Ok, I only have 2 NYTimes.com articles left. That is scary -oh wait, new month tomorrow, new slough of 20 articles - yes!
So this NY Times article kinda sums up my opinion on Slutwalks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/magazine/clumsy-young-feminists.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
Also, I decided to visit the http://bitchmagazine.org/
website, only to discover its going broke and out of press :( There is a campaign to prevent this by collecting subscriptions, so feel free to sign up. Also, don't go to bitch.com in search of the mag - I did that by mistake, and that is the closest I have come to watching porn. It looked kind of -well, I got out of that website as fast as I could, and am glad that I did so.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Being Straight
Let me preface this by saying that I think to say "I wish I were gay", is one of the most insulting things you can say - not because there is anything wrong with being gay - but because such a statement shows a complete ignorance of the difficulties that society places on the lives of gay people, of the homophobia they must deal with on a daily basis, sometims latent, sometime explicit. I think this might especially be so in the case of Orthodox Jews. So here I go, unleashing satire - and it is rude, but of course, I would not deign to be funny, seeing as how women were meant to be serious, due to our propensity to pop children out of our vaginas - or so Christopher Hitchens told me in "Vanity Fair". Well, here goes:
You are in a restaurant, and the most exquisite of God's creatures walks in: It is a woman. Her lips are red, and her blond hair falls straight down to her shoulders. The skin on her legs look soft, and you kind of want to stroke it, the way one would pet a sheep. She has these beautiful things on her chest called breasts, and she smells like gardenia. You aren't exactly sure what she is wearing, but its sequined and shiny, and it kind of makes you afraid you'll slobber all over yourself when you take a sip of water, so you wait to drink, until her ass has turned the corner.
Only she doesn't turn the corner. She leans over you - you can see the valley in between her breasts, can touch it almost - and nothing happens. Nothing. Nada. Rien. There is no small surge between the thighs, no slight hardening of your breasts. Your fingers are frozen; your lips show no inkling of desire to plant themselves gently on her red-tinted mouth.
The lunch goes on. A man approaches - dirty, disheveled, wearing some monstrosity that never should have been allowed to escape from the shelves of Old Navy. He smells like sweat, but there is something sweet about that smell, prickly almost, like he is some sort of cactus-fruit waiting to be sliced open. He does not have these exquisite mountains, but the blades of his shoulders as he turns the corner -you want to feel them. He does not come near you; rushes by your table without so much as a glance your way, and you feel it: the feeling that there is some sort of magnetic core pulling you to him, pulling your body to his body.
You think about it logically of course, and you are confused: Why on earth should this creature, with his nothing of a chest and legs that look like they've become territory for an overgrown forest of brown hairs, turn you on, when these beautiful women leave you feeling - well, really like you'd just rather find the first guy standing closest to them and start grinding - no, well, women are better to grind with really - they have more rythm, and you don't have to worry about feeling if they have an erection.
At moments like this, you are forced to beleive in evolution, because were it not for the reproductive imperative, you can't think of any reason why you would be programmed to be attracted to these phalus-bearers. Maybe this was Darwin's idea of a dirty joke.
Well, it's not that funny - but then again, you've never really trusted scientists to have much of a sense of humor anyway - especially straight ones. Damn breeders.
You are in a restaurant, and the most exquisite of God's creatures walks in: It is a woman. Her lips are red, and her blond hair falls straight down to her shoulders. The skin on her legs look soft, and you kind of want to stroke it, the way one would pet a sheep. She has these beautiful things on her chest called breasts, and she smells like gardenia. You aren't exactly sure what she is wearing, but its sequined and shiny, and it kind of makes you afraid you'll slobber all over yourself when you take a sip of water, so you wait to drink, until her ass has turned the corner.
Only she doesn't turn the corner. She leans over you - you can see the valley in between her breasts, can touch it almost - and nothing happens. Nothing. Nada. Rien. There is no small surge between the thighs, no slight hardening of your breasts. Your fingers are frozen; your lips show no inkling of desire to plant themselves gently on her red-tinted mouth.
The lunch goes on. A man approaches - dirty, disheveled, wearing some monstrosity that never should have been allowed to escape from the shelves of Old Navy. He smells like sweat, but there is something sweet about that smell, prickly almost, like he is some sort of cactus-fruit waiting to be sliced open. He does not have these exquisite mountains, but the blades of his shoulders as he turns the corner -you want to feel them. He does not come near you; rushes by your table without so much as a glance your way, and you feel it: the feeling that there is some sort of magnetic core pulling you to him, pulling your body to his body.
You think about it logically of course, and you are confused: Why on earth should this creature, with his nothing of a chest and legs that look like they've become territory for an overgrown forest of brown hairs, turn you on, when these beautiful women leave you feeling - well, really like you'd just rather find the first guy standing closest to them and start grinding - no, well, women are better to grind with really - they have more rythm, and you don't have to worry about feeling if they have an erection.
At moments like this, you are forced to beleive in evolution, because were it not for the reproductive imperative, you can't think of any reason why you would be programmed to be attracted to these phalus-bearers. Maybe this was Darwin's idea of a dirty joke.
Well, it's not that funny - but then again, you've never really trusted scientists to have much of a sense of humor anyway - especially straight ones. Damn breeders.
Cosmo is Cracked
So a friend of mine recently mentioned these two links from Cracked.com, a humor site, in a shabbat conversation. The links make fun of Cosmo:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19066_7-psychotic-pieces-relationship-advice-from-cosmo.html
http://www.cracked.com/article/156_7-sex-tips-from-cosmo-that-will-put-you-in-hospital/
The fact that a mainstream humor site, without any feminist agenda, aimed at the average* 20-something- year old, is making fun of Cosmo and recognizing how ridiculous Cosmo is, makes me happy.
* and hence, male: Unless a site specifically targets women, it aims itself towards a general audience that is assumed to be male, because that is the norm in our society. Women is the Other. See Simone de Beauvoir, "The Second Sex". I would argue this particularly in the case of humor sites, since society views men both as major consumers and producers of humor, which is a man's territory. Many women in the comedy world complain about that. This link relies too much on gender stereotypes and is too spiteful of religion for me to agree with it, but I think it's a great example of the notion in pop culture that humor is a man's province: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701
http://www.cracked.com/article_19066_7-psychotic-pieces-relationship-advice-from-cosmo.html
http://www.cracked.com/article/156_7-sex-tips-from-cosmo-that-will-put-you-in-hospital/
The fact that a mainstream humor site, without any feminist agenda, aimed at the average* 20-something- year old, is making fun of Cosmo and recognizing how ridiculous Cosmo is, makes me happy.
* and hence, male: Unless a site specifically targets women, it aims itself towards a general audience that is assumed to be male, because that is the norm in our society. Women is the Other. See Simone de Beauvoir, "The Second Sex". I would argue this particularly in the case of humor sites, since society views men both as major consumers and producers of humor, which is a man's territory. Many women in the comedy world complain about that. This link relies too much on gender stereotypes and is too spiteful of religion for me to agree with it, but I think it's a great example of the notion in pop culture that humor is a man's province: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701
Fashion
I am a Gemini. I don't believe in astrology - after all, as the saying goes, "There is no astrology for an Israelite", but the concept of twins has long fascinated me: As an only child, not only did I desire a twin, but I also was convinced - still am, at times, convinced - that I had twins in alternate universes I could communicate with through mirrors. I love the painting "The Two Fridas", in part because I feel, like Frida, that I have two "me"s inside of me: One is really spiritual. The other is obsessed with fashion.
Recently, my inner fashionista has been coming out - maybe because I am back in New York after a month's hiatus, maybe because I love the idea of costuming my identity through these visual markers, and of turning my outfit into a work of art. But sometimes I wonder if I have become too materialistic: How can I worry about flower appliques when there are homeless people starving in the streets? As I ponder my next steps in life, I gravitate towards living in Tel Aviv, and a small part of me goes: "Are you gravitating towards this just because you are in a materialistic phase? After all, Tel Aviv is not exactly known for its spiritual ascetism - but then again, you're not really aiming for spiritual ascetism, just for a fully spiritual life that sees physical pleasure as a way of connecting to God." I once heard Rabbi Riskin say that when one goes up to heaven, God will ask "Have you taken pleasure from the world that I have created"? For, after all, the world was created for human beings to enjoy - each person must balance the dictum that "For me the world was created" with the dictum that "I am dust and ashes".
Today, having lunch with a friend, the conversation turned to men's fashion, and I found myself sounding like the caricature of the girls I love to mock, kvetching about the way that men just don't know how to choose the right jeans. Of course, I suppose a difference between me and the girls I love to mock is that while I have my "ideal" of which clothes I think look good on a man, I wouldn't not go out with a man because he had what I considered to be bad fashion sense - as a matter of fact, I've gone out with plenty of guys whose clothes I thought were completely asthetically unappealing, and it never bothered me - I never even thought about it really, because it's not important to me. But I wonder: Is there something wrong with having that ideal? Do guys also have an ideal of the way that they want women to dress, and how does this ideal impact their dating decisions?
Like it or not, fashion is an expression of our popular culture - including the mysogyny and objectification of women inherent in our culture, which expresses itself in the requirement that models be a size two - and it can be used as a way to create an identity: Frida used traditional tejuana dress to help fashion her identity as a Mexican women of tejuana descent. This makes fashion fascinating, but fashion can be a very dangerous fascination, especially when it comes at the expense of more spiritual pursuits.
Recently, my inner fashionista has been coming out - maybe because I am back in New York after a month's hiatus, maybe because I love the idea of costuming my identity through these visual markers, and of turning my outfit into a work of art. But sometimes I wonder if I have become too materialistic: How can I worry about flower appliques when there are homeless people starving in the streets? As I ponder my next steps in life, I gravitate towards living in Tel Aviv, and a small part of me goes: "Are you gravitating towards this just because you are in a materialistic phase? After all, Tel Aviv is not exactly known for its spiritual ascetism - but then again, you're not really aiming for spiritual ascetism, just for a fully spiritual life that sees physical pleasure as a way of connecting to God." I once heard Rabbi Riskin say that when one goes up to heaven, God will ask "Have you taken pleasure from the world that I have created"? For, after all, the world was created for human beings to enjoy - each person must balance the dictum that "For me the world was created" with the dictum that "I am dust and ashes".
Today, having lunch with a friend, the conversation turned to men's fashion, and I found myself sounding like the caricature of the girls I love to mock, kvetching about the way that men just don't know how to choose the right jeans. Of course, I suppose a difference between me and the girls I love to mock is that while I have my "ideal" of which clothes I think look good on a man, I wouldn't not go out with a man because he had what I considered to be bad fashion sense - as a matter of fact, I've gone out with plenty of guys whose clothes I thought were completely asthetically unappealing, and it never bothered me - I never even thought about it really, because it's not important to me. But I wonder: Is there something wrong with having that ideal? Do guys also have an ideal of the way that they want women to dress, and how does this ideal impact their dating decisions?
Like it or not, fashion is an expression of our popular culture - including the mysogyny and objectification of women inherent in our culture, which expresses itself in the requirement that models be a size two - and it can be used as a way to create an identity: Frida used traditional tejuana dress to help fashion her identity as a Mexican women of tejuana descent. This makes fashion fascinating, but fashion can be a very dangerous fascination, especially when it comes at the expense of more spiritual pursuits.
Religion and Sexual Abuse
So I recently read an article about sexual abuse in Buddhist religious establishments, and how the perpetrators get away with it. I've read similiar articles about Christianity - and yes, about Judaism as well - though I do beleive there has been a very concentrated effort in the past decade in the Orthodox community to make people more aware about sexual harrasment, and to provide people with avenues to turn to in the case of sexual abuse.
Anyhow, whenever these articles come out, some self-righteous atheist writes an op-ed about how terrible religion is and how it enables sexual abuse. The truth is however, that while there are many factors that contribute to sexual abuse, what really enables it on a societal level is power: Anytime men are in positions of power over women, abuse occurs - not by all men of course, but by certain men who take advantage of the opportunity. There have not been enough societal structures enabling women en mass to be in positions of power over men en masse (at least in Western society), so there is no comparable data for women using power to abuse men. The truth is however, that whether it is an office setting, a political party (for example, the virulently atheist Communist Party in Russia, in which you needed to be in good standing with party superiors in order to get ahead), a classroom setting, the military, or any social organization that puts men in positions of power over women, abuses have occurred. There are humans involved in religious organizations, which means members of those organizations will commit human flaws - including abuse. But there is nothing inherent in religion or religious society that makes it particularly prone to abuse. It is true that there are coverups, or the concept of protecting the perpetrator from the American legal system, but that happens in any close community, whether it is a religious, cultural, linguistic, or ethnic community - especially if said community feels that it is a minority, there is a fear that turning perpetrators over to the hegemonic majority community is a betrayal. This is not particular to religious communities, nor is it particular to secular ones. So instead of arguing over which is better, let's point fingers at the true perpetrator: The gender power imbalance and invisibile mysogyny that permeates Western culture.
By the way, for those in the Orthodox community seeking help this is a great resource: http://sites.google.com/site/sovrihelpline/
Here is an article from Chabad by a survivor of abuse, with a list of resources at the bottom: http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/934222/jewish/Breaking-the-Silence.htm
I would caution people against going to Ohel Family Services though. I know that the Jewish Week wrote an article blaming them for mishandling a case of abuse. I also know that Ohel denies the Jewish Week's accusation. I don't know who is right, but why turn to an organization that you know for a fact might have mishandled a case of abuse?
Anyhow, whenever these articles come out, some self-righteous atheist writes an op-ed about how terrible religion is and how it enables sexual abuse. The truth is however, that while there are many factors that contribute to sexual abuse, what really enables it on a societal level is power: Anytime men are in positions of power over women, abuse occurs - not by all men of course, but by certain men who take advantage of the opportunity. There have not been enough societal structures enabling women en mass to be in positions of power over men en masse (at least in Western society), so there is no comparable data for women using power to abuse men. The truth is however, that whether it is an office setting, a political party (for example, the virulently atheist Communist Party in Russia, in which you needed to be in good standing with party superiors in order to get ahead), a classroom setting, the military, or any social organization that puts men in positions of power over women, abuses have occurred. There are humans involved in religious organizations, which means members of those organizations will commit human flaws - including abuse. But there is nothing inherent in religion or religious society that makes it particularly prone to abuse. It is true that there are coverups, or the concept of protecting the perpetrator from the American legal system, but that happens in any close community, whether it is a religious, cultural, linguistic, or ethnic community - especially if said community feels that it is a minority, there is a fear that turning perpetrators over to the hegemonic majority community is a betrayal. This is not particular to religious communities, nor is it particular to secular ones. So instead of arguing over which is better, let's point fingers at the true perpetrator: The gender power imbalance and invisibile mysogyny that permeates Western culture.
By the way, for those in the Orthodox community seeking help this is a great resource: http://sites.google.com/site/sovrihelpline/
Here is an article from Chabad by a survivor of abuse, with a list of resources at the bottom: http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/934222/jewish/Breaking-the-Silence.htm
I would caution people against going to Ohel Family Services though. I know that the Jewish Week wrote an article blaming them for mishandling a case of abuse. I also know that Ohel denies the Jewish Week's accusation. I don't know who is right, but why turn to an organization that you know for a fact might have mishandled a case of abuse?
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Identity
So I've kind of been avoiding writing about part B: Is liking people of the same gender a sex-preference thing, or is it indicative of the assumption of a different, radical identity that should be embraced? I find this question fascinating because it permeates the feminist debate: In asking for equal rights to men, do we say we are the same and happen to have vaginas*, or is being woman some radical identity that we should embrace, is the very idea of equality a capitulation to the patriarcy, in our desire to be like men in some way?
I think the answer to both of these questions is that there is no answer. but what matters is that there is no coercion. Thus, being gay can be a sex-choice thing, or it can be an assumption of a radical identity, or something in between, depending on the individual - and it should be the individual's choice how their homosexuality affects their identity. I do see the argument that choosing a sexual partner of the same sex is in it and of itself a revolt against the heteronormatice patriarchy, but I think it is unfair to politicize sex in that way: I should not have to treat my sexual decisions as political ones. I also find it unfair that according to such a definition, I, as a woman seeking a serious relationship with a man, am by definition giving in to the patriarchy in my choice of a man: It is unfair that because biology programmed me to prefer men, I should be unable to partake of a radical sexual identity, but according to certain (but not all) "separate queer identity" theories, the only true way to embrace the radical patriarchy-bucking identity would be to sleep with women, for that is the truest revolt, and as long as I am attracted to men, I am giving in to the patriarchy. The way I see it, my sexual preferences happen to gel with the dominant culture, which makes my life easier - but I did not choose to be attracted to men, just as women do not choose to be attracted to women.
I do think however, that from a purely physical level, homosexual sex is the only relationship of true equality, in the sense that partner A can do to partner B exactly the same thing B does to A, and if there is something A can only do to B through the use of a sex-toy (read: dildos or strap-ons), then that same thing, B can only do to A through the use of a sex-toy. I think sex is a relationship of power, and there will always be imbalances of power in straight sex, but imbalances that can favor the man or the woman, or each in a different way, depending on the relationship.
Getting back to feminism: I think that a female identity can come in many different forms, and the key is a woman's right to choose which one she wants. For some, it might be a mere physical difference, for others, they might feel that their feminine identity makes them completely different from men and they do not want to partake of any traditionally male roles, either because it does not appeal to them, or because they beleive - as I do - that the desire to partake of traditionally male roles is an implicit acknowledgment of the patriarchy's claim that male roles are superior to traditionally female roles. The key is lack of coercion.
So instead of fighting over what it is to be gay or what it is to be a woman, why don't we fight on a person's right to choose what it is to be gay or what it is to be a woman?
* Please pardon the sex-gender conflation for the sake of rhetoric.
I think the answer to both of these questions is that there is no answer. but what matters is that there is no coercion. Thus, being gay can be a sex-choice thing, or it can be an assumption of a radical identity, or something in between, depending on the individual - and it should be the individual's choice how their homosexuality affects their identity. I do see the argument that choosing a sexual partner of the same sex is in it and of itself a revolt against the heteronormatice patriarchy, but I think it is unfair to politicize sex in that way: I should not have to treat my sexual decisions as political ones. I also find it unfair that according to such a definition, I, as a woman seeking a serious relationship with a man, am by definition giving in to the patriarchy in my choice of a man: It is unfair that because biology programmed me to prefer men, I should be unable to partake of a radical sexual identity, but according to certain (but not all) "separate queer identity" theories, the only true way to embrace the radical patriarchy-bucking identity would be to sleep with women, for that is the truest revolt, and as long as I am attracted to men, I am giving in to the patriarchy. The way I see it, my sexual preferences happen to gel with the dominant culture, which makes my life easier - but I did not choose to be attracted to men, just as women do not choose to be attracted to women.
I do think however, that from a purely physical level, homosexual sex is the only relationship of true equality, in the sense that partner A can do to partner B exactly the same thing B does to A, and if there is something A can only do to B through the use of a sex-toy (read: dildos or strap-ons), then that same thing, B can only do to A through the use of a sex-toy. I think sex is a relationship of power, and there will always be imbalances of power in straight sex, but imbalances that can favor the man or the woman, or each in a different way, depending on the relationship.
Getting back to feminism: I think that a female identity can come in many different forms, and the key is a woman's right to choose which one she wants. For some, it might be a mere physical difference, for others, they might feel that their feminine identity makes them completely different from men and they do not want to partake of any traditionally male roles, either because it does not appeal to them, or because they beleive - as I do - that the desire to partake of traditionally male roles is an implicit acknowledgment of the patriarchy's claim that male roles are superior to traditionally female roles. The key is lack of coercion.
So instead of fighting over what it is to be gay or what it is to be a woman, why don't we fight on a person's right to choose what it is to be gay or what it is to be a woman?
* Please pardon the sex-gender conflation for the sake of rhetoric.
Confessions of a NY Times Addict
I know I am supposed to deal with part B from my last blog post, but I would like to interrupt to share some thoughts on two cool NY Times Articles:
The NY Times recently had an article about Afghani girls who dress like and assume the roles of men: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/world/asia/21gender.html
This article reminds me of one I read a few years back about women dressing as men in Albania,* but there they remain men for life. In both countries, is is the power discrepancy between the male and female gender (with gender being diffrenciated from sex) that causes women to assume the male role: In Afghanistan, sports, going out in public, and earning a living (which is often dependent on being in public), are all right reserved for men, leading families in need of more income, with a shortage of boys, to transform the female-sexed children into male-gendered ones. Aditionnally, in the words of Zahra, who does not wish to transition back to womanhood: They scream at them (girls) on the streets. When I see that, I don’t want to be a girl. When I am a boy, they don’t speak to me like that.” In Albania as well, it was the power imbalance between genders that led to this gender-switching, and it was often done to make up for a lack of males in the family. As Pashe Keki, a former woman who became patriarch after her father's murder left her family short of men explains, "Back then, it was better to be a man because before a woman and an animal were considered the same thing, Now, Albanian women have equal rights with men, and are even more powerful. I think today it would be fun to be a woman.”
A major difference between the Albanian and Afghani customs is sex: The Albanian women remain virgins, single men, trading in their sexuality for their freedom. As such, they do not acquire complete masculinity - the right to sexually acquire a woman's body. Afghani women, on the other hand, are transitioned back to women when the time comes for them to become sexually active, at which point they are married off. In Albania however, the custom is dying off now that women have more equality and don't feel the need to adopt the male gender in order to acquire power. The Albanian tradition reminds me a bit of that of Artemis: becoming a virgin (ie giving up feminine sexuality) in order to do traditionally "male" actions that are imbued with power - like hunt.
As a feminist, reading this articles underscores how much there is to be done to right gender imbalance across the globe, so women do not have to become men in order to have freedom, but this task must be accompanied by cultural sensitivity, and must not mean imposing gender - women should still have the right to adopt the male gender if they choose to do so.
* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/world/europe/25virgins.html
The NY Times recently had an article about Afghani girls who dress like and assume the roles of men: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/world/asia/21gender.html
This article reminds me of one I read a few years back about women dressing as men in Albania,* but there they remain men for life. In both countries, is is the power discrepancy between the male and female gender (with gender being diffrenciated from sex) that causes women to assume the male role: In Afghanistan, sports, going out in public, and earning a living (which is often dependent on being in public), are all right reserved for men, leading families in need of more income, with a shortage of boys, to transform the female-sexed children into male-gendered ones. Aditionnally, in the words of Zahra, who does not wish to transition back to womanhood: They scream at them (girls) on the streets. When I see that, I don’t want to be a girl. When I am a boy, they don’t speak to me like that.” In Albania as well, it was the power imbalance between genders that led to this gender-switching, and it was often done to make up for a lack of males in the family. As Pashe Keki, a former woman who became patriarch after her father's murder left her family short of men explains, "Back then, it was better to be a man because before a woman and an animal were considered the same thing, Now, Albanian women have equal rights with men, and are even more powerful. I think today it would be fun to be a woman.”
A major difference between the Albanian and Afghani customs is sex: The Albanian women remain virgins, single men, trading in their sexuality for their freedom. As such, they do not acquire complete masculinity - the right to sexually acquire a woman's body. Afghani women, on the other hand, are transitioned back to women when the time comes for them to become sexually active, at which point they are married off. In Albania however, the custom is dying off now that women have more equality and don't feel the need to adopt the male gender in order to acquire power. The Albanian tradition reminds me a bit of that of Artemis: becoming a virgin (ie giving up feminine sexuality) in order to do traditionally "male" actions that are imbued with power - like hunt.
As a feminist, reading this articles underscores how much there is to be done to right gender imbalance across the globe, so women do not have to become men in order to have freedom, but this task must be accompanied by cultural sensitivity, and must not mean imposing gender - women should still have the right to adopt the male gender if they choose to do so.
* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/world/europe/25virgins.html
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
What better way to prep for a fake anniversary party for two men than by writing about homosexuality?
I recently read an article on Slate reviewing a book that a) reclaimed historical figures as gay b) argued that instead of the "I'm the same as you let me marry" argument, gays people should be making the "I am different than you and proud of it. I refuse to accept the heteronormative paradigm of marriage" argument.
I would like to dissect both of these statements.
A. I think it is important to recognize the straight bias that has traditionally pervaded academia, and it is appropriate to re-examine evidence of people's sexual lives with an eye towards the possibility that they were gay. I also think the desire to reclaim famous figures as "our own" is common among all minority groups who have been badmouthed and want to feel pride in their identity. However, this desire should not triumph over truth. In the absence of explicit and reliable information, the most we can do is prove that there is a possibility certain people were gay, and prove people to acknowledge that possibility.
For example, people often claim that Abraham Lincoln was gay: He shared beds with men and wrote them tender letters. The problem is however, that such behavior was common among all men during his day, especially since people often couldn't afford one bed per person. It is possible that large swaths of American men were closeted gay men forced to take wives by heteronormative society, and that is the reason for those norms of sharing beds and using terms of endearment with men, whereas now larger swaths of American men are straight than in previous generations. That is possible. A more likely explination, however, is that while various economic and sociocultural factors not directly motivated by some homosexual conspiracy were behind the societal norms of bed-sharing and terms of endearment between members of the same sex, these norms provided cover for gay men who wished to masquerade as straight, and that many took advantage of their shared beds when no one was looking, and ascribed secret romantic meaning to terms of endearment considered non-romantic by the majority of society. It is possible that this was the case with President Lincoln as well, but there is no way to prove it.
A separate question is how important Abraham Lincoln's posible gayness is to general historical discourse. It is of course important to Lincoln biographers and to those with an interest either in historical gay figures or the way homosexuality has traditionally been treated in historiography, but does a debate about his sexuality belong in the highschool history class? I think another way of rephrasing this question is: How essential is someone's sexuality to their general identity? This question is inherently tied in to part B of the book - but it will have to be answered when I get back from the party.
Some links to leave you with before I go, one of which was courtesy of a dear friend:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/opinion/19cullins.html?_r=1&src=recg
I would like to dissect both of these statements.
A. I think it is important to recognize the straight bias that has traditionally pervaded academia, and it is appropriate to re-examine evidence of people's sexual lives with an eye towards the possibility that they were gay. I also think the desire to reclaim famous figures as "our own" is common among all minority groups who have been badmouthed and want to feel pride in their identity. However, this desire should not triumph over truth. In the absence of explicit and reliable information, the most we can do is prove that there is a possibility certain people were gay, and prove people to acknowledge that possibility.
For example, people often claim that Abraham Lincoln was gay: He shared beds with men and wrote them tender letters. The problem is however, that such behavior was common among all men during his day, especially since people often couldn't afford one bed per person. It is possible that large swaths of American men were closeted gay men forced to take wives by heteronormative society, and that is the reason for those norms of sharing beds and using terms of endearment with men, whereas now larger swaths of American men are straight than in previous generations. That is possible. A more likely explination, however, is that while various economic and sociocultural factors not directly motivated by some homosexual conspiracy were behind the societal norms of bed-sharing and terms of endearment between members of the same sex, these norms provided cover for gay men who wished to masquerade as straight, and that many took advantage of their shared beds when no one was looking, and ascribed secret romantic meaning to terms of endearment considered non-romantic by the majority of society. It is possible that this was the case with President Lincoln as well, but there is no way to prove it.
A separate question is how important Abraham Lincoln's posible gayness is to general historical discourse. It is of course important to Lincoln biographers and to those with an interest either in historical gay figures or the way homosexuality has traditionally been treated in historiography, but does a debate about his sexuality belong in the highschool history class? I think another way of rephrasing this question is: How essential is someone's sexuality to their general identity? This question is inherently tied in to part B of the book - but it will have to be answered when I get back from the party.
Some links to leave you with before I go, one of which was courtesy of a dear friend:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/opinion/19cullins.html?_r=1&src=recg
Friday, July 15, 2011
Teacher Quandaries; Gaydar
Today, I was having my students do an improv activity in which they had to propose scenarios for partners to act out in front of the class. A pair of girls was standing up there, when I called on a male student to propose a scenario. He proposed that "they are on a date together because they are exploring their sexuality." I did not use the scenario, but the rest of the class laughed, and I had to struggle not to join in. This moment, while funny, is also a reminder of the fetishization of lesbianism in our heteronormative society.*
Then, I was planning for next week's lesson. I have to do a rather boring textbook reading about genetically modifying human beings, and wanted to find cartoons to discuss in order to spice up the lesson. I found a hysterical cartoon of a four-breasted woman. The caption says that of course women's breasts would be the first thing scientists genetically modify. I found the cartoon funny, but wonder if it is appropriate to share with a class. If a professor of mine shared a comic like that in class, I might or might not have been uncomfortable, depending on the class and the professor. I would, in general however, be much more comfortable with a female professor sharing such a cartoon with a male professor. But doesn't this double standard go against the equality that feminism strives for? Does equality mean men should be as able as women to tell sexist jokes/share sexist cartoons (though I do beleive this cartoon, in the guise of sexist humor, is actually criticizing society's objectification of women) without being accused of harrasment or of being mysogynist? If I show this cartoon, am I "buying into the patriarchy", saying a) I have the right to show this because I am a woman b) It is ok to laugh at women's breasts as part of this lesson?
By the way, my fellow teacher chose not to do the supermodel picture in class. Instead he brought in pictures of superman, and of a random sad person.
On another note, everyone seems to be saying Bachman is gay. Make no mistake about it: I am no fan of Bachman or of reparative "therapy", however, the satire has become malicious, and is also homophobic. The implication is that being gay is funny, and that if you talk or dance a certain way, you must be gay. This type of attitude is responsible for a lot of anti-gay bullying, which also affects straight men with supposedly "gay" mannerisms.
I understand this bullying is coming from the pro-gray rights lobby, however, that does not make it ok, and ultimately, it is counter-productive, since it feeds off of homophobic values. I think there is this desire to prove Bachman a fake, and prove reparative therapy a fake, and if Bachman is gay - presto! You've proven he is a hypocrite, and you've proven reparative therapy is fake - it's simply closeted gay men's way of diverting attention from their gayness, a homophobic pseudo-therapy that is the projection of these closeted men's desire to get rid of their own gay identities. One should not have to stoop to such levels to prove both Bachman and reparative therapy false: We have facts (Bachman offered a scientifically discredited therapy and misadvertised his therapy institute, and is a hypocrite in many other aspects of life as well) on our side, so let's use them to have a serious debate about Bachman and a serious discussion on the harms of reparative therapy, instead of giving the gay rights movement a bad reputation by engaging in mean jokes that are disrespectful not only to Marcus Bachman, but also to his relationship with his wife, Michelle.
I have just defended a tea-partier. I think Mashiach is coming.
Slate has had great coverage of this issue:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/07/14/dan_savage_suggests_marcus_bachmann_is_gay_.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2299300/
Also, food for thought:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/14/city_of_men
http://carolineheldman.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/rape-in-a-small-texas-town-football-family-and-politics/
* I had a poster collage of all the homoerotic imagery of women in the issue of Vogue that had Michelle Obama on the cover, but this poster mysteriously "dissappeared" during a visit home....
Then, I was planning for next week's lesson. I have to do a rather boring textbook reading about genetically modifying human beings, and wanted to find cartoons to discuss in order to spice up the lesson. I found a hysterical cartoon of a four-breasted woman. The caption says that of course women's breasts would be the first thing scientists genetically modify. I found the cartoon funny, but wonder if it is appropriate to share with a class. If a professor of mine shared a comic like that in class, I might or might not have been uncomfortable, depending on the class and the professor. I would, in general however, be much more comfortable with a female professor sharing such a cartoon with a male professor. But doesn't this double standard go against the equality that feminism strives for? Does equality mean men should be as able as women to tell sexist jokes/share sexist cartoons (though I do beleive this cartoon, in the guise of sexist humor, is actually criticizing society's objectification of women) without being accused of harrasment or of being mysogynist? If I show this cartoon, am I "buying into the patriarchy", saying a) I have the right to show this because I am a woman b) It is ok to laugh at women's breasts as part of this lesson?
By the way, my fellow teacher chose not to do the supermodel picture in class. Instead he brought in pictures of superman, and of a random sad person.
On another note, everyone seems to be saying Bachman is gay. Make no mistake about it: I am no fan of Bachman or of reparative "therapy", however, the satire has become malicious, and is also homophobic. The implication is that being gay is funny, and that if you talk or dance a certain way, you must be gay. This type of attitude is responsible for a lot of anti-gay bullying, which also affects straight men with supposedly "gay" mannerisms.
I understand this bullying is coming from the pro-gray rights lobby, however, that does not make it ok, and ultimately, it is counter-productive, since it feeds off of homophobic values. I think there is this desire to prove Bachman a fake, and prove reparative therapy a fake, and if Bachman is gay - presto! You've proven he is a hypocrite, and you've proven reparative therapy is fake - it's simply closeted gay men's way of diverting attention from their gayness, a homophobic pseudo-therapy that is the projection of these closeted men's desire to get rid of their own gay identities. One should not have to stoop to such levels to prove both Bachman and reparative therapy false: We have facts (Bachman offered a scientifically discredited therapy and misadvertised his therapy institute, and is a hypocrite in many other aspects of life as well) on our side, so let's use them to have a serious debate about Bachman and a serious discussion on the harms of reparative therapy, instead of giving the gay rights movement a bad reputation by engaging in mean jokes that are disrespectful not only to Marcus Bachman, but also to his relationship with his wife, Michelle.
I have just defended a tea-partier. I think Mashiach is coming.
Slate has had great coverage of this issue:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/07/14/dan_savage_suggests_marcus_bachmann_is_gay_.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2299300/
Also, food for thought:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/14/city_of_men
http://carolineheldman.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/rape-in-a-small-texas-town-football-family-and-politics/
* I had a poster collage of all the homoerotic imagery of women in the issue of Vogue that had Michelle Obama on the cover, but this poster mysteriously "dissappeared" during a visit home....
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Procrastination 2
I am currently taking a course that involves working in groups of three. My group has one other girls and one guy. Yesterday, the girl, whose task it was to act as secretary, was typing a bit slow, since English is not her native language. The guy made a joke about how he should type bc it will be easier for him, and "besides, you might break a nail." The girl found this charming and gave the guy her computer, so he could act as secretary (how gender-bending of him) for the rest of the group meeting. The "breaking a nail" thing is now a personal joke between them.
Today, we were discussing how to teach inferences. The guy suggested we introduce the topic by having students look at two pictures: One of Superman, one of a super model, and see what they could infer from each. He explained how you infer strength from the Supreman picture, but for the model, you might infer that although she is pretty, she is not so smart. I could not object bc a) it is a good activity b) it is true most people infer that from pictures of supermodels. I just think that its sexist that they do so.
I really like both the guy and girl in my group, and they are not trying to be sexist (yes, internalized sexism exists), but I found it fascinating that these things I take as sexist, another woman takes to be normal.
On another note, remember last night's resolution to blog about human rights and women? Today, I got another action update, this time about ensuring that the new Egyptian government protects women's rights. To get two updates in a row is another reminder of how many woman around the globe are suffering. Here is the link: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6208/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7538
Also, a friend of mine wrote this for "The New Gay", and I think it's a great article: http://thenewgay.net/2011/07/understanding-pride.html
I wanted to end with a cute youtube video, but it's been lifted by youtube due to copyright issues; Instead, I will end today's entry with a link to the much scarier AC 360 videos exposing Michelle Bachman's family clinic's treatment of gay people: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/category/keeping-them-honest/?hpt=ac_ac1
I have one question: If a candidate hopeful's husband were running clinics telling straight people they needed to become gay, and could if they tried hard enough and prayed, would that person still be able to be a serious contender (Insert Marlon Brando) for the nomination?
Today, we were discussing how to teach inferences. The guy suggested we introduce the topic by having students look at two pictures: One of Superman, one of a super model, and see what they could infer from each. He explained how you infer strength from the Supreman picture, but for the model, you might infer that although she is pretty, she is not so smart. I could not object bc a) it is a good activity b) it is true most people infer that from pictures of supermodels. I just think that its sexist that they do so.
I really like both the guy and girl in my group, and they are not trying to be sexist (yes, internalized sexism exists), but I found it fascinating that these things I take as sexist, another woman takes to be normal.
On another note, remember last night's resolution to blog about human rights and women? Today, I got another action update, this time about ensuring that the new Egyptian government protects women's rights. To get two updates in a row is another reminder of how many woman around the globe are suffering. Here is the link: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6208/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7538
Also, a friend of mine wrote this for "The New Gay", and I think it's a great article: http://thenewgay.net/2011/07/understanding-pride.html
I wanted to end with a cute youtube video, but it's been lifted by youtube due to copyright issues; Instead, I will end today's entry with a link to the much scarier AC 360 videos exposing Michelle Bachman's family clinic's treatment of gay people: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/category/keeping-them-honest/?hpt=ac_ac1
I have one question: If a candidate hopeful's husband were running clinics telling straight people they needed to become gay, and could if they tried hard enough and prayed, would that person still be able to be a serious contender (Insert Marlon Brando) for the nomination?
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Procrastination
Confession: I did not plan on writing tonight. Actually, at this moment, I should be doing homework. However, there are sometimes when one gets news so wonderful one must share it.
Today, a Liberian jury found the men who kidnapped and forciblyy FGM-ed* Ruth Berry Peal.** This is a huge victory. But it is a victory that also underscores how far there is to go: Hundreds of thousands of women are FGM-ed every year, and too often, the perpetrators get away with it.
The Peal victory had a lot to do with a campaign sponsored by Equality Now, a women's action network that has been lauded by Nicholas Kristoff.
The Peal victory also reminded me how lucky I am to live in the USA: Forced FGM is not a threat I face daily, and I can drive, go to school with men, compete with them for jobs, and wear mini-skirts (a right I choose not to take advantage of).
For more on FGM and Equality Now, please go to: http://equalitynow.org/fgm
Of course, often human rights campaigns find themselves in the murky waters of cultural imperialism. While it is true that "cultural autonomy" is often the cry of non-Western human rights offenders trying to mask their offenses in post-colonial guilt, it is also true that there is something slightly jarring about a group of non-white people going to a country of non-white people and saying to them: "Stop. This is immoral. Your practice is wrong." I think that the cultural values debate within human rights- much like the feminism debate within Judaism - comes down to the question of: What are this movement's core values? After all, in order to maintain an international system of laws governing human rights, we must be working off of the assumption that there is some sort of objective right or wrong: Otherwise, even genocide might be acceptable. Who am I to say that it is not? I can't "prove" it. If we wish to undo Western bias, then the entire concept of human rights and international law goes by the wayside - it is an inherently Western concept, started by Western nations in the wake of WW2.
For this reason (among others) I particularly applaud the work of Tostan, seeking to end FGM by advocating for grassroots change within the society, rather than trying to impose an outside human rights framework on a society.
http://www.tostan.org/
While we are on the topic, there is also rape as a weapon of war in the DRC: An issue that affects men and women, not only because it tears apart the fabric of society and ruins many spousal relationships, but because now men are being raped as well, though not as frequently as women.
The IRC does some great work in this area: http://www.rescue.org/where/congo
as does HEAL Africa, which has hospitals that cater to specific rape-related injuries and helps raped women get their lives back on track: http://www.healafrica.org/
For more on rape in the DRC: http://www.suite101.com/content/rape-in-the-democratic-republic-of-congo-a296028
I am getting these websites - and much of my information - from power couple Nicholas Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn's book "Half the Sky", and the website: http://www.halftheskymovement.org/
Writing this now puts things into perspective: Wage inequality is bad and must be fought, but it pales besides some of these gross human rights violations that are being committed against women for the crime of being women.
I am tempted to blog about a different women-human-rights-related issue every week, but wonder if I have the willpower to carry through with a commitment to doing so. Globalization has increased our knowledge of the world, but with knowledge of all the human rights crises around the world, comes at times, a feeling of despair, that one will not succeed in the fight - it is just too big.*** But to paraphrase Pirkey Avot: Just because you may not be able to finish, does not mean you are free to disengage from the task.****
* Is that a word? Whatever - Shakespeare coined neologisms - time for me to unleash my inner bard.
** http://www.awdf.org/browse/1959
*** There is a theory that one of the reasons for limited giving in the wake of the Japan catastrophe compared to others is that the sheer magnitude of the tragedy caused people to despair and feel like they couldn't help, thus they did not even bother finding organizations to donate to.
**** Direct quote with artwork: http://www.alljewishlinks.com/job-lo-alecha/
Today, a Liberian jury found the men who kidnapped and forciblyy FGM-ed* Ruth Berry Peal.** This is a huge victory. But it is a victory that also underscores how far there is to go: Hundreds of thousands of women are FGM-ed every year, and too often, the perpetrators get away with it.
The Peal victory had a lot to do with a campaign sponsored by Equality Now, a women's action network that has been lauded by Nicholas Kristoff.
The Peal victory also reminded me how lucky I am to live in the USA: Forced FGM is not a threat I face daily, and I can drive, go to school with men, compete with them for jobs, and wear mini-skirts (a right I choose not to take advantage of).
For more on FGM and Equality Now, please go to: http://equalitynow.org/fgm
Of course, often human rights campaigns find themselves in the murky waters of cultural imperialism. While it is true that "cultural autonomy" is often the cry of non-Western human rights offenders trying to mask their offenses in post-colonial guilt, it is also true that there is something slightly jarring about a group of non-white people going to a country of non-white people and saying to them: "Stop. This is immoral. Your practice is wrong." I think that the cultural values debate within human rights- much like the feminism debate within Judaism - comes down to the question of: What are this movement's core values? After all, in order to maintain an international system of laws governing human rights, we must be working off of the assumption that there is some sort of objective right or wrong: Otherwise, even genocide might be acceptable. Who am I to say that it is not? I can't "prove" it. If we wish to undo Western bias, then the entire concept of human rights and international law goes by the wayside - it is an inherently Western concept, started by Western nations in the wake of WW2.
For this reason (among others) I particularly applaud the work of Tostan, seeking to end FGM by advocating for grassroots change within the society, rather than trying to impose an outside human rights framework on a society.
http://www.tostan.org/
While we are on the topic, there is also rape as a weapon of war in the DRC: An issue that affects men and women, not only because it tears apart the fabric of society and ruins many spousal relationships, but because now men are being raped as well, though not as frequently as women.
The IRC does some great work in this area: http://www.rescue.org/where/congo
as does HEAL Africa, which has hospitals that cater to specific rape-related injuries and helps raped women get their lives back on track: http://www.healafrica.org/
For more on rape in the DRC: http://www.suite101.com/content/rape-in-the-democratic-republic-of-congo-a296028
I am getting these websites - and much of my information - from power couple Nicholas Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn's book "Half the Sky", and the website: http://www.halftheskymovement.org/
Writing this now puts things into perspective: Wage inequality is bad and must be fought, but it pales besides some of these gross human rights violations that are being committed against women for the crime of being women.
I am tempted to blog about a different women-human-rights-related issue every week, but wonder if I have the willpower to carry through with a commitment to doing so. Globalization has increased our knowledge of the world, but with knowledge of all the human rights crises around the world, comes at times, a feeling of despair, that one will not succeed in the fight - it is just too big.*** But to paraphrase Pirkey Avot: Just because you may not be able to finish, does not mean you are free to disengage from the task.****
* Is that a word? Whatever - Shakespeare coined neologisms - time for me to unleash my inner bard.
** http://www.awdf.org/browse/1959
*** There is a theory that one of the reasons for limited giving in the wake of the Japan catastrophe compared to others is that the sheer magnitude of the tragedy caused people to despair and feel like they couldn't help, thus they did not even bother finding organizations to donate to.
**** Direct quote with artwork: http://www.alljewishlinks.com/job-lo-alecha/
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Interesting
I thought this article was interesting and decided to share it. I'd love to hear people's thoughts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10sex.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10sex.html?_r=1
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
More On DSK
So apparently now DSK is being accused of attempted rape by another woman. From my understanding, DSK has a history of being accused of harassing (not raping) women - and while it is true that many people have false rumors started about them, when it comes to sexually mistreating women, I beleive that if there is enough smoke, there just may be fire. One accusation is much less suspicious than a history of accusations that can not be proved - especially since, when it comes to sexual harassment, it is often so hard to prove.
http://www.slate.com/id/2298425/
At the same time, there are now accusations that the maid in the hotel who accused DSK was turning tricks. First of all, acussing the accuser of being a slut is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and the reason for the introduction of rape sheild laws: A person's prior sexual history has no bearing on whether or not they were raped in this one sexual instance. It is possible for prostitutes to be raped - as a matter of fact, prostitutes often are raped, especially in countries where prostitution is illegal. The rapists know that this is a vulnerable group of people, that is discredited in the eyes of society, meaning few will beleive their claims. It also knows that the societal assumption is that all sexual acts that takes place between prostitute and client is consensual, whereas that is not always the case. Furthermore, in places where prostitution is illegal, filing a rape charge could mean risking imprisonment or monetary fines, if filing said charges would necessitate revealing one's profession.
The NY Post says the woman was promised money and didn't get any. While lying in such a case is immoral, I wonder: If a prostitute is stiffed by her customer, should that constitute third-degree rape? On the one hand, sexual intercourse happens under false pretexts all the time: False "I love you"s, lies about wanting a relationship, claiming one is separated from a spouse, or even that one has a better job than one does, are all common falsehoods that act as a basis for sexual transactions in our society. Claiming that prostitute-stiffing is some sort of rape, could therefore open a Pandora's box. In the fight for proper measures against harassment and rape, it is important to distinguish between immoral sex and illegal sex. If the law were to try to regulate the morality of sex, it would be arresting people constantly.*
On the other hand, in the case of prostitution, lying about giving money does seem closer to rape. Someone is being promised a tangible object, necessary to survival, in exchange for their body. Had they known they would not be paid, they would not have given their body. I think at the very least, this should constitute fraud. It is a business transaction undertaken under false pretenses, which resulted in monetary loss. I think sexual fraud (ie stiffing prostitutes) should carry an especially stringent sentence.**
One could argue that this too, opens a Pandora's box. However, I beleive that monetary fraud with regards to sex, as a limited category, is less open to interpretation. At a certain point, if one were to regulate less tangible fraud - ie, lying in everyday life, lying about one's emotions to get what one wants - then people would be arrested everyday - which is why the law was very careful to specifically define fraud. I am simply saying that these already set rules should be applied to the sexual marketplace, and that convictions in the sex market should carry harsher penalties, because of the physically invasive nature of the fraud in those cases, that constitutes harm to a person's body.
* I am here defining morality as "Honesty and trying not to consciously hurt oneself or others". By "hurt", I do not mean engaging in consensual whips and chains. I mean pressuring them into sexually painful acts, or harming them emotionally/psychologically. Obviously, hurt feelings occur in romance, but I diffrenciate between hurt that happens as an inevitable consequence of certain situations, and between one partner's trying to use sex and/or sexuality to hurt the other.
** There are arguments over whether or not prostitution constitutes rape in it and of itself. On the one hand, how much choice does a woman have if its food for sex, or starve and die? On the other hand a) there are woman who choose prostitution over other careers, even though it is usually because they need the money, and come from a disadvantaged background in which prostitution is the most profitable career they have open to them. B) Calling prostitution "rape" takes away the agency of prostitutes, thus objectifying them. I personally beleive the rape/not rape dichotomy is unhealthy, and instead, sex should be thought of in terms of agency, with rape on one end of the spectrum, complete freedom on the other, and most sexual activities falling somewhere in between the two. The question is, where on that line, at what point of limited agency, should the sex act become illegal? Prostitutes have more limited agency over their sex lives. Many factors (education, home background, kids relying on one for food, degree of poverty, fear of being evicted) are at work, and those factors determine how much agency the prostitute has. I do beleive if it is literally a life or death choice, or a life-of-the-prostitute-schild/death of the child choice, it may constitute rape.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/da_set_to_drop_charges_vs_dsk_RWftbQcr6Xw3clMsm6zNWJ
http://www.slate.com/id/2298425/
At the same time, there are now accusations that the maid in the hotel who accused DSK was turning tricks. First of all, acussing the accuser of being a slut is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and the reason for the introduction of rape sheild laws: A person's prior sexual history has no bearing on whether or not they were raped in this one sexual instance. It is possible for prostitutes to be raped - as a matter of fact, prostitutes often are raped, especially in countries where prostitution is illegal. The rapists know that this is a vulnerable group of people, that is discredited in the eyes of society, meaning few will beleive their claims. It also knows that the societal assumption is that all sexual acts that takes place between prostitute and client is consensual, whereas that is not always the case. Furthermore, in places where prostitution is illegal, filing a rape charge could mean risking imprisonment or monetary fines, if filing said charges would necessitate revealing one's profession.
The NY Post says the woman was promised money and didn't get any. While lying in such a case is immoral, I wonder: If a prostitute is stiffed by her customer, should that constitute third-degree rape? On the one hand, sexual intercourse happens under false pretexts all the time: False "I love you"s, lies about wanting a relationship, claiming one is separated from a spouse, or even that one has a better job than one does, are all common falsehoods that act as a basis for sexual transactions in our society. Claiming that prostitute-stiffing is some sort of rape, could therefore open a Pandora's box. In the fight for proper measures against harassment and rape, it is important to distinguish between immoral sex and illegal sex. If the law were to try to regulate the morality of sex, it would be arresting people constantly.*
On the other hand, in the case of prostitution, lying about giving money does seem closer to rape. Someone is being promised a tangible object, necessary to survival, in exchange for their body. Had they known they would not be paid, they would not have given their body. I think at the very least, this should constitute fraud. It is a business transaction undertaken under false pretenses, which resulted in monetary loss. I think sexual fraud (ie stiffing prostitutes) should carry an especially stringent sentence.**
One could argue that this too, opens a Pandora's box. However, I beleive that monetary fraud with regards to sex, as a limited category, is less open to interpretation. At a certain point, if one were to regulate less tangible fraud - ie, lying in everyday life, lying about one's emotions to get what one wants - then people would be arrested everyday - which is why the law was very careful to specifically define fraud. I am simply saying that these already set rules should be applied to the sexual marketplace, and that convictions in the sex market should carry harsher penalties, because of the physically invasive nature of the fraud in those cases, that constitutes harm to a person's body.
* I am here defining morality as "Honesty and trying not to consciously hurt oneself or others". By "hurt", I do not mean engaging in consensual whips and chains. I mean pressuring them into sexually painful acts, or harming them emotionally/psychologically. Obviously, hurt feelings occur in romance, but I diffrenciate between hurt that happens as an inevitable consequence of certain situations, and between one partner's trying to use sex and/or sexuality to hurt the other.
** There are arguments over whether or not prostitution constitutes rape in it and of itself. On the one hand, how much choice does a woman have if its food for sex, or starve and die? On the other hand a) there are woman who choose prostitution over other careers, even though it is usually because they need the money, and come from a disadvantaged background in which prostitution is the most profitable career they have open to them. B) Calling prostitution "rape" takes away the agency of prostitutes, thus objectifying them. I personally beleive the rape/not rape dichotomy is unhealthy, and instead, sex should be thought of in terms of agency, with rape on one end of the spectrum, complete freedom on the other, and most sexual activities falling somewhere in between the two. The question is, where on that line, at what point of limited agency, should the sex act become illegal? Prostitutes have more limited agency over their sex lives. Many factors (education, home background, kids relying on one for food, degree of poverty, fear of being evicted) are at work, and those factors determine how much agency the prostitute has. I do beleive if it is literally a life or death choice, or a life-of-the-prostitute-schild/death of the child choice, it may constitute rape.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/da_set_to_drop_charges_vs_dsk_RWftbQcr6Xw3clMsm6zNWJ
Monday, July 4, 2011
SVU
I have recently been watching a lot of Law & Order: SVU. I notice that the rape victim in the show hardly ever seems to know anything about rape or sexuality, is usually not very sexually promiscuous, and is completely shattered by the experience, feeling that she will never be the same person again, and her life will never be the same.
This sends a subliminal message that only non-promiscuous girls get raped, harkening back to the olden days where they assumed that if you often had consensual sex, this instance must be consensual as well.
It also assumes either a) that most women are not educated about their sexuality and about rape or that b) only women who don't know about these things get raped. Those who know are somehow magically "protected". Both assumptions are false.
Rape is a shattering experience. That may seem obvious, but feminists have been forced to remind society over and over. I wonder if somewhere along the way however, something has been lost. Right now, rape victims looking for role models of resilience and hope, of women who undergo this traumatic experience without falling apart, or with falling apart briefly, and seeking counseling, while still kicking ass at career and in life, certainly have none in the media or pop-culture. Bitchfest, and anthology of best articles from Bitch Magazine, has an article called "Be a macha", about models or resiliency and being a macha (strong) when it comes to recovering from rape - and about how currently, American society lacks those models.
A pschology TA of mine also pointed out that this massive fear of rape women are taught to have really imputes so much power to the phallus. Women are taught that one day, out of nowhere, in a dark alley, a phallus might shatter their lives, changing the very nature of who they are as human being. Not only does this ignore LGBTQ rape and male rape victims; Not only does it fail to educate women that the real threat they must be cautious around is not the dark alley, but rather, the person they already know (most rapes are not committed by strangers), but it also teaches women that the phallus has this incredible amount of power, and they must fear it - much as men once feared the dark, scary power of women's menstruation. Of course, since men were in power, they could curb their fears by sequestering menstrual women from society, whereas women are taught to live in fear and adapt their social habits to the all-powerful phallus by not walking alone at night, and carrying mace or rape whistles.
That being said, SVU deserves a lot of credit: Having a major TV show about rape and abuse, one that is sympathetic to the victims and includes anatomical details and rape kits, helps take away the stigma and social taboo around talking about rape, and may even inspire some people to report rapes or abuse. Mariska Hargitay, who plays Olivia on SVU, has also been extremely active for advocating on behalf of rape victims, and has been involved with RAINN.
http://www.aoltv.com/2010/11/11/the-women-of-law-and-order-svu-speak-out/
This sends a subliminal message that only non-promiscuous girls get raped, harkening back to the olden days where they assumed that if you often had consensual sex, this instance must be consensual as well.
It also assumes either a) that most women are not educated about their sexuality and about rape or that b) only women who don't know about these things get raped. Those who know are somehow magically "protected". Both assumptions are false.
Rape is a shattering experience. That may seem obvious, but feminists have been forced to remind society over and over. I wonder if somewhere along the way however, something has been lost. Right now, rape victims looking for role models of resilience and hope, of women who undergo this traumatic experience without falling apart, or with falling apart briefly, and seeking counseling, while still kicking ass at career and in life, certainly have none in the media or pop-culture. Bitchfest, and anthology of best articles from Bitch Magazine, has an article called "Be a macha", about models or resiliency and being a macha (strong) when it comes to recovering from rape - and about how currently, American society lacks those models.
A pschology TA of mine also pointed out that this massive fear of rape women are taught to have really imputes so much power to the phallus. Women are taught that one day, out of nowhere, in a dark alley, a phallus might shatter their lives, changing the very nature of who they are as human being. Not only does this ignore LGBTQ rape and male rape victims; Not only does it fail to educate women that the real threat they must be cautious around is not the dark alley, but rather, the person they already know (most rapes are not committed by strangers), but it also teaches women that the phallus has this incredible amount of power, and they must fear it - much as men once feared the dark, scary power of women's menstruation. Of course, since men were in power, they could curb their fears by sequestering menstrual women from society, whereas women are taught to live in fear and adapt their social habits to the all-powerful phallus by not walking alone at night, and carrying mace or rape whistles.
That being said, SVU deserves a lot of credit: Having a major TV show about rape and abuse, one that is sympathetic to the victims and includes anatomical details and rape kits, helps take away the stigma and social taboo around talking about rape, and may even inspire some people to report rapes or abuse. Mariska Hargitay, who plays Olivia on SVU, has also been extremely active for advocating on behalf of rape victims, and has been involved with RAINN.
http://www.aoltv.com/2010/11/11/the-women-of-law-and-order-svu-speak-out/
The SK Affair
As far as I can understand, the evidence for SK (Strauss-Kahn)'s guilt stems from the following:
1. Inconsistencies in victim's account of rape
2. Claim overheard on telephone to boyfriend "This guy has money. Don't worry, I know what I'm doing."
3. Suspicious cash-transfers to her account from people arrested for having marijuana
4. Saying she was gang-raped in her home country, when that is not the case.
Let's examine these four factors:
1. While this does shed some doubt on her testimony, inconsistencies in recounting a traumatic event - such as rape - do not mean the event hasn't happened. Because of the emotional impact of such events, it is somehow hard to keep the details of the facts straight, and what you are left with is the feel of the scene, and the major facts that stick out in your mind, where the details become blurred, subsumed by the memory of how you felt, as opposed to what happened when. As a matter of fact, sometimes it is the brain's defense mechanism to try to block the victim's access to memory of the facts. People sometimes black out sexual abuse. Additionally, rape trauma syndrome may account for some of the inconsistencies.
2. This is the most problematic factor. Nevertheless, I would want to hear the context of the phone conversation before jumping to a conclusion. In most countries, the question is not if a woman takes a risk, but rather, how much risk a woman takes - towards her career, her family life, her reputation - by properly accusing her raper. Was this comment meant to defend the woman's decision to publicly accuse a man she believed raped her, or was it merely a comment pointing towards ulterior motives? Without knowing the rest of the phone conversation, it is impossible to answer that question.
3. Having suspicious financial dealings, doing or trading drugs - none of these takes away the possibility for a person to be raped. Criminals can be rape victims as well.*
4. The woman put down the gang rap on her asylum application. She was afraid if she now admitted she was not gang raped, her asylum would be revoked and she would be sent back to her native country. Lying because one is desperate to get out of a war-torn country, and then, because one must continue the lie in order to not get sent back there, does not mean one is a habitual liar who can never be trusted.
Of course, three of the four factors (I exclude #3 completely) may shed doubt on her testimony, - but that should be up for a court to decide. While these factors provide the "reasonable doubt" necessary to get DSK off the hook, they do not provide the amount of doubt needed to forgo the trial altogether, and the way that the media has now assumed DSK's innocence, turning the accuser into the criminal, is shameful. If DSK can only be convicted of rape if there is not even "a reasonable doubt" about his guilt, shouldn't the alleged victim be given the same right by the media - to not be accused of falsifying her report as long as there is a "reasonable doubt" that she did so?
For more on the history of rape in the British and American legal systems, as well as rape in the current US jail system, see "Rape: Sex, Violence, History", by Joanna Bourke.
* As a matter of fact, criminals in American jails are often rape victims, but the injustices of the American penal system are another topic altogether. First of all, the prisoners experience a "social death", are alienated from kin, and are often forced into doing certain types of work for an exorbitantly low sum, which means that their conditions may technically qualify as slavery. (See David Brion Davis's "Human Bondage", for more details on definitions of slavery.) Second of all, conjugal visits must be allowed.
1. Inconsistencies in victim's account of rape
2. Claim overheard on telephone to boyfriend "This guy has money. Don't worry, I know what I'm doing."
3. Suspicious cash-transfers to her account from people arrested for having marijuana
4. Saying she was gang-raped in her home country, when that is not the case.
Let's examine these four factors:
1. While this does shed some doubt on her testimony, inconsistencies in recounting a traumatic event - such as rape - do not mean the event hasn't happened. Because of the emotional impact of such events, it is somehow hard to keep the details of the facts straight, and what you are left with is the feel of the scene, and the major facts that stick out in your mind, where the details become blurred, subsumed by the memory of how you felt, as opposed to what happened when. As a matter of fact, sometimes it is the brain's defense mechanism to try to block the victim's access to memory of the facts. People sometimes black out sexual abuse. Additionally, rape trauma syndrome may account for some of the inconsistencies.
2. This is the most problematic factor. Nevertheless, I would want to hear the context of the phone conversation before jumping to a conclusion. In most countries, the question is not if a woman takes a risk, but rather, how much risk a woman takes - towards her career, her family life, her reputation - by properly accusing her raper. Was this comment meant to defend the woman's decision to publicly accuse a man she believed raped her, or was it merely a comment pointing towards ulterior motives? Without knowing the rest of the phone conversation, it is impossible to answer that question.
3. Having suspicious financial dealings, doing or trading drugs - none of these takes away the possibility for a person to be raped. Criminals can be rape victims as well.*
4. The woman put down the gang rap on her asylum application. She was afraid if she now admitted she was not gang raped, her asylum would be revoked and she would be sent back to her native country. Lying because one is desperate to get out of a war-torn country, and then, because one must continue the lie in order to not get sent back there, does not mean one is a habitual liar who can never be trusted.
Of course, three of the four factors (I exclude #3 completely) may shed doubt on her testimony, - but that should be up for a court to decide. While these factors provide the "reasonable doubt" necessary to get DSK off the hook, they do not provide the amount of doubt needed to forgo the trial altogether, and the way that the media has now assumed DSK's innocence, turning the accuser into the criminal, is shameful. If DSK can only be convicted of rape if there is not even "a reasonable doubt" about his guilt, shouldn't the alleged victim be given the same right by the media - to not be accused of falsifying her report as long as there is a "reasonable doubt" that she did so?
For more on the history of rape in the British and American legal systems, as well as rape in the current US jail system, see "Rape: Sex, Violence, History", by Joanna Bourke.
* As a matter of fact, criminals in American jails are often rape victims, but the injustices of the American penal system are another topic altogether. First of all, the prisoners experience a "social death", are alienated from kin, and are often forced into doing certain types of work for an exorbitantly low sum, which means that their conditions may technically qualify as slavery. (See David Brion Davis's "Human Bondage", for more details on definitions of slavery.) Second of all, conjugal visits must be allowed.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Anthony Weiner: Part 2
I am currently reading an article, inspired by the Weiner affair, about monogamy: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html?_r=1
The article has a great quote by Dan Savage: “If you are expected to be monogamous and have one person be all things sexually for you, then you have to be whores for each other,” Savage says. “You have to be up for anything.”**
I am one of the few people I know, who thinks - or at least, who openly admits - that sex is inherently objectifying. Even within the context of a loving relationship, where sex can be an expression of your affection for each other, there will be moments when it is also about using each other as objects for sexual pleasure - these two aspects of sex are not mutually exclusive, and can both happen at the same moment.
So part of monogamy means accepting that objectification part of sex - if you want your partner to go to someone else for fetishes you feel are objectifying, then that's fine - it's just not monogamy.
I think its important to discuss fetishes before you get married. If you have fetish A, and it does not turn the other person at all, is that a fetish you'd be willing to give up on? Could you be reasonably sexually satisfied without it?* Could you watch porn about it to turn you on, and then go and have non-fetish sex with your partner?
Most people do not want to have that conversation before entering into a long-term monogamous relationship because there is that fear: What if this person is so grossed out by that fetish that they just stop being sexually attracted to me? This is a reasonable fear: Many people are grossed out by fetished they do not have. But if you really have a fetish you do not think you would be able to give up on even for monogamy and true love, then you have to have the conversation or risk either a) your being sexually unsatisfied for life b) your cheating and hurting the person you love.
I think especially in Orthodox Jewish society, where men and women are expected to be celibate before marriage, and do not necessarily discover each other's tastes before making that lifelong commitment, pre-marriage candor about definitions of cheating, and about sexual fantasies, etc., has to be encouraged, so couples can at least know a little bit about each other's potential tastes. On the other hand, if couples are not sexually active, even this might not be so productive because one might fantasize about something extensively, only to discover that in reality they can't stand it. I have long said that threesomes are one of those things that are amazing in theory, but don't really work in reality. (Of course, they do work for some people - but the number of people they work for is much smaller than the number of people that fantasizes about threesomes.)
I do think however, each person in a couple should be encouraged a) to define cheating b) to think if there is a sexual fantasy/fetish etc. that they don't think they'd be able to live a sexually satisfied life without (even if it's something they have never tried in reality). If there is something that fulfills that criteria, than they should be encouraged to discuss it with their future spouse, before that person becomes a spouse. I also think that chatan and kallah classes should include not just sex ed, but also, sex tips. (Modern Orthodox schools do give sex-ed in highschool, but it's usually more "This is what sex is. These are the disease you could get" - an explanation of the car and what the parts are for. But before marriage, you need the how-to-guide - you need the car manual.)
One can't not educate people about sex, and then expect them to magically figure it out for themselves. Many people do - but some don't, or if they do, it can be a long and painful process. The woman in the Unconsummated blog, for example, while highly intelligent and educated, was never given proper pre-marriage prep when it came to sex, and that had very negative consequences for her married sex life: http://unconsummated.blogspot.com/2011_05_01_archive.html
If people are interested in Dan Savage's column: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=8847525
His "It Gets Better" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IcVyvg2Qlo
President Obama's "IGB" video (!!!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzcAR6yQhF8&feature=relmfu
* I used the word fetish in a layperson way. In psychological lit, if you can get turned on without it, it does not count as a true fetish. Thanks Dr. Noonberg, whose abnormal psych course I learned that in.
** I also thought this observation by Mark Oppenheimer in the NY Times Mag article was interesting, though I am not sure I agree with it 100%: "here is one subculture in America that practices nonmonogamy and equality between partners: the sizable group of gay men in open, or semiopen, long-term partnerships. (A study published in 2010 found 50 percent of gay male couples in the Bay Area had sexual relationships outside their union, with their partner’s knowledge and approval.) But it is unclear if gay habits, which Savage thinks can be a model, will survive the advent of gay equality. Historically, gay men have treated monogamy more casually, in part because society treated gay coupledom as unthinkable. Now, however, gay men are marrying or entering into socially sanctioned partnerships. As they are absorbed into the mainstream of connubial bliss, they may lose the strong friendship networks that gay men once substituted for nuclear families — friendship networks that, according to Coontz, can make infidelity less threatening. In other words, as they take out joint mortgages and pal around with straight parents from the PTA, they may become considerably more square about fidelity. Living in their McMansions, they, too, may decide that the walls of their marriages must be guarded at all costs."
The article has a great quote by Dan Savage: “If you are expected to be monogamous and have one person be all things sexually for you, then you have to be whores for each other,” Savage says. “You have to be up for anything.”**
I am one of the few people I know, who thinks - or at least, who openly admits - that sex is inherently objectifying. Even within the context of a loving relationship, where sex can be an expression of your affection for each other, there will be moments when it is also about using each other as objects for sexual pleasure - these two aspects of sex are not mutually exclusive, and can both happen at the same moment.
So part of monogamy means accepting that objectification part of sex - if you want your partner to go to someone else for fetishes you feel are objectifying, then that's fine - it's just not monogamy.
I think its important to discuss fetishes before you get married. If you have fetish A, and it does not turn the other person at all, is that a fetish you'd be willing to give up on? Could you be reasonably sexually satisfied without it?* Could you watch porn about it to turn you on, and then go and have non-fetish sex with your partner?
Most people do not want to have that conversation before entering into a long-term monogamous relationship because there is that fear: What if this person is so grossed out by that fetish that they just stop being sexually attracted to me? This is a reasonable fear: Many people are grossed out by fetished they do not have. But if you really have a fetish you do not think you would be able to give up on even for monogamy and true love, then you have to have the conversation or risk either a) your being sexually unsatisfied for life b) your cheating and hurting the person you love.
I think especially in Orthodox Jewish society, where men and women are expected to be celibate before marriage, and do not necessarily discover each other's tastes before making that lifelong commitment, pre-marriage candor about definitions of cheating, and about sexual fantasies, etc., has to be encouraged, so couples can at least know a little bit about each other's potential tastes. On the other hand, if couples are not sexually active, even this might not be so productive because one might fantasize about something extensively, only to discover that in reality they can't stand it. I have long said that threesomes are one of those things that are amazing in theory, but don't really work in reality. (Of course, they do work for some people - but the number of people they work for is much smaller than the number of people that fantasizes about threesomes.)
I do think however, each person in a couple should be encouraged a) to define cheating b) to think if there is a sexual fantasy/fetish etc. that they don't think they'd be able to live a sexually satisfied life without (even if it's something they have never tried in reality). If there is something that fulfills that criteria, than they should be encouraged to discuss it with their future spouse, before that person becomes a spouse. I also think that chatan and kallah classes should include not just sex ed, but also, sex tips. (Modern Orthodox schools do give sex-ed in highschool, but it's usually more "This is what sex is. These are the disease you could get" - an explanation of the car and what the parts are for. But before marriage, you need the how-to-guide - you need the car manual.)
One can't not educate people about sex, and then expect them to magically figure it out for themselves. Many people do - but some don't, or if they do, it can be a long and painful process. The woman in the Unconsummated blog, for example, while highly intelligent and educated, was never given proper pre-marriage prep when it came to sex, and that had very negative consequences for her married sex life: http://unconsummated.blogspot.com/2011_05_01_archive.html
If people are interested in Dan Savage's column: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=8847525
His "It Gets Better" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IcVyvg2Qlo
President Obama's "IGB" video (!!!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzcAR6yQhF8&feature=relmfu
* I used the word fetish in a layperson way. In psychological lit, if you can get turned on without it, it does not count as a true fetish. Thanks Dr. Noonberg, whose abnormal psych course I learned that in.
** I also thought this observation by Mark Oppenheimer in the NY Times Mag article was interesting, though I am not sure I agree with it 100%: "here is one subculture in America that practices nonmonogamy and equality between partners: the sizable group of gay men in open, or semiopen, long-term partnerships. (A study published in 2010 found 50 percent of gay male couples in the Bay Area had sexual relationships outside their union, with their partner’s knowledge and approval.) But it is unclear if gay habits, which Savage thinks can be a model, will survive the advent of gay equality. Historically, gay men have treated monogamy more casually, in part because society treated gay coupledom as unthinkable. Now, however, gay men are marrying or entering into socially sanctioned partnerships. As they are absorbed into the mainstream of connubial bliss, they may lose the strong friendship networks that gay men once substituted for nuclear families — friendship networks that, according to Coontz, can make infidelity less threatening. In other words, as they take out joint mortgages and pal around with straight parents from the PTA, they may become considerably more square about fidelity. Living in their McMansions, they, too, may decide that the walls of their marriages must be guarded at all costs."
Anthony Weiner: Part 1
Of course, the Weiner Scandal broke while I was in Israel - and in a certain way, I was relieved, because it saved me the effort it would have taken to blog all my thoughts about it. But I will share some brief thoughts now: 1. Officially, Weiner left to pursue therapy. I think he needed therapy to deal with the way his world was being torn apart. However, the implication both in his official "I am leaving" speech and in the media, was that he was leaving to seek treatment for his R-rated behavior. Sending kinky texts and phone-photos may be unsavory behavior, but it is not a mental illness. Plenty of people lead happy lives while doing so. If those texts had been between Weiner and his wife, would the public have been as outraged? Was it the behavior itself, or its extramarital nature that was so upsetting? The question should not be whether or not the behavior was extra-marital, but rather, whether or not it violated the rules that he and his wife set for their marriage. It is true Weiner is a man of power, but the women he sent the texts to were not women he was in a position of power over: There would have been no discernible negative consequences Weiner would have been able to cause them had they said no.
Many men (and women) have the desire to cheat, at times. From Weiner's perspective, the text-messages were likely a way to get turned on and feel the sexual adrenaline of a forbidden encounter, without "really" cheating. He was trying to get out the desire to cheat, without physically being with another woman, because he did not want to wrong his wife - perhaps the texts wronged her as well, but even within the realm of "wrong", there was a line he would not cross. For that, I admire him.
I think the Weiner case showed two things:
1. Psychology can be used as a means of controlling society. Someone who is out of bounds, who breaks the rules of society, is locked away in a psychiatric facility. (Foucalt - "Of Civilization and Madness".) This idea also appears in the works of R.D. Laing, who questioned the idea of "madness", which may be a social construct - but this is hearsay from a TA I took a psychology course with - I have yet to read Laing's work.*
2. Men and women (or even two different individuals of the same gender) often have different definitions of cheating. Therefore, it can lead to much pain, if official definitions of cheating are not discussed and agreed upon by the different parties in the relationship, before a gray-area situation arises.
* Also, kudos to the TA for coming out to me. Many people are afraid to come out in their work place - for understandable reasons. So coming out to me took cunt. (This is a phrase I use to describe brave women that is the female equivalent of "He has balls.").
Many men (and women) have the desire to cheat, at times. From Weiner's perspective, the text-messages were likely a way to get turned on and feel the sexual adrenaline of a forbidden encounter, without "really" cheating. He was trying to get out the desire to cheat, without physically being with another woman, because he did not want to wrong his wife - perhaps the texts wronged her as well, but even within the realm of "wrong", there was a line he would not cross. For that, I admire him.
I think the Weiner case showed two things:
1. Psychology can be used as a means of controlling society. Someone who is out of bounds, who breaks the rules of society, is locked away in a psychiatric facility. (Foucalt - "Of Civilization and Madness".) This idea also appears in the works of R.D. Laing, who questioned the idea of "madness", which may be a social construct - but this is hearsay from a TA I took a psychology course with - I have yet to read Laing's work.*
2. Men and women (or even two different individuals of the same gender) often have different definitions of cheating. Therefore, it can lead to much pain, if official definitions of cheating are not discussed and agreed upon by the different parties in the relationship, before a gray-area situation arises.
* Also, kudos to the TA for coming out to me. Many people are afraid to come out in their work place - for understandable reasons. So coming out to me took cunt. (This is a phrase I use to describe brave women that is the female equivalent of "He has balls.").
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)