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.