their right to be who they are and love who they love?  As a parent, I'd rather my kid be gay than dead, any day of the week.

Maybe Ms. Candi Cushman of Focus on the Family needs to take a moment and focus on the families who are grieving right now for their lost children.. children they lost to hatred, intolerance, and bigotry.  May these poor boys rest in peace.

Billy Lucas, Age 15
Tyler Clemente, Age 18
Asher Brown, Age 13
Seth Walsh, Age 13

No Make Up week - Follow up.

Three days so far.. one to go. No, I'm not including the weekend. I figure four business days is enough to prove myself.

I have a confession though. I did cheat a little. I admit that I've used a tiny bit of concealer on the giant nasty pimple that's been sitting right between my eyes, mocking me.

Honestly, it's all in the name of avoiding confusion, lest people think I've converted to Hinduism.

I'm sure it's a lovely system of beliefs, really, but I have enough trouble reconciling myself with the idea of one god, let alone many.

It's on, Bitches. - No Make-Up week.

I love a challenge, so when I came across BlagHags post about No Make-Up week, it sounded like a fun one.

I am a self admitted make-up fiend. No, I don't go the route of sharpie eye-brows and cake foundation, but I do like to have fun with it, especially eye-make up, and to a lesser extent, lip-stick. I work in an office, so reasonably I can say I wear it to maintain a professional appearance but let's face it.. that's a total cop-out. I just like to wear it.

I don't consider myself one of those women who refuse to be seen without being made up. Most weekends, when I'm doing my various running around, I don't bother with it. But depending on my mood, I enjoy the opportunity that make-up allows for me to create different persona'. Vamp today? yes, please. Perhaps tomorrow I will be a fresh-faced girl next door. Lipstick alone has the power to transform and project a particular ideal. A vivid red, and I hold my head a little higher, swing my hips just a bit more when I walk. Switch to a subtle pink and I'm demure, with an upturned Lauren Bacall gaze.

I'm reminded of The Bonfire of The Vanities and Thomas Wolfe's use of The Girl with Brown Lipstick as imagery. The brown lipstick seemed to symbolize sensuality, but with an earthiness, a wholesomeness justapoxed with conspicuous sexuality.

I'm by no means blind to the argument for make-up being a tool of the patriarchy to emphasize woman's worth being based solely on her aesthetics. But I also see no issue with engaging in the trappings of femininity (interesting phrase, though.. the trappings of femininity - as in, those things that keep us prisoner) when one is aware and critical of their social significance. One mistake that past generations of feminists have made is buying into the positive/negative male/female dichotomy, and eschewing those things considered feminine.

Ladies, there's nothing wrong with femininity. But always, always look with a critical eye to why you engage these 'trappings'.

But anyway.. in honor of "No Make-up Week" Here is me, sans make-up, in all my adult acne'd glory:




This should be an interesting week. Let's see how long I last.

Because with chicks.. it's cool, ya know?

Read an interesting article in the Toronto Star today regarding a study on Late-Blooming Lesbians - that is to say, women who for most of their lives identified as either straight or mostly-straight, who later in life, enter into relationships with other women, sometimes leaving family behind. The study suggests that women's sexuality may be fluid rather than a static state of being. It suggest that women who 'come out' late in life may not have been repressing their sexual tendencies as many might assume, but that a woman's sexual preference can actually change over time.

This is not to say that it's a choice, but to put it simplistically - like, utterly, ridiculously simply - have you ever had a food that for years you had an aversion to, then one day you decide to try it and you like it? Tastes change.

This idea doesn't surprise me in the least. My own sporadic research into the subject, along with human anectdote has left me open to the idea of fluid sexuality for some time.

What surprised me about the article and the study is the seeming assumption that it is women that have this fluid sexuality and that men remain static.

Richard Lippa, a professor of psychology at California State University who has done a series of studies on sexual orientation, says most men are strongly attracted to one sex or the other —they have a preferred sex and an unpreferred sex.

But “there are more shades of grey to women’s attraction,” he says. Women, he says, tend to have a preferred sex and less preferred sex. Women are much more likely than men to report some degree of same-sex attraction.

I'd have to wonder how much of this binary is related to societal perception and acceptance of homoerotic behaviour in men as opposed to that in women. It seems a common occurence that over the last decade or two a women can engage in homosexual behaviour, call it 'experimentation' and still identify as straight.

However, on the flipside of that coin, the opinion expressed that any homosexual behaviour in men and societially speaking, they're gay, gay, ever so gay. Even in some cases of unconsensual (ie. jailhouse) sex, this is considered to be true. Men who 'come out' late in life are generally assumed to have been repressing their 'true' sexuality.

Taking a social constructionist view on things, I'd be interested to know if these researchers have considered prevailing social roles and conditioning as a factor in the perceived difference between the 'fluid' female spectrum of sexuality and the 'static' binary of male sexuality. Could it be that males report a distinct 'preferred' and 'unpreferred' gender because from the youngest of age, society discourages any sort of admission of homoerotic leanings, unless of course one is ready to 'go big or go home' and fully live up to the typical all-out gay stereo type? That, where women for the last couple decades at least have been allowed to express to certain extent at least a passing fascination with our sisters? Women have been allowed a middle-ground, where in males, this possibility of a middle-ground has all but been stomped to shit.

Something to ponder, anyway. Thoughts?

I rarely vote or get legal abortions anyway..

Even though normally this goes against everything I normally stand for, today, just for today I'd like to say a big old 'effyoo' to the feminist movement and all it stands for.

Why? Because today I had to move a dryer, by myself. BY MY FUCKING SELF. An apartment sized one, yes... but still... it was HEAVY.

And just because we CAN do all things that men can do, doesn't mean we always should, or even WANT to.

I sure didn't WANT to move a dryer all by myself. 20 years ago, I could have reveled in the idea that if I wanted to move a dryer by myself I could, but that in reality, there'd be a strapping male around to move it for me.

50 years ago, the idea of a woman moving a dryer by herself, while plausible (if she were freakishly large, or born with an excess of testosterone) would have been laughable.

100 years ago it would have been questionable if that was even a possibility. Which it wasn't, as the dryer had yet to be invented.

So yeah, bite me, Feminism.

....


I'm sorry. I didn't mean it. I love you.

Stand Back! I'm trying Plumbing!

So I was gifted with a gently used, apartment sized washer/dryer set over the weekend. Being that my home is a small one, I've got the dryer set up in the mudroom (and will eventually find somewhere to plug it in). The Washer is in the kitchen and it's on wheels, allowing me to roll it on over to the kitchen sink when I want to do some laundry and hook it up to the faucet.

I am very excited (and a little sad) at the prospect of being able to do my own laundry whenever I want.

Theoretically.

Getting said washer/dryer combo set up is presenting a challenge, to say the least. When I took the aerator off the kitchen faucet, I discovered that the hoses that hook up to the washer are way too big to fit onto the teeny-tiny faucet. So after work today I took a jaunt to one of my favorite places in the world... Canadian Tire! Let's face it, I love any place that gives you actual paper money (okay, fine, colorful play money) for shopping there, rather than some kind of intangible points system.

As much as I love Canadian Tire, I'm always a little overwhelmed going in there.. especially if I'm feeling particularly girly.. like I'm immediately suspect. Not 30 seconds into the store a red-shirted employee asked me quite friendly like if I needed help. I was barely in the door. Maybe it was the flower in my hair or the awestruck look on my face, or the cloud of estrogen that I apparently walk around in, but my need for assistance was palpable.

Nonetheless I struck out for aisles 51/52 on my own with an appreciative "Thank you sir! That remains to be seen!"

I should ask for help.

More accurately, I should measure things before I go places rather than attempt to guess. Because right now I'm sitting here, with an adaptor that's about 1/8th of an inch too small, and a weeks worth of dirty laundry and absolutely no motivation to drive back into Midland for another part. *sigh*

Maybe there's a nice rock I can beat my clothes against somewhere.



The newish washer


Just a smidge too small.


At least this part fit.


Le sigh.

Say what you mean, don't say it mean.

A friend of mine brought an interesting story to my attention today. It seems a professor of religion at the University of Illinois was fired over comments regarding the Catholic Church's view on homosexuality being immoral, after a student complained on behalf of an anonymous friend. The comments were labeled as 'hate speech'.

The first reaction many people had to my friend's post was along the lines of 'Erm.. you're taking a course on Catholicism, why are you surprised at being taught as Catholic doctrine??' However, I asked.. was the professor in question teaching doctrine, or stating his own opinion? As it turns out according to the article above, he did state that this was an opinion he shared.

What we have here, is a political hot potato (at least, for the University of Illinois). A situation vague enough that it can be easily manipulated by a number of factions.. the uber-PC folks who use terms like 'hate speech' to quell opinions that don't match their own, and the ultra-right-wing conservatives who use the concept of free speech to perpetuate hate and ignorance.

Either way, it doesn't do anything constructive for the case of critical thinking.

The way I see it, the difference between 'personal opinion' and 'hate speech' is this:

Opinion: "I don't agree with or like {marginalized group of people}"
Hate Speech: "I don't agree with or like {marginalized group of people}. They should be wiped out/imprisoned/beat up/poked with sticks/otherwise tormented and degraded"

The funny thing is, in both the liberal and conservative media I have seen on this story, there's a lack of any direct quote or context. Was this dude going off on a diatribe about 'the gays' and fire and brimstone in the middle of a lecture? Was perhaps the complainant a gay student who felt that this may be held against him? Did the prof know this? Then yeah, I would say disciplinary action would be in order (even if he didn't know).

However, suppose he was teaching the Catholic view (as is his prerogative in a class on Catholicism - durr) and a student inquired "What do you think, sir? Do you agree?" As a professor in a post-secondary institution, should he be bound by political correctness to keep his mouth shut? or would he be compelled to be open with his students by giving his honest opinion? Should a professor be maligned and disciplined for giving his honest opinion (even if others, this author included, may find them to be ignorant and archaic?)

No, that's silly, of course not. Right?

Let's play a little devils advocate here. What if this was a history professor.. or specifically a 20th century history professor.. even more specifically, a 20th Century European History professor, teaching on WWII and the Holocaust. The professor states that to this day, some people still do not believe that the Holocaust really occurred. A student asks 'Do you agree with this belief?' and the professor honestly states that no, he does NOT believe the Holocaust occurred.

THIS professor is now a holocaust denier, and guilty of hate crimes under our laws*. Kind of muddies the waters there, doesn't it?

So this begs the question.. in an post-secondary setting, should professors have complete academic freedom in their lectures? It's not so much a black and white answer.

On one hand, no student should feel maligned in a lecture or that their religion/race/gender/orientation etc may be held against them in regards to their academic performance.

On the other hand, academic professors have been known to express controversial opinions and arguments on a variety of topics. One of the major tenets of academia is the ability to think critically, and form cohesive arguments. How do you learn to think and argue critically when you agree with everything you're been told? In my first year of schooling, I'd come out of some of my classes almost in tears in anger and confusion, because I was forced to face ideas that I was less-than-comfortable with. However, as time rolled on, these were the classes that taught me to really look at all sides of an argument, until I either A) was able to rebut with a cohesive argument or B) was more open to views that I hadn't considered before.

In one article on the subject the Alliance Defense Fund, which is looking into the situation stated:

"A university cannot censor professors' speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech 'offensive.' Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views"

Do you agree?

*Yes, I suck. Holocaust Denial is not covered under Canadian Hate Speech laws. Oops.

Sex and Education

So, a Facebook friend of mine posted an article regarding a new proposed sex ed curriculum for Ontario public schools that would have children young as 6 being taught sex ed.

Read the Article

It got me thinking, as sex education in schools (and in general) has been a hot-button subject (is it bad that I giggled at the term 'hot-button'?) with me since my first year in university when I did an independent study on the advent of the birth control pill.

The following is my response to her post, verbatim:

In my honest opinion, the question shouldn't focus so much on 'who' is being taught, but 'what' and how. Personally, I am a huge proponent of sex ed in schools. Although Lori makes a great point about telling based on her perception of when her girls are ready to hear what, the unfortunate thing is not nearly enough parents are that in-tune. I agree with the statement that they are going to learn it elsewhere and frankly the messages that are portrayed in the media are pretty messed up.. so I think it's a good thing that the education system can step in for damage control, because in all honesty, a lot of parents will NOT discuss things frankly and honestly with their kids, whether it be out of some kind of moral outrage or out of sheer laziness.

As far as what is being taught.. I think oral and anal sex is way too advanced for kids (hell, for a lot of adults too). I also think that some of the wording was kind of inflammatory, such as the part about 'giving kids lessons in oral sex'.

I do think masturbation should be covered, for reasons that it's had a bad rap for a long time, and frankly I think it is healthy to explore and become familiar with your own body, and hell, if a young person is okay with 'taking care of business' on their own, they may not be so quick to run out and experiment with others.

I give HUGE applause to the proposal of covering gender and sexuality identity issues in early sex ed. Sex education in schools these days is hugely heterocentric, and I can only imagine that this has helped foster a feeling of inadequacy in people who fall outside of the so-called 'norms'. Hate stems from fear which stems from ignorance.

My beef with the way sex ed is taught, and I think that the proposed curriculum STILL doesn't do enough to address are the social and emotional implications of sexual activity. This includes thinking critically about the way sex is treated in institutions such as the media, religion, government and so on.

I also think that the open-class type forum (being the 'how' it's taught) is not conducive to open and honest discussion, mainly due to children and adolescent's seemingly ingrained need to 'fit in' with their peers, which may prevent them from really touching on subjects that they are wondering about (playing into that 'taking topics as they come' area) for fear of reprisal from teachers and peers.

That was pretty much where I left off, as I figured at that point, I'm better off, as they say in forum-land blogging that shit.

I can appreciate the desire of many parents to keep what, ideally, should be a parents' responsibility, up to the parents. I found it interesting that one of the comments in the Star's article places the blame on an increase in sexual activity on sex education in schools, but neglects to mention the increasing number of (overwhelmingly dysfunctional) images of sexuality that we are bombarded with on a daily basis. As mentioned, I think in such a media-saturated age, it's of utmost importance to have some sort of 'damage control'

I have always tried (all discomfort and squeamishness aside) to maintain an open and honest diaglogue with my girls where issues of sexuality and gender are concerned, basing their readiness simply on their questions. If they ask, I answer as simply as possible and if they have follow up questions, I answer those as well. The downside of sex education at this early age is that no, it does not account for individual readiness.. but then again, neither does the media.

For the parents that are pro-active in either talking to their children or shielding them from what they feel they may not be ready for, then the issue is not such a pressing one. However, I'm also a proponent of offering alternative views and teaching young people to think critically. There are people who, out of fear or ignorance or plain bigotry would pass down archaic beliefs and while it is not my place to say what is the 'right' or 'wrong' opinion to pass down, I think it's crucial to have a second opinion. Being able to think critically also helps down the line when perhaps in a situation of peer pressure a young person may find themselves able to weigh what they've been taught by both family and school against the current situation - for example 'It's okay, I'll pull out.. hahahaha.'

I could go on for ages, but I kind of wanted to stay on topic, but I'm interested in the debate.

In a follow up, the new curriculum, under pressure from family and parent groups and in the face of a looming election, was postponed.

Follow Up Article

In reading the second article, I actually lost some of my indecision. The way the timeline is laid out in the sidebar, I really don't think their is anything particularly outrageous about the ages that the subjects are brought up. Again, much depends on the 'how' rather than the who. As I mentioned earlier, the inflammatory language of the source in the Star article refers to lessons on anal and oral sex, whereas the parentcentral article says that the grade seven curriculum may 'touch on' anal and oral sex - two entirely different approaches.

I have to mention, I like the wording of 'delaying' sexual activity as opposed to abstinence. As well, I think grade seven/eight is a good time to start bringing up gender identity. The source quoted in the Star seemed to give the impression that 6 and 7 year olds would be made to question their identity. Meanwhile, grade 7 and 8 I have found is the age where kids start using words like 'queer' and 'fag' and 'slut' and 'bitch' to hurt each other... thus the perfect age to start looking at the connotations behind such terms.

When it's broken down in steps like this, I really don't find much objectionable at all.