A Note from Mama

That I would like to pass on to every living individual capable of understanding these words in any way:



My Girl:
Love yourself unconditionally.
Talk to your Self using words you desire to hear from another's lips.
Treat your Self the way you desire others to treat you.
Love your Self the way you yearn to be loved.
Honor your whole Self as you wish to be honored.
Sound Difficult? Just remember who you are, that you deserve it ALL - and the most powerful resource you have is within.
WALK TALL my Girl... and other's who do the same will come your way.

The Bug In the Mirror!

Attention World:

The part of me that was open to disrespect and mistreatment is now closed forever.

Every day I see myself a little more for who I am capable of being. I Am My Best Self. And with each new experience, my best self keeps getting better.. and always will!

I am not someone who needs to take disrespect and dishonor from anyone. I can say no. I do stand my ground. And I reject anything less than what I deserve.

Hello world! My eyes may still be slightly swollen from the tears of last night, but I am seeing my reflection so much clearer.

When you are disrespected and then left in the dust, you have a choice. You can be abandoned, broken, victimized and alone. Or you can recognize that newfound strength it took to reject mistreatment, and seize the opportunity to walk on your own two feet.

Thank Life for seemingly devastating experiences. How would I make these leaps in my self-awareness without them? How else would I know my own strength?

What she said.

Listen. I say so.

http://www.therushes.net/tonyrush/secret.html

I am NEVER changing my last name. (again...)

My ethics teacher: very well educated, intelligent, opinionated professor. Articulates himself well and will show you exactly where you are going wrong when you get confused. Other than getting his lectures across and understood, very disinterested in his students individually. I absolutely respect but am absolutely intimidated by this man.

When I went into class today he pulled out the big stack that was our mid-term papers. I was immediately full of that combination of excitement and anxiety that I get whenever I'm about to see me work judged by someone I respect and who knows the subject well. First thing he says:

"Strange statistical fact, almost all of those whose last names start with an 'h' did really well."

So I'm excited but thinking I could be the one person that made that "almost all" instead of all... He starts handing them back and I see other people have notes and scribbles all over every page. Pencil marks and notations, lines through their words, etc. Anxiety building.

He calls my name and hands me my paper looking almost identical to when I turned it in, save for a check in the margin here and there (that he presumably made as he progressed through the paper). Then, at the very end "Well written and argued; good structure. A"

I literally almost cried... but then I remembered I was in the middle of class and that people don't get emotional in class over silly mid-terms.. usually.

That feeling of having my work regarded as not only worth-while, but well-done by someone whom I respect and admire...

I wish I could just trap that feeling in a bottle somehow to have and to hold forever. Something from which I can take a good deep breath when I'm feeling overwhelmed and unsure of myself. This head-swelling feeling is one of my favorite experiences. Period.

A quick quote before class:

Or 2:

"Most people... take refuge in theory and think they are being philosophers and will become good in this way, behaving somewhat like patients who listen attentively to their doctors, but do none of the things they are ordered to do. As the latter will not be made well in body by such a course of treatment, the former will not be made well in soul by such a course in philosophy."

and

"We must not follow those who advise us, being men, to think of human things, and, being mortal, of mortal things, but must, so far as we can, make ourselves immortal, and strain every nerve to live in accordance with the best thing in us."

-Aristotle.... as translated by... someone........

Why am I such a (married) nut?

'Cause I can be! That's why!

But really, I was thinking today... Why did I feel the need to not only privately/psychologically solidify my commitment to my "morally virtuous hexis," my "education," to myself, but why the need to write it out, describe it as a marriage, and announce it to the world?

Because I am a fluid, ever-changing being who, if nothing else, wants to maintain my adventurous, motivated, passionate attitude toward my life.

I tend to struggle with people, with relationships, with loneliness, with commitment. My insecurity in these areas all too often detracts drastically from my education and my overall emotional state. Potential romantic relationships (or not even potential sometimes, but mere daydreams of them) can be particularly crippling. Then, when I am actually faced with them in my reality, I am only comfortable with the commitment for a short period of time, and almost always only if I make it known that it will probably not last in the long run. Why?

I just noticed that I have done this with the last.. oh.. why count? Every person I have dated, pretty much, since my divorce in '06. "Great, I love being with you... just know I'm moving 800 miles away in a few months.... just know I'm moving god knows where and won't take you with me when I finish my bachelor's.... just know I don't think it will work out in the long run..."

Why do I do this? Well I could go in a million different directions (psycho-)analysing myself there, but I think I'll start with my hexis, since it is the one and only strong, positive heart pumping extraordinary life into my being. I have seen more friends and meet new people all the time with incredible foundational hexis potential who absolutely sabotage themselves into despair, forcing their arteries shut. My hexis has been threatened in such a way before by my own naive choices. Luckily, I made it out alive. But I will not go back. I will not do that to myself again.

But a life and/or choices based in fear will only guide you downward. Fear of putting my hexis in compromising positions only confines me within a narrow safety zone, preventing the very adventure that I seek. So what is the solution?

Correct myself in thinking that my hexis is something so fragile. It is only fragile if I allow it to grow weak. So I take that deep fear of being committed to another person, to both having and not having important people in my life, to stability and unchange, and find my foundation. I need other people in my life, but I can not stand and look them in the eye until I can stand on my own two feet. By psychologically, publicly, symbolically, and officially binding myself to it for life, I commit myself to live a life inseparable from my hexis, from that power and potential within myself. No matter what I come across, this will still be within me. No one can take that away.

So where does this get me in the realm of human relationships? Well I can't tell you for sure yet, and probably won't be able to give you an absolute answer until I am on my deathbed. But I will say that by committing myself in such a way, I am necessarily rejecting my fear of what may be and what isn't between myself and other people. This attitude is not conducive to and could never be a product of my healthy hexis.

Yeah, ok, so I reject my fear! Ain't I tough? I know it's not that easy. Loneliness and human interaction can be a complex, confusing, liberating, devastating, revolutionary thing. And I plan to thrive to tell about it!

I am displaying all this publicly because

1. Making it public, seeing it in words outside of my head, creating it as an actual empirical experience, makes it all the more real to me. Kind of a psychological trick on myself. Like that wedding video that (successful, healthy) couples watch on their anniversary that allows them to reflect on where they started, why they said "I do," and just how far they've come.
2.Also, fully realizing how nutty I sound saying that I am married some Greek term that no one knows the meaning of, I have done this to put out there that this is not only possible, but a necessary step to wiggle your way into the life of your dreams. Recognize your deep, possibly very repressed, seemingly childish curiosity. Let it grow into strength and ambition. allow it to devour your entire disposition/mentality. Commit yourself to it, to a life of continuous curiosity, adventure, introspection, and growth. To a life, as the great DeeGoddess would say, of eating frogs. Regardless of where you stand in your life, this is achievable. The day you realize your inner virtuous hexis and begin to nurture it, thereby nurturing your best self, this is the first day of the rest of your life!

Announcement: I am married!

Declaration of Marriage:

I have decided to announce that I am married!



Avec qui ? Pas qui, mais quoi !

This is a relationship that has been growing for several years. Technically you could say all my life.

Who’s heard of that good-ol’ Greek term hexis? Good luck trying to translate it. People have been arguing about it for as long as Aristotle’s work has been translated into different languages. What I take it to mean is an over-all stable disposition of living actively. To Aristotle, moral virtue is a hexis; one where the individual lives by active deliberation, lives conscious of the world and life around him/her as well as participating in introspection (as opposed to being oblivious, unconcerned, and/or ignorant of the majority of what is within and/or without the self). All these things result in the betterment of the individual. Knowledge and wisdom are acquired, virtues are strengthened, efficacy as an individual is improved both in the context of society and within the context of one’s personal abilities and goals.

I am married to my morally virtuous hexis.


For those of you who are unable to grasp what I mean by hexis:

I am married to my education.

Not just formal, socially structured education, as in going to school (that too though) but the over-all education (meaning gaining of knowledge, growth as a fluid ever-changing, ever-evolving individual).

As in every marriage, my relationship with this hexis, and my work to build a life with it, is and will always be my number one priority. This hexis will always come before all else. I will love, honor, cherish and protect this hexis, as I know it will love, honor, cherish, and protect me in return.

Due to the nature of this relationship, it must necessarily be polyamorous… not in the sense that I’ll be fucking hexis and other people, that’s just silly. But that other relationships of all shapes and sizes, the “with who” relationships, will be absolutely necessary. This is for two reasons: 1) Because not only is my hexis strengthened with the experiences of knowing other people with (and perhaps without) their own unique hexis, but that I hope to be able to experience this marriage with another individual, sharing the wonders of such a life with each other. And 2) because although this marriage will have an incredible impact on my life, it only gains significance if it is able to touch, in any way, more and more lives outside my own.

During my relationship so far with this hexis, I have already experienced how others can support, encourage, and benefit my adoration and devotion. I have also already, especially recently, experienced how my adoration and devotion has touched the lives of others: those that have come into my life long enough for them to at least be inspired, if not enabled to recognize their own “morally virtuous hexis,” and are motivated to find out just what happens when their potential, their passion, and their energy are put to good use together.

I have also discovered that there are people and situations that try and try and try to destroy my deep commitment. I don’t usually recognize the person or context as such right away. When I do, sometimes it’s as easy as recognizing it and changing my perspective, or turning on my ipod and not listening; sometimes it’s as difficult as breaking with someone whom you thought to be your best friend for years and whom you have loved whole-heartedly.

Long story short, as in any marriage, I must be selective in how I allow the world and the people therein to affect me and my relationship. Anyone who doesn’t understand and detracts from my commitment will be expelled from my life, as much as I can possibly judge them so. Anyone who at least tries to understand my undying love is welcome to join me in this adventure called life to see what we can find and figure out, learn and contribute together.

As many of you know, I recently got a new tattoo. This symbol is a mark of my commitment, devotion, and ability to remain everything I’ve just described.

Due to completely thorough socialization, I may even feel compelled to wear a ring on my left ring finger.

In the words of Dido:

“I will go down with this ship

And I won't put my hands up and surrender

There will be no white flag above my door

I'm in love and always will be”

One must remain commited to be truly free! ...What?

Juuuuust a quick note during my break from homework:

First, a quote:
"It takes a deep commitment to change and an even deeper commitment to grow." -Ralph Ellison

That commitment MUST be made to and for yourself, because it must be you that makes the effort and it is in you that the results are manifest.

An example of the former can be made of quitting smoking. It takes a deep commitment to yourself to succeed in quitting. This commitment must be to yourself because it involves nothing outside of you to have the willpower to quit and it is your habit and no one else's that you are changing. When a commitment of the sort is made to someone outside of you, you are not likely to succeed. If you do succeed, the results aren't likely to stick.

The latter, that thing they call personal growth, is a smidge more complicated. As I see it, personal growth involves expanding our not only knowledge, but understanding of no one else but our very own selves. My personal growth involves me working to gain knowledge and a better understanding of no one else but me, which allows me to tighten a few screws, make some alterations where necessary, and continue to evolve as an individual. This journey takes tremendous commitment to yourself.

To be committed to yourself in any way requires knowing at least in what direction you want to move forward in (which usually involves having a fairly well defined idea of a desired end), believing that you are capable and deserving of becoming "better" (however you've chosen to define "better"), want it bad enough to be willing to undertake all the challenges necessary to accomplish your goal, and practicing unfaltering honesty with yourself in all of the above.

The commitment for growth is more of a mentality and way of life that one (but not all) develops. That is NOT to say that it is not something, like all commitments, that has to be renewed, reevaluated, reestablished, etc over and over and over again.

Over the years I have developed a standard for respect of other people that includes some level/variation of this mentality. Until now, I haven't been able to fully articulate this, but I am just beginning to see a pattern in my recent years of behavior that signifies the development of this standard. I have repeatedly gotten into relationships, friendly and romantic, which I try and try and try to make work only to reject the individual because, though I couldn't put my finger on it, I just wasn't satisfied somehow. Because I have not been conscious of my tendency to judge whether or not other people have this mentality, I dive in only to eventually find that I cannot develop some form of respect for them.

Well kids the blond finally gets it. Now the question that remains is this: Does this crystallization of my already existent intuition offer a short-cut to the path of being able to surround myself with only those that can positively influence and support me and that can be positively influenced and supported by me? Or does this newly recognized standard of mine exclude people that should/would be important to my life?

If the first option is the case, I am faced with the challenge of cleansing my life of those that lack/reject the aforementioned mentality, which is not an easy task. There's a fine line here between being a judgemental bitch and a wisely selective individual looking out for her own wellbeing. Also, as experience has already informed me, cleansing your life of those whom you have loved, but whom you no longer can respect is a painful process.

If the second option is the case, then clearly I need to reevaluate my standards and how I see people.

So where do I go from here?

Queer Response Paper NUMBA 5, and actually the final one for this class

Judith Butler offers her readers one of the most clear and mind-boggling works of words that I have ever read. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination” articulates the paradoxes encompassed not only in the conceptual and/or normative meanings of words like heterosexual, homosexual, gay, lesbian, but in how we take on these words by using them to identify our “I.” To someone unfamiliar with the topic, that probably sounds like absolute gibberish. What I mean is the concept of heterosexual, especially as a normative standard, is dependent on the concept of homosexual as either a deviance or a copy-cat version of heterosexuality for comparison and contrast in order to stabilize the definitive standards it’s attempting to maintain. And vice versa: homosexuality is dependent on heterosexuality to define what it’s not. At one part of her argument, Butler says “if it were not for the notion of the homosexual as copy, there would be no construct of heterosexuality as origin” (313). It’s a chicken or the egg paradox.

Also, when applied to an identity, both labels restrict thoughts, feelings, desires, and acts to what fits within the boundaries of that label. This effect is even more dramatic the more “specific” (or “loaded” or “confusing” or “opaque”) the label (male/female, lesbian, gay, butch, femme, straight, macho, etc.).

I love her analysis of “coming out of the closet” (308-311). When one is coming out, te [(s)he] is revealing ter [his/her] “true” identity to the world, affirming what te claims te already was, but haven’t been enacting in some way. Now te is free to enact their true identity? Now te is not only “free” to, but expected to embody characteristics of gayness (or whatever identity was claimed). But what does that entail. As Butler puts it, describing her coming out of the closet, “before, you did not know whether I ‘am’, but now you do not know what that means.” She goes on to say that “maybe that is a situation to be valued,” but is it really liberating? Also, once we’re out of the closet, what have we come out into? I have never encountered a closet that wasn’t confined within some other structure. Not that structure is bad, but perhaps the idea of “coming out” a liberatory experience, defying normative social ideas to be who you really are should be reevaluated.

Maybe transsexuals are more aware of the nature of what they’re doing that most of the GLBT community: Transitioning from embodying one socially structured identity to another, with some level of awareness that by saying yes to femaleness and femininity, it is to some extent necessary to say no to maleness and masculinity, whereby recognizing and reinforcing the existence and meaning of both entirely socially constructed identities and how they are dependent on each other to define what they are not. “[G]ender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original,” (313) it is an imitation of norms that are constructed through social, in our culture heterosexist discourse.

Which reminds me of our next reading by Lynda Johnston (I had to read that a couple times to distinguish it from Lindon Johnson… which I thought was kinda funny) entitled “Bodies: Camped Up Performances.” She uses her observances of all men or all women pride parades as examples of how we embody gender in different variations and on different levels. I’m apparently rather uninformed on the subject and had to look up “camp,” I figured she wasn’t talking about sleeping in a sleeping bag. I had no idea there were so many definitions for this word! Here’s what I think she meant:

Camp /kamp/ adjective & noun[1]
A adjective. Ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical; effeminate, homosexual.
B noun. Camp behaviour, mannerisms, etc.

In other words, embodying some exaggerated version of, usually, normative femininity, generally with a male body. But she uses the term in examples of exaggerated normative femininity or masculinity embodied in a female or male body, or any combination thereof, as a why to not only make a statement about the necessarily theatrical nature of the manifestation of gender, and poking fun at it.

As for my www.sex-lexis.com/a selection, I chose “39”, because I just happen to like that number. Its meaning in this dictionary of sexual terms is: “Code for anilingus, based on the ideographic image of a face buried between buttocks, the figure 3 being the buttocks, 9 the face.” Of the 4 discursive trends in sexuality that we have discussed, I think it being an actual sex act makes it fit under “libidinal economies” as well as “discursive desires.” I have to say, this was a new one on me! (Not the act itself, but 39 being used to signify it)

[1] From my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Sixth Edition. :)

Un Terme Important.. Euh.. in bugEnglish

Life noun.
The condition, quality, or fact of being a living organism; the condition that characterizes animals and plants (when alive) and distinguishes them from inanimate matter, being marked by a capacity for growth and development and by continued functional activity; the activities and phenomena by which this is manifested.

+

Passion noun.
A strong enthusiasm for a (specified) thing; and aim or object pursued with strong enthusiasm. Also, a strong barely controllable emotion [repeatedly referred to as even painful].
[these definitions come from my beloved Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Sixth Edition]

=

Life Passion noun.
A strong enthusiasm for the condition, quality, or fact of being a living organism, and all that that entails. Not merely the inclination to follow through with routine each day, but an ongoing awareness, curiosity and revelling of the beauty and/or potential in each aspect of each day. This is manifest in a theoretical burning ember in one's essence. Varying from a dim light to a blazing flame, this ember is vanquished only when one's life has ended. Does not seem to be present in every "living" human being.

Just a quick note...

About how wonderfully full of wonderful li'l notes this week has been. This is kinda sorta maybe a bit of a copykat blog to msGoddess' recent "Magically Funkalicious" blog.. but I happen to have had several magnificent emails and notes from people this week too.

I have had the privilege of meeting some incredible people in my life. I'm still learning which ones are really incredible... but when I receive updates from people that I don't get to talk to very often that both inform me of their growth, progress, and life passion, and also how high they regard me for mine, and are inspired by me to continue to fight for their Everything. iGoddess stated it so well in the blog mentioned above: "phenomenal compliment(s)...and that i know it's true only makes the compliment that much more powerful."

And that I have people like this in my life, even if I don't get to talk to them on a frequent basis, inspires and motivates me to continue to live my life of trying almost anything, accomplishing everything I possibly can, and being everything I'm capable of being.

*sigh*

Time for fabulous dreams :)

Queer Response Paper NUMBA 4

I cannot say enough how perfect I thought the first line for Matthew Gutmann’s piece “Trafficking in Men: The Anthropology of Masculinity” is to make his point. In case you have not read it or to refresh your memory: “Anthropology has always involved men talking to men about men. Until recently, however, very few within the discipline of the “study of man” had truly examined men as men.” (385) One of the most interesting profound realities that has been brought to my attention in my studies of culture, sexuality, etc., is the phenomenon of ignorance in probably each and every inquiry. Regardless of what you’re studying, there is most likely something you are taking for granted. When you are trying to build a body of knowledge about something, there has to be a foundation upon which it’s built. This foundation is all too often accepted as truth if not absolutely dogmatic. The stability of this foundation, however, should always be taken into consideration. Nancy Tuana talks about it in terms of an Epistemology of Ignorance. An example is how we’ve define sexual deviance based on heterosexism for decades. Questions about the nature of heterosexuality: where does it come from? what does it mean? why? were simply overlooked. If heterosexuality was the natural foundation upon which we built our other knowledge, then why define it?

This article begins by pointing out that the foundation of anthropological discourse has, for years, had Man, and in many respects masculinity, as the natural foundation for the study of humanity. It is only recently that anthropological inquiry has begun to examine men as “engendered and engendering subjects.” (385) What is the nature of masculinity? Are men born or are they made? If a man is not masculine, is he automatically feminine? If he’s not absolutely masculine, is he automatically regarded as effeminate? The rest of Gutmann’s article lists observed behaviors, beliefs and concepts that have been encountered with these questions in mind in more recent anthropological studies. Overall it left me all the more convinced of cultural diversity, but did have some interesting consistencies. I don’t think this article is nearly exhaustive enough to absolutely take those consistencies to heart. I can only imagine what a work would look like that was exhaustive… if that’s even imaginable.

J.M. Carrier’s article “Homosexual Behavior in Cross-Cultural Perspective” has some more detailed examples of cultural diversity in attitude toward variations of cross-gendered identities and homosexual behavior. The part that catches my attention the most is in the Mexican culture. Mexican culture is known for having some of the most rigid, strict expectations of masculinity: hypermasculinity, machismo or macho-men. Boys and men that fall below these extremely high expectations are automatically labeled effeminate, regarded as homosexual, and targeted for homosexual activity (it is interesting to not that the “macho men” who seek out the “effeminate” men are not regarded as homosexual, as long as they play the dominant penetrator role in the sex act). This was an idea that struck me when we were reading about transsexuals and transgendered individuals. Could it be that, because of society’s high expectations for men, some just don’t feel capable of or simply don’t want to have to fulfill the role, and choose instead to identify as a woman? Could this be a psychological aspect of (at least some) transexuality? In Mexican culture there seems to be literal social force in addition to the obvious psychological aspects that lend to this assignment of (sexual?) identities. (238-239)

Why is it so common to correlate social “gender” roles with sexuality? Carrier pointed out what seems like should be obvious: “The link between cross-gender behavior and homosexual behavior is the belief that there should be concordance between gender role and sexual object choice.” (236) But not all societies and cultures throughout time as space necessarily make this connection. Some simply take on the social expectations of the opposite gender and we have no evidence of what their sex life, if they had one at all, was like. All, very interesting to think about…

Nothing without authoritative blessing!

I always hated the idea of a man asking a woman's hand in marriage.. .and still do. It symbolizes that passing on of property from one man to another. One reason I walked alone down the isle.

But what ever happened to getting your family's blessing? Sure, part of it also corresponded to that idea of property... but the other part of it signified a family's approval of the match. Whether it be because if would improve the family's name, politically, brought money into the family, simply was a good match of characters for the new couple to be partners capable of building a great life together, etc.

I think that last part is important. It seems that if you're going to make a decision like that, it would be extremely helpful to get your friends' and family's so-called blessing. Not necessarily for a dogmatic answer on whether or not the relationship will or won't work and what actions you should take... But i think that sharing our perspectives is incredibly helpful.

How many stories have you heard of the marriage that lasted about a day and a half because the couple was head over heals for each other (NRE), got married on impulse, and realized it was a huge mistake? (or some variant of that story) Would the outside perspectives of the individuals closest to the bride and groom not be useful in this situation?

Or someone who is impulsive because they're so lonely, they jump into all sorts of relationships, or one very long-term one... it's easy to be blinded by loneliness. Easy to be blind when you're starving for partnership. But when you're blind, how can you see whether the relationship you're jumping into is the solution to your problems? You're close friends and family members may not have the absolute answers to every situation, but we should never take what they have to say for granted.

Hell, think of where'd I'd be if I'd listened to everyone that found out when I was engaged... "I guess everyone has to have their first."

But not only do we take this much needed advice for granted, even dismiss it without due deliberation all too often, but most people are too hesitant to share it. There are definitely distasteful ways to shove your opinions in other people's faces, but there are very helpful, constructive ways to share your perspective with the people you love. Maybe it's best to wait to be asked for it...

I was just thinking about how nice it would be sometimes to be able to step out of my own consciousness into a more objective view of my situations and take a look around. This made me think of getting your parent's blessing for marriage.... which made me think of getting the people closest to you's blessing when you might be making decisions while oppressive objects are obstructing your view.

Just a ramble.

Homework time.

Queer Response Paper NUMBA 3

First of all, why have I never heard the term “gender journey” before? It is a term Ariadne Kane uses in the very short article entitled “Introduction: Looking for Understanding” from the International Journal of Transgenderism. This term alone has some interesting implications. Sure, there are many many many people that have issues identifying with the male/female gender (and sex) dichotomy. So what is a gender journey? Is it an introspective inquiry attempting to define one’s gender, whether it is defined as either male, female, a combination, or something else entirely? This concept could be interesting for a lot of people, especially in the sociological and psychological studies of sex and gender. But when it comes to just that pure struggle that everyone goes through to try to understand who they are, their very essence, isn’t it a bit restricting to endeavor on a “gender” journey? After all, isn’t it labels that pertain to gender the restrictions one would be trying to avoid or transcend when taking that inward journey of learning/knowing/loving thyself? My handy love-of-my-life Oxford English Dictionary defines gender as a few things: The first is a very long explanation basically referring to the nouns and pronouns that correspond or relate in any way with a person or object’s sex or sexlessness. 2) “The state of being male, female, or neuter; sex; the members of one or other sex.” And 3) “Sex as expressed by social or cultural distinctions.” The word apparently comes from the “Old French gendre (mod. genre) which comes from Proto-Romance from Latin genus, gener-; see GENUS.” The history and definition of the word “gender” entail strict classification and labeling. Don’t get me wrong, I am completely aware that classifications, labels, and generalizations are not only a natural human inclination, but are, for many reasons, absolutely necessary. My only qualm with this whole idea of a “gender journey” is that when it comes to knowing thyself, how much of each dynamic and diverse individual existence is being overlooked or misunderstood when trying to be understood based on these systems of classification? (Whether they involve the possibility of only male and female, or those two plus 300 others.) What does “gender” really mean when it comes to introspection? Based on the way the human mind works, how capable are we of understanding anything outside of systems of classifications and/or generalizations? If we can understand anything without them, it seems it would be our own individual selves. Just some thoughts…

Interesting that I went off for so long on those two words when I thought that Kane’s piece, while interesting, was easily the least important of the three we read for this Monday. In Susan Kessler and Wendy McKenna’s piece, “Who Put the ‘Trans’ in Transgender,” they take their readers on a very brief journey through the history of the terms “transsexual” and “transgender,” introducing different possibilities for why “trans-” is used instead of some other prefix, which actually ties into one of my favorite points of the next and last reading for this Monday: Judith Shapiro’s “Transsexualism: Reflections on the Persistence of Gender and the Mutability of Sex.” “Trans” can mean three things: change, across, and beyond or through. Up until this point, when I think of all the variations of being transgender or transsexual, I relate it to the movement to transcend sex and gender (as you may have guess from my first rather long paragraph), but that’s not generally accurate at all. I found it incredibly interesting that in fact, most transgendered (both with and without reconstructive surgery) people adhere to the male/female binary gender norms more strictly than the average bio-male or female. Most are not trying, nor would they want to try, to redefine any social or cultural definition of the binary gender system, but are merely trying to redefine which category they fall under.

This is one of those points that seems like it should have been totally obvious based on the very nature of changing from male to female, female to male, or some variation thereof. I just never saw it before. And that’s not to say that the goals and lifestyle of a transsexual individual is any more or less normal, logical, sane, etc than I or anyone originally thought. All it shows is to what extent transsexualism is absolutely taken for granted as many things it is not, and widely widely widely misunderstood.

I'm a Petite Cute Li'l TIMEBOMB OF FURY AND PASSION

I would like to invoke the words of Kidneythieves for this one:

Arsenal
Naive little pieces of
What they tried to teach her
Quiet and protected
Slightly anorexic
(She Waits)
She's a time bomb, with her vibe on
She's gonna use it and surprise them
She's a time bomb, with her vibe on
They'll never know where she got her weapon.
They really don't believe her
She keeps it all a secret
Found the Golden Muses
Doesn't need to prove it
(She Waits)
She's a time bomb, with her vibe on
She's gonna use it and surprise them
She's a time bomb, with her vibe on
They'll never know where she got her weapon.
Naive little pieces
She thought that they could see her
But soon the Desert Pigs will know
She's holding in an arsenal.
(She Waits)
She's a time bomb, with her vibe on
She's gonna use it and surprise them
She's a time bomb, with her vibe on
They'll never know where she got her weapon.
She Waits.

This is something that has boggled me for years, but that I am just beginning to become conscious of. Whenever someone refers to me as "cute" or "skinny" or makes a comment about how I "shouldn't pick up that dog! He weighs like X pounds!" I get a little confused. Not offended, necessarily, just confused. Am I really that little? I don't feel that little... I sure as hell don't feel as fragile, weak, frail, or infirm.

Then I'll catch myself in the mirror.. not every time I look in the mirror... but at just the right moment and angle I'll catch a glimpse of this tiny little girl in the mirror. She has long thin arms and legs, a tiny little waist, cute but insubstantial little butt and boobs. She looks just like me but that can't possibly be me.

Call in vanity, but I have always felt like I could move mountains (um.. so to speak). Dream it up and I am capable. Physically, intellectually, whatever. Of course we all have both our off days and our reality checks. I, after all, can NOT lift a million pound half dog/half hippo. I can't after all sit down and read Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy overnight with ANY understanding (I'd be willing to be that there aren't more than maybe 2 or 3 people in human HISTORY that could read Nietzsche overnight and have a full understanding). I can't take one term in French as suddenly speak if fluently.

But I CAN lift like a 70 pound dog (not saying I necessarily should...). I CAN decipher Nietzsche and many other philosophers and other theorists if given the time. I CAN and AM continuing to learn French and look forward to refreshing my Spanish, continuing with the little tiny bit of modern Greek that I started with, and looking into many other languages.

But it's obvious that at least a part of what people see in me is this small and fragile girl. I glimpse her in the mirror once in a while and am even overtaken by her on the occasional days that I feel lost, confused, and absolutely stuck.

So Who Is She?

Hm.... who says I have to have all the answers now? I've at least identified this part of me and why I get this slightly off and uncomfortable feeling whenever people refer to my apparent fragility.

To be continued.......

Queer Response Paper NUMBA 2

(Thissuns a li'l bit more rantlike and interesting if you haven't read my class readings)

In the excerpt we read from her book A Desired Past, Leila Rupp made many interesting points. I think she really hit the nail on the head (er.. one of the times she hit the nail on the head) when she commented that “history… is not the one ‘true story.’ Rather, it is a story as best we can tell it, given the evidence, our own assumptions and values, and the perspective we take from our own place in a particular society at a specific point in time. (14)” While the investigation into the history of sexuality is absolutely invaluable and interesting and necessary, I think it is all too common for people to take the very narrow dogmatic stance of finding “historical facts” and using them to write “true history.” But in reality this isn’t possible. (I would argue that this is true of just about ANY inquiry.) Any possible evidence that can be perceived and assigned relevance is doing just that: being taken into consideration by someone’s (or even a group of people’s) individualized perception and is having it’s historical relevance assigned to it based on that person’s ideas, disposition, what he/she is looking for, experiences, etc etc etc. That’s because no matter what journal entry, court case, or other physical evidence we come across, it is historical, meaning no longer in context. Though we can grasp some part of the essence of the context through this evidence, it is not possible to absolutely understand the context of the events, human emotions, dispositions, cultures, behaviors that took place throughout human history. (Even if the individual doing the historical inquiry was, in fact, there, they are still limited to their own perspective.)
That said, this inquiry is still absolutely invaluable because of the effect it has on our current context. By studying other cultures, times, any “other” possibilities of human existence, we open our minds to alternate possibilities for our own existence. Even if our perception of the actual manifestation of these possibilities in other time and space isn’t entirely accurate, we are still opening our mind to them and creating a better understanding of who/what/when/where/how/why humans do and/or can exist as well as who/what/when/where/how/why we understand ourselves as such. This learning process and movement toward understanding is important because without it, humanity would be static, unmoving, and unchanging. One absolute constant in human history is change and evolution. Remaining absolutely stagnant goes against human nature. Human history from just about any perspective will tell you that.
Skipping many other very interesting statements made by Rupp, I am very intrigued by Foucault’s way of looking at things. At this point, I have read very little of his work and may not be interpreting it correctly, but what I have gotten from it is interesting never the less. Instead of looking at human sexual history with a critical eye and using repression for a foundation, why not take it all into consideration more objectively? I think Ayn Rand put it rather well when she was asked whether man’s altering of nature is natural: “Well, what do you think man is? Outside of nature? A supernatural being?” Though my views are significantly different from hers and she was reaching a very specific point with a very specific question in this quote, I think she brings up a very interesting point: In the vast diversity of human behavior and experience, who’s to say what’s natural? Are hetero-monogamous relationships “natural” for humans? Is bestiality? Sodomy? Inter-generational/racial sex? Rape? Orgies? Polyamory? Masturbation? Etc Etc Etc…. The mere fact that mankind took their behavior in these directions at any point in time proves that, to some extent, they are all part of human nature. In the same way that the fear that creates the ideas that some of these behaviors AREN’T natural is part of human nature. With that in mind, the studying of human sexuality, including the repression itself, should be regarded with an objective mind, taking into consideration that all different sides of the story offer evidence and information about human nature, which is incredibly diverse and complex. It seems to me that this attempt at an objective eye is the goal of queer studies. But again, just how capable are we of being absolutely objective? All we can do is try. Then, if and when we catch ourselves applying any form of bias to our studies and attempts to attain understanding, perhaps we can correct ourselves, moving toward a more thorough and maybe even more accurate understanding of whatever it is that we are studying.

Queer Theory Response Paper NUMBA 1

This one is responding primarily to 3 class readings:
Martha Umphrey's "The Trouble With Harry Thaw"
Jonathan Ned Katz's "Homosexuality and Heterosexuality: Questioning the Terms"
Didier Eribon's "The Shock of the Insult"

In our first reading by Martha Umphrey, I really like how she sets up the reader to make the same mistakes she made when encountering the story of Harry Thaw. She sets us up to expect some version of homosexuality as we know it, only for us to find ourselves (whether from the very beginning, or later, when she describes the difficulties she encountered) unable to define his situation with typical modern terms for sexuality. The whole time I was reading it, I was thinking “Well duh! Just because he had sexual encounters with boys doesn’t mean he’s a flamboyant homosexual, bisexual, insane… whatever. It simply means that he was a human being that at one point in time found his sexual desire directed at younger boys. This is not THAT unusual of phenomena.” She does this so that we better understand where she went wrong and why the homo/hetero binary system comes up short. She then introduces her readers to the term “queer” in a very clear and defined way (or, by definition, unclearly defined), describing the value and uses of the concept. This was very useful to me because I’ve only ever known the term as either “unusual,” or referring to an individual that anyone would identify as GLBTIQ.
Umphrey did leave me a little confused about the nature of “doing queered history” and this concept of recuperating queer historical figures. When it is clear that today’s terminology can’t just be extracted from the context of its origination and placed in any historical setting, how can we even locate, let along recuperate, any historical figures that fit our cause?
The second piece, by Jonathan Ned Katz, I had read for my sophomore inquiry sexualities class. I definitely think I got more out of it this time though! He talks in detail about the contextual limitations of sexual terminology. His last paragraph is especially liberating: Encouraging researchers to consider history and other cultures more objectively and with less influence of modern sexual hypotheses. Imagine what we’d see with such an unbiased eye! But then there’s only so much we, as human beings, can do to see more objectively.
The last reading, by Didier Eribon, I found to be more disappointing than not. It really could have been interesting had it been more focused on how we’re psychologically affected by being labeled/identified by other people in different ways. Instead, Eribon chose to discuss being “insulted” via labeling and name-calling. Maybe it’s just me, but being insulted seems to be a choice. We are only victimized (especially by mere words) if we allow ourselves to be victimized. The author makes it sounds like every negative remark that is (or even seems) to be thrown in our direction has devastating consequences on the formation of our very being. While I definitely think that no individual is immune to both the positive and the negative influence of other people, Eribon’s language sounds like a pathetic plea for pity. In this article, the damage caused by being called a name could be equated with the damage caused by being raped! Eribon needs help, any sort of help that would teach him about self-esteem and self-responsibility. Maybe I’m just being cold-hearted.

Bloggy Statement of Purpose

This is actually a statement of purpose that applies to everything and anything I write:

I Can Only Speak for Myself: Generalities are useful for some things, but seem to be rendered useless when attempting to achieve a thorough understanding of oneself. So, in writing, I speak only for myself, and in so doing, may perhaps happen to offer material that reader's may identify with in such a way that they are left better enabled to understand themselves and the world around them. Increasing and developing this "understanding" is the key to discovering, developing, and living the life that is optimal for each individual and, potentially, the life that benefits the world around us the most as well (symbiotically).

THAT said, I am starting this blog for several reasons.

One, through my Deelicious Dee I have gotten a glimpse of an interesting and intellectual online community of people that share their thoughts, ideas, just how their day went, what it all means, and respond and progress with each other. I would LOVE to be a part of that. Also, as anyone who knows me is aware of, I'm a busy philosophy student that is constantly writing and exploring new ideas. Any sort of feedback in any quantity is ALWAYS useful.

Because I am so busy, however, blogs outside of my school work will probably be somewhat rare. However, this term in my Intro to Queer Theory, we are writing a response paper each week to the class readings. These papers are very much in what I call "rant" format, perfect for a blog. Although most of my readers won't have read the articles I'm referring to, I think they have some interesting content independent from the readings. I will at least post these and perhaps other things that I would love to hear other people's thoughts on and/or that I think other people would find interesting.

So.... enjoy!

love,bug