food: it’s what’s for dinner
Food? Or Poison?
So it's happened again: yet another lunch guest who tells me she hardly eats any meat or fat, mostly all-vegetables - and a few minutes later is ladling up two plates'-worth of my shepherd's pie - with its buttery mashed-potato corona of Awesome - and devouring with much gusto. Then she tells me she doesn't drink alcohol - and ends up asking for one of the gin and tonics my husband is mixing for other guests.
In my peer group at least, food fuckabouts are common enough. Whether men and women self-identify as "dieting" or not, they often are. And many of them do not demonstrate eating competence.
Food and diet are controversial, varied, and hugely complex subjects. So just to be clear from the outset, here is what I am not addressing in this article. I am not going to be talking about individuals and families who do not have access to a variety of food they can afford. I am not going to be talking about concepts appropriate for individuals with severe eating disorders.
I'm weighing in on the behaviors and strategies of people like my friends, family and I: people who have the means and resources to afford a variety of fare and who would not be classified as having an ED.1
Considering "eating competence" is almost as an important aspect of feeding and eating as supply and access it's interesting few people know the basic tenets of the concept. From an article published at Kansas State University's Department of Human Nutrition:
People who are competent eaters have positive attitudes about eating. They enjoy food. They are confident that they will have enough food to eat and they trust their bodies’ internal regulators to signal when they are hungry and when they are full. Children move toward eating competence as they learn to acknowledge their own internal cues. Development of eating competence – or the lack of – begins in infancy and continues through life.2
So I'm a pretty good cook; mostly though, a joyful and prolific one. I cook often for my family and for other people when I can.3 The socially-performed rituals of food-as-a-moral-failing-or-virtue are behaviors I've observed too often to be considered flukes.
See, many Americans can be really silly about food. Fer realz. Did you know we still have an operational Food Pyramid being purveyed by our government?4. Advocates of the Ethical Food Movement - with whom my family shares some aims and is locally-influential in promoting these goals - often do not address the institutional, cultural, and hugely oppressive stresses on American food habits, instead releasing considerable internet-vitriol slandering individual people and families for their ginormously disgusting Fatty McFatsalot food habits and sloth. (I'm not going to provide any soul-sucking links for this, throw a rock on Google and you'll hit loads of it.)
That obesity business. Because let's get real: one of the major factors in these food-games my friends and family play relates to their weight and size. Many Americans absolutely worship the Idol of Weight Loss with a fervor blind to any nuanced discussion of mitigating factors, scientific study, or personal health and happiness. Weight Loss is massive, a constant undercurrent, and an aspiration we're all supposed to hold (so even if you're not dieting, you should support dieting), even though countless studies prove diets don't work and Americans know this anecdotally and empirically. In fact the efficacy of dieting is worse than many people realize: study after study shows around 95% of diet-participants gaining weight back in two years while two-thirds gain even more weight than what was lost.5 The significant health effects of de facto yo-yo dieting are wreaking havoc on American bodies and minds and quality of life (more about this in a minute). But this does not deter Americans from: dieting.
I notice a fair amount of my friends and family will claim their diet-and-exercise regimens and their food restrictions are about "health" - not weight. If you query them further (they might not like this) you often find this is a smokescreen.
Example: a dear friend of mine recently told me she needed to drop forty pounds. I asked Why? and she responded, "To be healthy". She want on to say, "I want to be able to walk a brisk two mile walk and feel good doing it." I said, "If you got up tomorrow and tried that walk slowly, then rested the next day then did it again, and so on, within a couple weeks you'd be able to do it and you'd probably feel great. And you probably wouldn't drop more than a couple pounds, if that." (This friend is able-bodied and fairly active already). From the look in her eyes I could see I wasn't "getting" the fantasy-image she had of her new, slimmer, "healthy" self, a whole new Her (the fleshed out version of these visions is further-reaching than just Pounds Lost; it is also sometimes called The Fantasy of Being Thin6). Later, passing through her bathroom I saw the scale on the floor and the careful notes of pounds written on a piece of paper and taped to her mirror.
This woman, and so many people I know, might say the word "health" but does not know her blood pressure nor has had recent bloodwork done or seen a trusted naturopath or physician or embarked on a study of quantifiable health markers (and yes, she could afford to do so if she wished). If her focus was truly on health she'd likely get rid of the scale and follow a proven method of lifestyle and fitness improvement, such as the HAES model developed by Linda Bacon (that's right, BACON!).7 But of course, that's not really what she, or lots of other "health"-touters, are really thinking about.
The typical versions of dieting are distressing behaviors because weight loss culture is a real agent of harm, self-loathing, and poor health. As long as people still cling to the ideologies of the Weight Loss Industrial Compex (fistfuls of money are being made hawking this religion) their bodies will suffer as will their quality of life: also and especially their children. Spending time with other people's kids - especially the girl-children - I observe how many girls, even young ones, talk sneeringly about fatness or express their longing to thin - yes, even girls who already are thin. I've heard girls as young as four express these sentiments. I am afraid in many cases their parents/carers aren't doing all they can to protect these children, probably because they've either bought into "thin is in" or they don't realize how invasive the forces are working against their children's health.8 Make no mistake, the influence of peers and the media has even well-strategizing parents at a disadvantage.
The cost to our children is being borne out overwhelmingly by our female children, especially girls and young women of color.9 No one, however, is immune. My own daughter asked me the other day if she was "too fat".10 She's not only not "too fat", she's just not fat at all, and the fact she has been asking and hinting about this lately troubles me. We are a homeschooling family who does not own a television and her father and I are active supporters of FA and healthy eating; we do not impose Draconian food measures. If she's still getting these "better worry about one's weight" messages loud and clear I'd like the reader to consider how oppressively ubiquitous they are and how they are likely playing out even more harmfully depending on the race, gender, sexual orientation, degree of disability, institutional status, and socioeconomic class of other children - most categories of which my daughter is an a culturally-privileged place.
It's a grim picture. Yet we still talk about food incautiously and as if there were these tangible or elusive moral Rights and Wrongs. We still look at fat people (and occasionally thin people) and imagine we know what they eat (and/or how much they exercise and how "good" their exercise regimens might be). Sometimes my friends tell me they're carrying "an extra X pounds." I ask them how would they know it was 'extra'? - literally, where would they go to find out? (The BMI index?11 The tabloids? Equally laughable!) They then, invariably, tell me about a time in their life they were smaller - maybe thirty years and three children ago (personally I came into this world at about eight pounds but I've put on a lot since then!).
We still suffer from poor-self-worth and insecurity which, tragically, often contributes to the pro-Diet mantras and myopic concepts of food morality. Unfortunately, this is not a "victimless crime" or even a one-victim crime; our attitudes and lip service in aggregate have very real effects on other people. There's also just the personal garden-variety misery our worldview effects; therapist, author and lecturer Ellyn Satter writes:
Our dilemma with weight is that at the same time as we are being told by health policy makers - repeatedly and with a great deal of judgment and urgency - that any degree of overweight is medically dangerous, there is no successful method for reducing and maintaining a lowered body weight. In fact, weight loss attempts have a boomerang effect: Most people regain lost weight and many gain to a higher level with each loss-regain cycle. While high body weight is a serious health risk only at the extremes, the far-more-common pattern of weight instability as a result of dieting is associated with negative health outcomes [emphasis mine].
For people who are relatively fat, the weight dilemma is even worse. Although body composition is, for the most part, genetically determined, people of size generally feel guilty about their weight and therefore ashamed of their eating. They have accepted society's judgment that they overeat and that they are digging their graves with their knives and forks. In reality, most relatively fat people eat no more or no differently from thin people. They just pay the price. People of size at times eat chaotically, but that chaotic eating, rather than being a cause of high body weight, is far more likely to be a consequence of the weight-reduction dieting that they have pursued in the name of becoming thin.12
People make judgments about food and individuals' "food virtue" that make little to no objective sense. Around these parts I'm known as a good cook and a "healthy" one. Because my family is slim and people know I enjoy cooking and I do cook with a wide variety of ingredients, some organic depending what I can afford, I am told I'm a "healthy" cook. What does that even mean? I've had people gush about my refried beans from scratch and tell me They're Gonna Start Cooking Healthier At Home, and I think to myself, Do they want to know how much butter and salt are in those beans? From what I can tell some want to eat my food, proclaim it as healthy and delicious, perhaps claim they never eat such-and-such (while I'm watching them devour it), and/or tell themselves and the rest of the guests how they're Losing Weight (or going to start soon). This is all part of that Fantasy I alluded to before. It's hard to know what to say; often, I don't say much at all. (Disclosure: by vast overwhelming majority my friends and family who eat restricted diets because of medical issues or spiritual/ethical convictions are the ones I observe eat the way they claim to eat.)
Day after day I see the play-around "rules", the "bad" food vs. "good" food, the "I can eat this slice of cheesecake because I did thirty minutes on the treadmill", the endless discussions on size 6 jeans or size 8 jeans (and the hurt silence of the woman in the room who's a size 20). I've seen it so many times, and as a hostess who loves to cook and have friends over it would almost be funny if I didn't know What Lies Beneath; if I didn't want better for future babies, boys, girls, men and women. My job as a hostess is to cook exactly the foods my friends tell me they want, put the grated cheese on the side or provide vegetarian alternatives or gluten-free main courses or whatever best serves everyone attendant; to lovingly craft with my own hands exactly what will nourish us all. What they put on their plate and how they frame it is, in the end analysis, under their control. The smiles and compliments, at least, tell me I'm doing something right.13
Here, writing about my observations, I know there are lots of people who simply can't break the perpetuated mainstream mindsets on food and diet (and occasionally, ZOMG the obese are Ruining America!!11!) and who will want to tell me about all these Great Big Fat Persons14 out there who really, really, REALLY need to lose weight, Kelly, you should see what "these people" eat, blah blah.
But there are those I know who read here - those who are passionate about doing things a better way for themselves and their family, friends and children - who are open to expanding their worldviews and finding better ideas. As a personal aside, my own mother is gradually, ever-so-gradually, breaking a lifetime of training on self-worth-hinging-on-attractiveness, body image, and self-food-policing; she tells me I am her main influence in this regard. This means a lot to me personally.
I'd hope I could positively influence other people, as well - not just cook for them.
Mentioned/Further Reading:
"If only poor people understood nutrition!" by Michelle Allison at The Fat Nutritionist
"Dear Health Care Provider" at RaisingBoychick.com, on partnering with your doctor/PA/naturopath/practitioner, etc. to manage topics of self-care, diet, exercise, and medication.
"But Don't You Realize Fat is Unhealthy?" at Shapely Prose.
"Let us eat cake" at mymilkspilt: pressures on mothers regarding feeding their children.
"Occupied Bodies: Women of Color Speak out on Self-Image", a call for submissions from Tasha Fierce at Red Vinyl Shoes.
"Diets Don't Work, But..." on dieting-but-not-calling-it-that, by Kate Harding
"A Fat Rant" as performed by Joy Nash
"No Weigh! A Declaration of Independence from a Weight-Obsessed World" - a commitment to health from NationalEatingDisorders.org : "I, the undersigned, do hereby declare that from this day forward I will choose to live my life by the following tenets. In so doing, I declare myself free and independent from the pressures and constraints of a weight-obsessed world." [click] for a pdf download.
- More information on Eating disorders can be found at the NIMH website. Also: obesity is not an eating disorder (warning-ableist language in the latter article). ↩
- Full article here: "What is Eating Competence?", published April 2008. ↩
- Here are some snapshots. ↩
- Here's the updated version: http://www.mypyramid.gov/; and here are some criticisms for the pyramid and its underwriters, the USDA: 1, 2, 3, and 4 (warning: some rather broad-stroke anti-obesity language therein a few links): as one study author mildly puts it, "the USDA is too closely linked to the agriculture industry to be in the business of giving diet advice". ↩
- "Dieting Doesn't Work", UCLA research demonstrating "the most comprehensive and rigorous analysis of diet studies, analyzing 31 long-term studies." ↩
- Well-elucidated by this essay: "The Fantasy of Being Thin" at Shapely Prose ↩
- HAES, an introductory primer. ↩
- A suggestion: print out the NEDA's list "50 Ways to Lose the 3Ds: Dieting, Drive for Thinness, and Body Dissatisfaction" (pdf download) and use the scorecard to see how you're doing. ↩
- "A Different Kind of Fat Rant: People of Color and the Fat Acceptance Movement" by Lesley at Fatshionista. ↩
- Here's a picture of her. ↩
- "Overweight Kills: If You Use Shaky BMI Science" at consumerfreedom.com ↩
- From "Resolve the Weight Dilemma" at Ellyn Satter's website. ↩
- "cooking, a manifesto", at my blog. ↩
- "Was she a great big fat person?" ↩
the conversation that never happens
Ed.note: This piece was originally published in Life Learning Magazine and is intended for readers familiar with the field of autodidactic learning and/or forms of homeschooling. It is somewhat more specialized than typical writings at Underbellie in that it was tailored less for generalized audiences and it is a bit more personal than typical UB pieces; but as I've said before, Underbellie is not a 101 space.
Life Learning Magazine is a publication I whole-heartedly endorse (and no, I do not get a kickback or whatever for saying this); you can subscribe to this publication here: [ link ]
As some gentle and bearded songwriter once asked, Where do the children play-ay-yay-yay?
My children are Nels and Phoenix are six and eight. They are well-spoken, physically active, able-bodied, happy, early and adept readers, mathematically proficient, (usually) well-"mannered", direct, articulate, and fairly compliant with regards to Authority. Because in many respects they are pleasing and convenient to other adults in my community they are often assumed to be being raised "right" (by my husband Ralph and I). This means when friends, acquaintances, and strangers find out they are homeschooled (or unschooled, autodidactic, or life learners to be more accurate) the question of how they're turning out so well despite the <gasp!> lack of structured learning in their life is a subject most grownups ignore with studious precision.
Most life learning families who've been doing this a while run across the question How can children possibly learn outside of school? online, likely because many of us seek out the discussion with other like-minded unschooling familes. But in the real world with our friends, acquaintances, and sometimes our family they keep their minds and mouths shut like a trap.
It its way it's almost humorous.
Keeping one's children out of school and not imposing home-curriculum is a fringe choice in this country. Given that, I think part of the reason this conversation doesn't happen is many of us prefer to think of fringe people as being, well, wrong. When we see their choices working out well it's a bit uncomfortable. Thus it's much easier to think of my kids or myself as some kind of an exception to the rule. The kids are either "bright", or I am a super-hard working mama administrating organized curriculum and I have extraordinary "patience" to spend so much of my time with my own children (why children are assumed to be such a horrible group of people to be forced to mingle with is the subject of another article).
Last Friday I volunteered at our local historic theatre for a movie showing. As we volunteers milled about in the lobby I struck up a conversation with my seventh-grade English teacher B. (I am 33 so I took her class almost twenty years anon). The subject came up of the G. family, neighbors I had known as a child. They were a wonderful family with three kids, a warm and cluttered house, lovely home-cooked food, a garden and an impressive treehouse. They were also homeschooled, and back in the day they were the only homeschoolers I knew.
I told B. I'd run across the youngest child D. at the grocer's; he had grown from the small boy I knew to a very tall young man barely recognizable to me (although recognize him I did). When I spoke to D. I brought up homeschooling and he'd told me he disliked it and felt much happier when he'd been enrolled in school (that was about as much time we had before his employer needed him again). Relating this story to B. I'd meant to convey my amusement that as an adult who's thrown herself into the world of learning with her children, at least one member of the seminal family I knew as The Homeschoolers on first blush wasn't sharing my enthusiasm. But my ex-teacher B. interrupted my story to offer:
"Well, I think you're probably being more thorough than S. [the children's mother]. You know, the girls had reading comprehension issues. I mean nothing against S. but I'm sure you're more..." she trailed off (more what?).
Get that? My ex-English teacher immediately assumed, first, I was teaching reading and, secondly, whatever impressions made by the G. girls were evidence of some inherent deficiency of the homeschool model (not say, the fact different children show different abilities at different ages, or B.'s own bias in favor of compulsory schooling). The fact my kids were performing to her standards meant I was doing something extra awesome that apparently most parents couldn't or wouldn't be willing to do.
Now when I hear the oft-spoken rather narrow-minded ideas of how children learn I sometimes speak up and sometimes I merely listen. In this case I said the first thing that came to mind. "It's funny you'd say that, because both my children were early readers but I never 'taught' them how to read."
"Well, but you read to your children," she responded earnestly (and how does she know this I wonder?). Then she quickly amended, "I'm not saying S. didn't read to her kids, it's just..." and the conversation once again puttered out awkwardly.
Many unschoolers know exactly where B. went next. She asked, "How long are you planning on keeping them out of school?"
Right, because even though my kids are so obviously flourishing (so well my six year old son did the raffle drawing on stage that night, reading numbers loud and clear and showing a great deal of gravitas in the public eye), truly this must be either a quirk, or they are "brilliant" or "clever", or I am doing some kind of hard-core educational stuff that I will surely not be able to keep up with (this reminds me of some of the points on "The Bitter Homeschooler's Wish List"1). There was in B.'s mind no curiosity as to what we were actually doing for our education; experiences of "academic achievement" must only stem from innate brilliance or school-like strategies of imposed learning.
Now, I know B. is just one person and this is just one brief conversation; and yet I've had these exact same exchanges many times in our burgeoning unschooling career.
Because if we were to admit that autodidactic children in a loving and secure environment perform very well indeed in aggregate (given nearly any marker of success), we'd have to then question the many tenets of the school model. One thing I've observed about most educators (and many parents and carers) I've met is that no matter how much they disliked (or currently dislike) school, or admit they learned very little, or saw and/or experienced shocking instances of bullying, or didn't retain the knowledge taught therein, or weren't particularly well-fed or emotionally-nourished during their childhood, or "coasted" through or were patently ignored as a person, they really don't want to consider perhaps things could be better.
What would I want to happen differently? I guess I'd like to see in my interfacing with the public more discussion of the things so many assume are true (such as: school, homework, and externally-enforced "discipline" is needed to produce joyous, competent children-cum-adults who are a credit to our society). Now I am a realist and know that for those who claim many "can't" unschool, there are many, many more who simply won't consider it as an option. The sad thing about this is not merely it impedes growth in the number of life learning families, it's that in avoiding the discussion with successful unschooling families, parents and carers ensure they are closed to possibilities and mere "consumers" rather than authors. They remain alienated from the true nature of their children and self-neutered in the tools and convictions to ratify change. It keeps the adults who have the means and support to do the most good merely busy messing about in making only cosmetic improvements to their children's scholastic environs (if they put in effort at all). Many parents follow their children's teachers' dictums regarding their kids' performance and sometimes even their kids' characters. Parents and carers force children to complete homework (hours of this after nine-hours of compulsory schooling) and chase grades instead of swarming the halls of our schools to demand and enact more meaningful reform.
I'd hope for the families who can't bring themselves to consider homeschooling or unschooling that they might at least begin to understand the nature of learning and support their children accordingly. Perhaps they might begin begin to see their children as being in the right by their natures, and with clear eyes address the demagogy of factory-based schooling and the deep flaws within. Within schooling families, perhaps at parent-teacher conferences instead of listening to the teacher pick-apart their child's "performance" they could sit with their child in the knowledge it is not their child who is the problem; he or she is likely coping as best one can in such a system. That for the schooling famlies who have the resources maybe they'd advocate for higher adult ratio in classrooms, maybe they'd volunteer more in classrooms, maybe they'd speak up against piles of homework that in American schools begins in kindergarten.
And I wish they'd stop making every effort to not talk to me about my children and their learning journey.
Bio for the article:
Kelly Hogaboom is a writer, sewist, wife and mother living in a semi-urban little green coastal smudge of Washington state. She cooks, sews, raises kids, cats, and chickens, and spends her days joyfully living. You can find her journal at kelly.hogaboom.org and her twice-monthly columns on social issues and B-movie culture at underbellie.com.
- "No. 18 - If you can remember anything from chemistry or calculus class, you're allowed to ask how we'll teach these subjects to our kids. If you can't, thank you for the reassurance that we couldn't possibly do a worse job than your teachers did, and might even do a better one." from Secular-homeschooling.com ↩
quick hit: parenting, television, & the culture of moral imperative
Parents: Rotting children's minds - because we can!
In a post on Free Range Kids today, Lenore put up a two-author set of observations regarding children's television programs vs. adult versions. Even today, kid fare typically involves heroes and heroines engaging in awesome adventures, out in the world battling villains or running a business or tromping through the woods in their group of friends. In contrast, switch over to the grownup news and one is inundated with a series of condescending and scaremongering fables regarding the deadly threats to our helpless/profoundly inept/continuously threatened children such as Lightning-Fast Ninja Pedophiles That Lurk In Every Corner, swim goggles, third-hand smoke, and those family sticker decals on the back of cars (oh hai, BTW I'm totally not making these up). Lenore goes on to add it kind of irks her because here the kids' TV programs are showing kids adventuring while actually actively encouraging them to stay inside and sit.
And you know what? These are good points and fair ones. I feel a little sad for kids today, because they are disempowered and their grownups are being misinformed, scared, and hounded (I should know: letting them go out and about is something a lot of people aren't too keen on and it's actually (often) swimming upstream if you advocate for their freedom to do so).
But perhaps inevitably the post of Lenore's is soon followed by a bunch of television-apologism. You know, TV is actually quite good sometimes, parents need to watch with kids and not use it as a "babysitter" (what a load of crap, the Evil-Lazy-Parent-and-their-Terrible-Henchman-TV construct; more later), etc. etc.
And then: people who don't watch TV are head-in-the-sand ostriches raising Special Snowflake jerks ("hi!").
Ah yes, television. Much like our cars and guns so many USians cling fervently and blindly to this holy institution at all costs. Commentor Donna had this to say about parents who ban television:
I actually find banning TV [...] this need of parents to provide this perfect sanitized world for the sensitive little snowflakes living in their houses. Nothing remotely negative should enter their lives. Can’t go outside because you might get kidnapped. Can’t keep score because Snowflake might get her feelings hurt. Mom and dad can’t drink wine because Snowflake will see them. Can’t watch tv because you may see a commercial and not achieve your fullest potential seems to fit in there just fine.
Here's the thing. We don't have a television. But you're never going to hear me dissing parents and carers who do.
I have sympathy for television-owning families, because - basically - they're often being told they're Assholes if they so much put their fingers on the dial (yes, I know most TVs these days don't have dials). Like so many messages in our mediastream, parents and carers are told unless they Do It Perfectly they are completely Ruining Everything (kids and country). So I choose to be charitable; I believe these feelings of externally-implanted guilt are primarily responsible for the ire and defensiveness leveled against the non-television crew ("hi again!"), thus creating another village casualty where there could be useful dialogue. So thanks, media, and your many ZOMG AMERCIANS WATCH FOUR THOUSAND HOURS OF TELEVISION A DAY AND THAT'S TURNING THEM ALL INTO HEADLESS FATTIES!!11! "human interest" stories. Because even though plenty of us know plenty of perfectly fine people who watch (sometimes plenty of) television, it's pretty hard to not feel pressured and second-guessed we're (once again) letting our kids down (and, Earth to Brent, most parents DO worry, it's part of the whole Responsibility gig). Our parenting culture consistently makes sure to kick us in the gonads regarding any vulnerability, even creating vulnerabilities where there otherwise would not be (makes ratings! sells ads!).
We don't want a television set in our house for about five or six decent reasons that make up enough of a Good Reason to decline (and seriously, do I need to defend our choice at all?). The concept this makes us "unaware of American culture" (as another commentator puts it) falls pretty dern flat. As anyone who knows me knows, my family is just about the last family one could accuse of an isolationist lifestyle - yes, despite our choices to homeschool and eschew the boob tube (or is it "bube toob"?). My children, Special Snowflakes? Doesn't ring a bell, Butchie.
Another thing that immediately occurs to me is what a double-edged blade this parenting-judgment stuff is. As a family without a television set, we nevertheless do in fact watch pixels move around a screen for personal entertainment - either through rented DVDs or Netflix Instant on our rugged multi-purpose home computer. And you know what? I let my kids watch plenty of grown-up fare I am all-too-aware other grownups would think me heinous for allowing. In fact my daughter now and then sits with me to watch one of my favorite (excellently rendered, graphic and crass) satires: "Reno 911". Believe me I understand this is an "adult" (funny how that term applies to something so obscene and full of buffonery of every stripe) program. It's kind of maddening that I feel culturally hemmed-in; public screeching over "teacup" kids who are sheltered would apply to my family and our homeschooling/TV-eschewal; so would the judgments against the opposite-end-of-the-spectrum Evils, "neglectful" parents who have no standards about what's appropriate for young children. The funny thing is in both choices they are absolutely intentional and were made with my heart and mind and gut. I could wax on regarding both (please do email me if you have to know); but since this isn't particularly a Hogaboom-apologist bit I shall not go there for now.
And then, finally, let's talk about those "television babysitters" because Man! Those people are just Horrid! Really? Really? You know, most of the time television is used as a babysitter it's not because a parent doesn't care about their child or is too lazy to hang out with them or has not gotten the message that "We" think TV-babysitting is a Bad Thing. Parents use television as a babysitter (when they do) because raising kids is hard (and you'd be surprised how little help many parents have), and some parents have three jobs and are trying to go to school and a terrible ex who isn't paying child support and maybe a host of other problems that I don't have to live with, so I am not so quick to judge them and more quick to want to help them at their point of need (which is, just to be clear, somewhere distant from a bunch of Haters Anonymous weighing in on their suckitude). By the way, Every Parent Ever has made choices that weren't that awesome for their kid at one time or another. That's why we need to support one another and be honest with one another, instead of heaping on liberal ladles of ooey-gooey shame.
So again, the message, in case you aren't getting it loud and clear (and if you're an involved parent I know you are): you should always be aware you could do it better, and if you don't do it better, tsk tsk your kids will suffer.
I hope it's clear at this point that my deliberately-no-TV household is not a dictatorial construct ALL ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE and their choices. Or, as Lenore's post commentator Uly aptly responds in part to the ZOMG-you-television-free freaks comments:
As far as cultural awareness goes, I think you can get that without actually *having* a TV if you don’t want one. Now, before people jump off half-cocked, I said “if you don’t want one”. If you, as an individual, don’t think your family would benefit from a TV – don’t have one! You should absolutely not have something in your house you don’t want.
If you think TV is fun, and it’s worth it for a few programs, you enjoy watching TV with your family – get one!
Yeah, that? That's a bit of the voice of reason, or the voice of, let's not be jerks about this.
And perhaps more importantly this comment alludes to a fact we don't always remember: no really, we are the boss. They are our children, our joys, our trials and our responsibilities. This means we should be open-minded and adhere more to the children and the family (or where our heart is) than the strictures of a culture that often doesn't have our best interests at heart and is going to tell us we're doing it wrong no matter how we're doing it.
One slightly more personal point about television: at least once a month someone tells me they want to give up TV but they "can't". If I wasn't honest and up front about the fact we don't have television and why we don't (which you notice I'm not touching on here because it's not the point), and what we do instead and how much we like it (especially not having the monthly bill!) I wouldn't be providing the families who are interested in booting television with assistance in doing so. TV is the "norm", but that doesn't mean those of us who don't have one should keep quiet for fear of public censure or hurting Its feelings.
But you know? Most of my friends have television, and they and their progeny seem just as "fine" as my kids do to me. Our lack of television is about as prescriptive for other families as the lack of me eating a Twinkie at this moment indicates I think your preschooler's sample of "junk" food dooms you to the Parental Purgatory of Ruinous Shitbird-ness.
Parents/carers, go easy on yourselves. And one another.
Photo credit x-ray delta one on Flickr
look fabulous or go home
"Why on EARTH she'd think box pleats were acceptable in society is beyond me!"
I've been meaning to write a post about Nice White Lady Syndrome, a condition I myself struggle with. Hell, I used to be a walking Typhoid Mary (I'm trying to heal, people). NWLS is elusive for me to describe but it's real. I could easily off-hand name some of the common traits. We with NWLS are concerned with being "nice", of course, and will go to great lengths (including avoidance of subjects or people) to ensure the facade does not shatter. We are incessantly - internally or aloud - policing the bodies, clothes, manners and appearance of ourselves as well as other women, thereby making sure any concept of "sisterhood" runs concomitant to the pledging of a sorority that allows some (worthy ladies) in, while some are most stridently refused.
Yet despite the desire to be "nice" many afflicted with NWLS will devolve to hateful language and ad hominem attacks if you call out - however respectfully and accurately - problematic behaviors. In fact in our rigidity against admitting wrongdoing we have a core of steel that matches the most unapologetic purveyor of hate speech. Now I hardly need point out that not all white ladies who are nice suffer from NWLS (so please don't be bringing me that bunk). 1 I shall leave it for another post to write much more about my thoughts on this little syndrome but I will say: you see its true colors when you disagree with our most treasured bigotries, perpetrations, and prejudices.
Case in point, I enjoy following Gertie's Blog for Better Sewing, a lovely series of entries that are akin to one of those entrancing, snapping insect-killer lamps for so many American mid-to-upper class white ladies like myself (I'm firmly in the "mid" category if you're curious, and yes I looked this up). On May 28th Gertie wrote a bit about her experiences in classes with (illustrious and amazing) professional Kenneth King. In brief, her post stated the following: that as she pursues an interest in fashion and fitting clothes for oneself, inevitably she begins to find problems in the fit of ready-to-wear (RTW) clothing she sees out in the world. Thus her passion for personal clothing construction becomes a nit-picking enterprise on other people's clothing - and this troubles her a bit. Or as Gertie herself says, "It makes sense that as we become more proficient fitters and sewers, we'll become more observant of the garments all around us. (Unfortunately, we might also become more annoying, petty people in the process!)"2
Gertie makes a good point but the issue is not so simple as mere "nit-picking" or "petty[ness]", since the intersection of a whole mess of issues comes to the fore when we begin to look at other (usually female) bodies and decide what looks good or bad (I think of sexism, racism and classism FAIL right off the bat, but of course homophobia and transphobia rate quite high).
Sure enough, many comments following this post exhibited quite the buffet of harmful worldviews: mostly with regards to body shaming, a whiff of slut shaming, and socio-economic class insensitivity to put it mildly. Essentially the reader is treated to many lectures on people who wear too tight jeans and too-small stretch fabrics which means they are basically Letting Us All Down by not looking good enough.
Wait, why am I writing "people"? The vast, vast majority of the eighty-three (so far) comments on this post concern women's bodies, full stop. The list went on: people (women) are in denial about their size; thus they wear ill-fitting clothes which are somehow a grievance committed against us, the viewer; people are gross for being fat but they're really gross for not disguising this fat in some way according to the standards of the poor innocent bystander who has to see this body. All women should consider body shapers or getting their bra fitted. People should make sure to have their pants properly hemmed because please - "spare a few bucks", your dry-cleaner can do it for you. Shaming and dehumanizing language abounds: "embarrassing sausage-in-a-casing look", "trashy", "rubbish", "gross". Muffin-tops, camel-toes, and skeletal women are all disgusting. Anyone and everyone outside of the parlances of what fashion provides should either learn to sew or do whatever it takes to not look slovenly.
I won't deny that, as a seamstress myself, fit analysis is a huge subject and once you get some chops you may notice poor fit all around you. It's where one crosses the line into the many types of dehumanizing language and assumptions, insensitivities, and unacknowledged privilege that things get gross. Along with this nasty stuff comes the adjunct prescription that all women owe everyone, everywhere the duty to wear something flattering or becoming according to - well, I'm not sure who gets to decide that part (the "flattering" prescription for ladies is a feverish mantra in our society).3 In these four-score comments only one (Tasia's) pointed out there might be financial and lifestyle considerations that might excuse someone for not making Looking Their Absolute Best a high priority.
There were glimmers of hope in the conversation. Several commentors laid the issue of poor fit in part at the fashion industry's ill-service to women in particular aspects. But many comments were kind of muddy - like this one, which took me on a roller coaster of hope before quickly plummeting into more typical territory regarding fat people and compulsory-DIY4:
I also deplore baggy shoulders and shapeless side seams on plus size women, myself included. I don't blame the women for this, they can't help it because many manufacturers offer poorly executed plus size designs. And at certain income ranges that is all that is available to them. When I see this I want to grab the women and tell her, "Yes, you can buy a t-shirt for ten dollars, but if you make your own it will actually fit you and look good and you will feel better about yourself when you see how sleek you really can look!"
Oh dear good Lord.
Then there was: "there is nothing more tragic than a larger busted woman with a seam that SHOULD go under her bust..."
Nothing! More! Tragic!
Believe it or not dear reader, I could go on with more problematic content. Wondering what might happen, I sent this email to Gertie:
I think it's awesome you are starting to really SEE clothes and fit issues - and that you have the means, time, and privilege to explore a self-education in creating well-made, homesewn clothes. It's also wonderful you are sharing your experiences with your readers! I have you in my feed reader and look forward to your writings.
But with your last post, I'm sure your intent was not to start a classist bunch of fashion-and-clothes policing. Where I live lots of people are just trying to pay the bills and feed their kids and have clothes on their backs and try not to freeze their asses while they wait an hour between buses (and of course, I'm a white American and surrounded by far more wealth and privilege than many global citizens have). I seriously cannot imagine looking at ANY fellow human being and picking on their "rubbish" or "trashy" or "cheap" sense of style.
I know there are ways to talk about fashion and the pursuant fun of achieving it that respect all human beings. I am sad to see your comment stream is not a respectful space in that manner.
I love your writings and I hope you take my comment knowing I come from that place.
Gertie wrote back almost immediately and asked if she could publish my email in an Op-Ed on the site. I agreed, although my stomach sank because You know? I'm not super-awesome about wanting to speak up about social justice a crowd of inter-netz anonymous who had committed such egregious class and size acceptance FAIL already. But hell, I know I'm okay with what I wrote so I said Sure. The morning of May 31st the little "Op-Ed" was published with my email and a sparse introduction from Gertie.5
Since most my Underbellie readers are beyond 101, you can imagine what happened next. A very small series of comments granted my points; many sent up defensive arguments and of course, ad hominen attacks on yours truly (one commenter described me as "insane"! Shoehorning in the ableist pejorative - w00t!). A handful of people said I was "unfair" and handing out "badges" of wrongdoing (so apparently, no matter how politic you point something like this out, you're being - let's face it - a pesky bitch to cite it at all). Notable too were the many who said there was "nothing wrong with Gertie's original post" (although I'd made clear I was speaking about the reader comment stream specifically), a classic Derail that carried through the discussion over. & over. & over.6 I was accused of taking myself too seriously, told I should take on a "real" social issue, and that everyone should wear "sackcloth and ashes" to meet my standards of social justice. I expected a few attacks, but I will admit I was surprised to hear how many people claimed style and clothing options have nothing to do with socioeconomic class.
Interestingly enough, those who defended my points said when it comes to commenting on other people's clothing, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." (this happens to be another adage in the NWLS canon). Although I have often employed the "don't say mean shit" strategy at specific instances in my life, what's funny is of course, we absolutely can discuss fashion and fit and style - holding there are good and poor strategies and builds for clothing - whilst respecting other human beings who inhabit clothes we personally wouldn't wear (and due to our various degrees of privilege may not have to). Eschewing describing a woman as "trashy" is something I can commit to while discussing an erroneously-drafted or ill-fitting empire waist - this latter an interesting subject to me in terms of garment fitting as I don't often wear this particular style myself. And yet again, discussions on this subject often devolve into that policing bit; that is, a woman who fully knows well where her empire seam is and doesn't give a Good Goddamn is thrown under the wheels as Unsightly; so too is her sister who is busy thinking about things other than clothing like - oh I dunno for example, food, shelter, her job(s), her family, her passions, her aging father she's providing round-the-clock care for in the home, her chronic pain issues, her looming layoff, etc. etc.
Most odd of all were the accusations I was this kind of lurky dark-sided outlander trying to make Gertie "feel bad" for her silly hobby (someone claimed I said "frivolous" and of course as you see - I didn't). As most my readers here know I share the same exact hobby (garment sewing). Sewing is a life-blood creative source of joy for me; incidentally, I also share some of the same types of privilege Gertie does. I don't require her to feel bad about any of these things to make my points.
So you know, my whole speaking up thing just felt like oh, making-fart-noises-with-my-mouth. Fail.
But you know? Amongst the comments following the "Op-Ed" were some diamonds in the rough:
purplesews wrote:
I grew up steeped in the idea that the best thing to do was go home and stay indoors until you'd lost blankity pounds and then buy clothing - and it's taken me some time to unlearn that and learn to fit my own unique figure without jumping right to disliking myself - so yeah, that comment thread did make me sad in places. The idea that you owe it to other people to wear "the right" clothing for your age/size/coloring/whatever tends to annoy me - while the fact that the market can't presently provide most of us with the right clothes for our bodies is one of my hobbyhorses. But then, I feel this way about a lot of kindly-meant fashion advice, right down to good old Stacy and Clinton: I feel like if you walked up to the average poorly-dressed person and handed them $1500 and walked away, they would - well, probably pay off part of their mortgage, but if they had to spend it on clothes, they would probably be better dressed immediately, advice or no advice. I also think it's interesting that we as a culture look down on vanity - there's definitely some puritanism to the everybody-in-t-shirts aesthetic - but are very gung-ho about having some duty to others to look nice. It's a strange dynamic.
emadethis wrote:
This is well-said. I shudder to think of people stopping others on the street and pointing out the defects in their garments. I'm distressed when I see poorly made garments on the rack. The deeper you get into sewing, finding these defects becomes just an outgrowth of your learning. A lot of people cannot afford well-constructed items, myself included. I consider myself blessed that I can sew for myself, but many are not in that camp either, and we need to respect where people are on that continuum.
Solitary Crafter writes:
Maybe I just have low expectations of people on the internet, but I avoided the comments on that post because I assumed that it would devolve into critiquing body size and that comments would be made about people shopping at walmart and all the rest.
As much as I enjoy sewing and crafting magazines and blogs, it's always clear that people like me - poor, redneck, white trash - aren't considered to be the 'class' of readers or commenters desired or expected and the issues faced by poor sewers and crafters, those of us who shop at walmart and thrift stores for fabric and patterns, tend to be either ignored or brushed away as unimportant.
No, I don't expect everyone to cover the issues facing people like me, I have other resources for that, but neither do I expect understanding when the issue comes up.
Maybe I'm a coward and maybe I'm just pragmatic, but this is one subject that never can be resolved, even among people with the best of intentions.
A handful of comments like these in an otherwise rather dismal showing gives me hope that what I write and speak about is important (enough). In particular Solitary Crafter's comment tugs my heartstrings - I know exactly the exclusion and dismissal she speaks of and indeed was pointing it out.
Part of me aches for the person (woman) who is defensive and angry at my observations. I really do know what it's like to suffer the pain of having my "niceness" bubble popped, especially in an exposed setting. I know what it's like to be called out in public (which the inter-netz obviously is) and while many can shake it off, I have on occasion blanched and felt my heart race at such things. In short, I really do have empathy for how upsetting this sort of thing can feel (and I was only calling comments out primarily with regards to classism; you want to see NWLS in full-blown danger mode, speak up when a white lady has said or done something racist - and yes I'm aware by even suggesting "white" has anything to do with these kinds of behavior I am inviting some indignant denial-screeches!).
An investment in being "nice" is/was a seductive condition. There were so many perks (if I had good "intentions" my actions could not, I repeat not be called into question) even while it took away my ability to handle constructive criticism and listen to other worldviews. Additional "perks" came in the form of believing I was someone who Meant Well and was Part of the Solution and it was totally other people who were Part of the Problem. Since I had a black boyfriend or a few gay friends or since I came from a "poor" background I'd passed some kind of test where if someone ever brought up those issues with regard to my behavior I'd know I wasn't in the wrong(, ever), so please do not ever point that out.
I won't say learning differently wasn't painful. It was (still is sometimes). In my case (personal story), I became active on a social networking site that had a significant proportion of women of color and queer women and unmarried women with children and I got schooled more than once. I was told when I had said something racist, or classist, or elitest, or using heteronormative language or being a garden-variety asshole. It hurt.
Funny thing is even after I left this community I kept seeking out those types of spaces online. I kept wanting to learn more even if it meant being called out (sometimes in error, but often with a fair bit of accuracy), yes "publicly" and often not nearly as politic as I myself tried to intervene here.
In attempting to shed my biases and denials and sense of White Lady Sainthood (and I hasten to add I am still working through these things) I've become a much better listener and I have a broader perspective. I've experienced a greater diversity of friends online and IRL who value what I bring to the party.
But some, it seems, still prefer to stay "nice" - until they have to shout rudely over someone else. I wish them the best in their journey.
Do read the links below, especially the writings of Tasha and Natalie.
***
Thanks Arwen and Paige for your personal assistance in writing this post.
Photo credit: clotho98 on Flickr
Mentioned/Further Reading:
"Body Image, mothers, classism, fashion, Karl Lagerfield, and social inclusion" at lisaschweitzer.com
"Nice White Lady to the Rescue!" at Alas, A Blog
stuff white people do, a blog
"Defensiveness as a Signpost of Privilege" at Shakesville
"Where My Sistas At? The Underrepresentation of Black Plus Size Models in Mainstream Fashion" at racialicious
"Are There Class Cultures?" at classmatters.org
Very brief primer on how classism functions within feminism or women who consider themselves pro-woman, at everything2.com
"Women and Class" (and the avoidance to discuss the latter) at classmatters.org
Tangentially and to sort of soul-destroy anyone still clicking through my links, while searching for a CC-licensed picture I found this charming series of comments under the photo titled "Fatties". If yer so inclined you can sooth your eyeballs on the photo caption of this treasure: "My Neighbor Is A Big Fat Ugly Pig". OK, I'll stop now. Promise. Just: it was rough finding a photo.
A little ray of sunshine - because there are many people out there working for the Good: definatalie is writing some of the best articles re: fashion snark. Besides her "skinny jeans" post you can read "Confessions of a Former Snarker" recently published on her blog.
- This is similar to nice guy vs "Nice Guy", as explained here and many, many other places. ↩
- You can find "Like ANTS Crawling on Your SKIN: Clothing Pet Peeves." at BfBS. ↩
- One of the most amazing, wonderful rebuttals to this very common and socially-enforced meme is definatalie's "You Can't Bully Me Out Of My Skinny Jeans" ↩
- Concomitant but not in response to Gertie's post, blogger Tasha Fierce wrote beautifully on this subject the next day: "The Class Dynamics of DIY" ↩
- Op/Ed Column: on Fashion Policing at blogforbettersewing ↩
- Derailing for Dummies ↩
the cost of “manners” amongst the ladyfolk
What lies beneath? Hint: sometimes, Very Big Scary Feelings.
“Manners are the hypocrisy of a nation.” - Honore de Balzac
Recently on another mommy blog a question is put forth: How do we respond to friends who parent differently? The blog author relates a story of her friend, a carpool mom who one day drops a child off to the mother and says, "I ran through McDonalds for dinner because we were pressed for time, hope that's okay" to which the mom replied, "Well, it's really not" [emphasis by the blog author]. The blogger asked us to weigh in on the interaction.
Before I scrolled down to read the comments I predicted the following: the public (and predominantly female) voice would be against the woman who voiced her displeasure. Sure enough: as comments trickle in they cite her as "rude", "self-righteous", and "proselytizing"1; public sentiment is set against her (although notably she has been relegated to third-party status, the carpooling friend having related her version to the blog author).
Look, no one needs to say the word "bitch". We all know how women who slip up and display a lack of social grace or who stand up - if at all imperfectly or "not nice enough" - for their values are going to get heavily policed socially (for instance one commentator says that since the child was being carpooled and this is a service, it was "rude" of the anti-fast food mother to speak up regarding food preferences).
In the comments section I put forth the following: if I ask a friend if something is "okay" I believe I should be prepared to hear the answer, warts and all. The blog author responded quickly and alternatively inflated or ignored my points: thus my advocacy for authenticity amongst friends meant I was opposed to "civilities" like "How are you?" and that I wanted "every single conversation in my day to be an earnest, honest, heartfelt one". The blog owner also set up a strawman defense defending her friend's choice to buy McDonalds (since I am in agreement the mother did nothing "wrong" by purchasing this food, the relevancy of this defense escapes me).
Let me get to my point.
In many female friendships in my peer group, the rituals of "manners" and socially-policed quid pro quo often supplants authenticity and openness.
Go ahead and read the sentence again, carefully. I know it's kind of a long labored thing. But I wanted to be super accurate in what I'm trying to say.
Look, if I was in the carpooling mom's position I'd probably have felt stung. I don't know how many times I've tried to do right by a friend and received either a tacit or explicit referendum on my choice. Most women reading here know the pain of having one's friend snub us verbally or speak with a "tone". It hurts, badly. We simultaneously empathize with our friend and feel horrid about letting her down while we also respond with a reflexive and defensive anger. These things all make up a big bag of Suffering and like any animal we seek to avoid suffering.
Given that, it can seem seductive to just agree we'll all play by "manners".
I like talking about punctuality to illustrate my points on "manners" because this is an issue I have seen play out over and over again over the years. For instance: according to the code of "manners" I should be on time to your dinner. But if I am late (which it's easy to be while juggling small children and a job and daycare and a partner and pets and a household) I may attempt to stifle my feelings of failure at having not performed my social duty of perfection: I will offer an apology and then, right on the heels of that, an excuse for why I was not on time. This apology-cum-excuse is a nullifying maneuver; as the latecomer I am breathlessly expounding on why the whole issue is all about me and my (small or large) drama, while my host(ess) may feel hurt and/or angry but is powerless to say as much without looking like a troll according to our codes of conduct (I am perfectly aware that in some scenarios lateness does not give offense whatsoever). The host has been outplayed, not so much deliberately but as a side effect of the feminine-means-perfection roles and rituals that create severe social and personal fallout.
Do you know how many women I've heard say, "Maria, I'm sorry I'm late." with the pause and presence that a true apology deserves, perhaps with a gentle hand on Maria's arm or at least eye contact? A small handful. These days I apologize in this manner when I'm late but it's something I've had to work on. I still hate being late not only because I want to be considerate to the host(ess) but because of my resultant feelings of female-fail. Manners are ostensibly about the former considerations, yet the rituals of "manners" often play out according to the ugly morass of the latter. In female society it is so tempting to avoid our discomfort by playing the game, almost a chess match of thrust-and-parry because we don't want to feel shame and we don't want to feel "wrong".
If only our self-saving machinations didn't have such potential to hurt our friends.
I have long lost count of the times I've seen women in a social setting say something is "okay" when really, deep down, it isn't. Using the example of lateness, I once heard my friend E. excuse herself for being an hour tardy to the dinner fête her friend H. had thrown, because H. had been late to a party E. threw a half year ago. E. kept a list of her friend's perceived faults (she never once paid for the pot they'd share; she let her kids eat "too much" candy) and then applied her own barter and balancing act based on this internal scorecard (respectively: therefore it was okay if H. footed the booze bill entirely; H. was responsible for the sabotage in E.'s otherwise flawless family dietary plan). This all happened internally; these trades were not negotiated openly nor made known in the friendship. And if it sounds like normal "human" behavior to some I can tell you E. and H. had deep hurts levied against one another (I got to hear some of them) that also rarely, if ever, were aired directly with one another. No, they were aired more or less to other women entirely. More third-party speech.
I wish I could say the example of E. and H. is a rare one; however it was all too common in my peer group at the time.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
Many years ago I had the good fortune to make friends with a woman who was both authentic and purposefully opposed to ad hoc quid pro quo arrangements. She was going through a hard time in her life and had decided (in self-protection) that relationships should exist with contractual agreements (either verbal or written). These agreements would, in her mind, keep her "safe" from the types of betrayals (one severe and of marital nature) that had hurt her so in the past. (More on her contracts and their success in a minute.)
At first my new friend puzzled me because she didn't play by the "rules". She would, for instance, not allow me to purchase her latte when I was flush with cash and wished to do so. It was apparent to me she was not doing this to rebuff me or out of a prickly sensibility around money; she simply didn't want to risk engaging in the Game. Although I was surprised by her stubborn refusal - which never wavered - my mind also immediately flashed to the many "hints" and jabs that other women voiced about friends who "owed" money for this or that transaction that had been offered in the spirit of a gift. In this first interaction with my friend I intuited issues around money would be considerable safer and less anxiety-inducing between us (incidentally, this meant a lot to me at the time; being a family of four with all sorts of financial problems cropping up I had little room to spare; life is easier for me today). Over the years my prediction proved correct.
My friend's worldview was formed as a self-protective one but as a near side-effect I came to trust her, immensely. I could ask her if she would buy my dinner and she would say, "As a gift, or for repayment? When will you pay me back?" while being truly open to either (and holding herself able to refuse). If I asked her for a favor or an opinion I could trust her response; I wouldn't have to "prove" my virtue if I asked for something. Concomitantly, I was treated to her direct advocacy; if she didn't want to watch a movie or eat a certain kind of food she would simply say so. One time she removed a chair from my house (with my permission) and had a carpenter friend bolster it to support her weight (we had very rickety chairs as a rule). At first I felt an immediate small humiliation that I had so failed in a hostess as to not have adequate furniture. I felt slight aches of shame and reflexive anger. But knowing her I had no reason to fear she was doing anything other than problem solving for the sake of her comfort so we could enjoy our friendship to its fullest. Over a short period of time my discomfort subsided and I felt gratitude for her action. It also was not lost on me that as a family of four with one income and two small children I perhaps could be forgiven my lapse of furnishings.
Our friendship is longstanding and it has had a portion of wrongs committed and apologies; it has not been free of strife. I will say that considering how intimate we have been the amount of conflict and hurt I've felt is much lower than any friendship I've experienced. The quality of trust, openness, and authenticity in this friendship is still a standout in my life. I am glad for her example as it has informed me in my other friendships. I wish more women would catch on.
As for my friend's concepts of protective contracts and agreements, this was an issue she struggled much over and her views altered, morphed, spread, and softened. She experienced over time a reality that nothing, not really, could protect her from betrayal and victimization. But she retains her stalwart sense of authenticity, her ability to voice her feelings clearly, and a receptivity when I do the same.
While I could talk more about the quality of this friendship I would like to get back on point with a radical concept. When our friends respond with honesty (in their words and their tone) that reveals displeasure or hurt in response to our actions, let's try to remember something. The anger and hurt we so immediately feel? This cannot be truthfully attributed as The Entire Fault of the Person Who Is Wronging Us. We can remind ourselves it is our lifelong socialization to be properly feminized and to police other women that is causing us the most pain.
The pain is real but our reactions can improve. We can ask ourselves with gentleness and curiosity, "Why do I put so much pressure on myself to never make a mistake?" We can ask ourselves, "Why do I feel so humiliated and angry so quickly?" We can remind ourselves, "My friend is trusting me enough to be honest in her communication. Take a deep breath; this is an important moment." We can say, "Please tell me more," and mean it. We can say (if we decide it is called for) "I'm sorry" to our friend - and mean it. We can stop saying "sorry" when we don't mean it.
Maybe we'll even be brave enough to tell her, when the moment is right, that her tone or response hurt our feelings; maybe we can tell her with openness, without undue attachment to outcome, without reprisal waiting in the wings, with intimacy and honesty and Love. My guess is she'll surprise you by apologizing in turn (if she didn't earlier in that wonderful, open and vulnerable moment). These are transactions in a friendship that are rare, difficult, beautiful, and form strong relationships. Real female friendship can be accomplished with an eschewal of malicious speech, hidden daggers and the dwelling on hurt feelings, without chewing one's nails and suffering in silence or venting in the ears of a third-party, never to be aired with clarity to the one who needs us to seek reparations.
"Manners" may serve us reasonably well in fitting in socially (like not shouting "Fuck!" in church) but they are a meager edifice to secure our hearts and minds upon in lieu of honesty; besides the obvious that no two people can agree on when "manners" are called for and when they must be eschewed, and no two people have the same background and therefore education in "manners", they are in final analysis rituals that are not solely adequate in times of interpersonal difficulties. I have seen the most "mannered" women harbor the deepest and darkest angers, there to fester and become something silent and resentful and twisted.
In contrast I remain in supreme trust that my friend will tell me if I hurt her, and she remains trustful I will listen openly if she tells me.
And yes, we still say "Please" and "Thank you" and "How are you?"
This post is dedicated to my good friend Cynthia.
***
Photo credit: x-ray_delta_one on Flickr
Film Feministe: Villains I Feel In My Hip Pocket Edition
Ralph's getting his monocle ready and training this cat for lap-stroking. I think they'll do well.
Dennis Hopper passed on today, and when I heard this (on Twitter, where I hear just about everything) the first thing that came to mind was his performance in Blue Velvet as Frank Booth, the alcoholic, violent rapist imbued with an impressive case of Danger McScarypants. His performance was one of the most scene-chewing bad guys I've witnessed in a film but somehow? I forgive the histrionics because I wanted to go with that particular roller coaster. In fact the "Candy Colored Clown" scene where he smears lipstick on Jeffrey Beaumont (as played by Kyle MacLachlan) and violently threatens him, kisses him, then tenderly serenades him* - this scene deeply moves me, scares me, and makes me feel nostalgically sad and a bit aroused, all at once. Frankly there wasn't much else Hopper did I much related to but Blue Velvet is one of my favorite films and in no small part due to Hopper's potrayal.
I think in the final analysis I like bad guys. It's not because I want to excuse their behavior - my favorite films that take their subject matter seriously are the ones that don't attempt to explain or even rationalize sociopaths - or because I glory in violence and misery for the sake of violence and misery. I think it's because most good bad guys are self-validating, and people who are self-validating fascinate me. As well there are the bad guys (like a handful named below) who are great camp - or perhaps up against forces they can't overcome and it's a rather serio-comic affair. The below list is hardly exhaustive and is in no particular order; just a handful of characters I enjoyed muchly in the world of film.
On that note and without further ado... I give thee Film Feministe: Villains I Feel In My Hip Pocket Edition!
Captain Frank Ramsey from Crimson Tide
You know what, probably lots of people who've seen this film don't even think of Ramsey (as played by Gene Hackman) as a "bad guy". No, they take the Monday morning quarterback position of the Jason Robards cameo at the end who mansplains it: "You gentlemen were both right... and you were both wrong." No. Frakkin'. Way. Ramsey was wrong, and he was a sneaky, smug, arrogant asshole (however charismatic, compelling, and hardworking as a Navy man). Perhaps the reason I find him such a delicious Bad Guy is that whole charismatic/compelling bit he has going on and also: I can think of no greater personal Hell career move than having to puff a cigar and alternatively ass-kiss and one-up-dick this guy on the deck of a nuclear submarine. In any case, he and Denzel Washington's stand-off (which comes in fits and roils of mental chess matches and later, shouting matches) was a great exercise in tension. I think there's also a scene of Viggo Mortensen doing some ironing.
Mugatu from Zoolander
No seriously? How often can you cite a villain who's every line is quotable awesomeness? Will Ferrell is great at lampooning characters we wouldn't think we'd want to watch and making them a sugar-gooey treat. Favorite line? The oft-repeated, "That Hansel, he's so hot right now!" Favorite scene? Probably the moment he's supposed to be monologuing and instead he has a sweaty and earnest breakdown at the seemingly completely-unrecognized buffoonery of our title hero. "Doesn't anyone notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" he cries out in helpless rage.
The Joker from The Dark Knight
By the time the film came out we (whether saddened or indifferent) had heard much hype regarding the penultimate performance of our departed actor - talent and beauty - Heath Ledger. Easy to build up expectations and come away feeling a bit cotton-mouthed, but no. Ledger brought it enough to send delighted little shivers up my spine in each scene he commanded. Jack Nicholson did well enough in '89's Burton-directed effort but Ledger's joker didn't steal or borrow a mote of the elder actor's performance. His Joker was scary but he was riveting; he was troubled and homicidal but he was a social critic of great acumen who never got boring. I've watched the film about three times and in the final analysis it's a bit overblown and heavy-handed but most of the actors' talents were not wasted (and I loved the Joker's sartorial leanings). It's hard to come by a truly creepy bad guy these days and I take what I can get.
May Day from A View to a Kill
What can one say about Grace Jones' performance given that amongst a fair number of decent Bond Girls (and a whole gaggle of mediocre or offensively-procured ones) she stands out in a class of her own? I didn't care for her exit from the film as I thought she'd likely have said, "Fuck this," and continued on caring for Numero Uno rather than heroically sacrificing herself after her treacherous boyfriend's scheme failed. I did like just about everything else about her: her style, her Don't-Mess-With-Me, her line right before she beds Roger Moore's Bond, and the fact she totally outshone not only the Good Bond Girl played by Tanya Roberts in an implausibly-fitting jumpsuit but the Actual Bad Guy as well (whats-his-name played by whozit? Oh yeah, it was Christopher Walken, another scene-chewer who usually has no problem getting noticed). I'm a Bond fanatic and I hope we're seeing more of May Day's ilk in future installments.
The Thing from The Thing
Last year my daughter entered the room while I was watching this film. It was the opening scene: merely a beautiful dog running silently through pristine white snow. Phoenix said to me, "This is a scary movie, isn't it?" and she was right. It's a scary fucking movie. Loosely a remake of 1951's The Thing from Another World, this film is a more faithful adaptation of the novella Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell, Jr. which inspired the 1951 film as well as 1979's Alien, another great white-knuckler.
The Thing itself is very ... Thingy. It isn't like creatures we're used to on this planet. The special effects are notorious and either scoffed at or much admired; for myself, I loved knowing in the thrashing and tentacle-ing and screeching flappy stuff there wasn't so much as pixel travelling across my screen. The whole paranoid-group-of-people-on-some-form-of-a-submarine bit works nicely for me in bringing the suspense, as well as Kurt Russell's MacReady was easy on the eyes in his mountain-man beard and Keith David as Childs brings the perfect balance of intensity and a kind of harassed, Jesus, I can't believe we have to deal with this shit attitude that I found entirely relatable. The Thing itself really freaked me out (oddly, the wire-in-the-blood scene being the most shocking) and stayed with me days after I saw the film. It was savage, relentless, destructive and absolutely not something one could reason with.
Adrian from Descent
This movie is so Not For The Squeamish that by even mentioning it I run the risk a reader will go rent it or Netflix it and watch it and then come back and tell me I'm a Terrible Person for enjoying the film. It is, however, an amazing piece of work and I'll wager the low ratings evidenced at imdb.com are less due to the quality of the film and more due to the extreme discomfort many will feel with the subject material and plot events in this female-written-and-directed effort. Ostensibly about a rape by a creepy frat boy and the resultant damage done to and revenge procured by our heroine Maya (played with a fragility, ferocity, and tenderness by the always-riveting Rosario Dawson), in the final analysis I think the whole thing was about Sadism. No, not the for-fun Sadism that people willingly engage in with rules and safe words as an agreed-upon sport. The film is about a sadist who thinks he can get away with his stuff but sometimes in one's travels we run across a Foe who is Beyond Us. With regard to Adrian, he isn't the only villian in the film but he's the biggest one on the block. He's powerful and charismatic and beautiful and terrifying and he can do things many of us wouldn't ever want to do, even if we believed in our bones our target "deserved" it.
Captain Barbossa from the Pirates of the Carribbean series
Look, I'm going to say it. I like the Pirates franchise. First off, I got kids and these movies have been fun little blips during the raising of such kids. Go into a theatre and I get to eat popcorn and watch a bunch of hunks and a sexy lead female Pirate King all jumping around and blowing things up and there are monsters and tongue-in-cheek jokes and Johnny Depp's very fun Captain Jack Sparrow - not to mention as a sewist I experience excessive drooling over the bigger-than-life piratey costumes (which seem to get better and better).
But Geoffrey Rush as one of the bad guys/anti-heroes? He plays it perfect pirate with an earnestness and a wink that somehow doesn't get to cringey levels of camp. Plus, and I have to say it, I find the man sexy. Yes, even when he voiced a pelican in the Pixar classic Finding Nemo, which was a bit disturbing but I kept it to myself (until now. Don't judge). Hell there is barely a non-sexy pirate in the whole business (and I most emphatically am including creepies played by Bill Nighy and Chow Yun-Fat). Back to Rush: he also gets a hat tip for his turn as Casanova Frankenstein, the pleasantly psychotic villain in the oft-ignored comic treat Mystery Men.
And I swear I was going to eschew a Pirates 4 because please, let's let a good thing not go to ruin. But Ian McShane as Blackbeard? Color me hells yes.
Shiwan Khan from The Shadow
Maybe I'm just writing with my hormones today because John Lone is another drool-inducer. I liked The Shadow and sometimes I feel like hardly anyone else did. Lone, Alec Baldwin, Penelope Ann Miller and Peter Boyle played it with a hip pocket of Smartass (and again, the costumes; loved 'em!) that serves a comic book/superhero flick well. Lone as Khan was certainly Evil and bloodthirsty and after World Domination but he was also simultaneously urbane and prone to material pettiness: "In three days, the entire world will hear my roar, and willingly fall subject to the lost empire of Shan Kahn. That is a lovely tie, by the way. May I ask where you acquired it?" Baldwin at the title character gave as good as he got; the two were well-matched.
Body Heat
OK, if you haven't seen this 1981 neo-noir pleasantly-smutty fable starring William Hurt and Kathleen Turner you need to stop reading this moment as there is no way to discuss the film without revealing some major spoilers. No seriously: go watch it. ESPECIALLY if you like noir (or sex, or both). OK, just us chickens now? Good. Because of course if you've seen the film you know the villain I'm talking about is Matty as played by Turner. Matty is in so many ways the typical Femme Fatale in that you kind of know she's the one with the murderous ideas and she's not laying her cards on the table and Ned Racine (Hurt's character) is weaselly and desperate and superiority-complex'd enough to think he can still play and survive. Knowing all this and having seen plenty of noir films I still fell for some of her ploys, at first thinking of her as a passionate and impulsive woman with a half-assed Bad Idea instead of the passionate and calculating woman with Quite The Plan. Perhaps the best thing about the film finale is that Matty doesn't get thrust on the sword of slutty-female-who's-going-to-die (like almost every other woman of her ilk gets done down in these kinds of films... actually ANY kind of film). She plays Racine exactly to get what she wants and she gets a lot of fabulous boning in the duration and not once is her conscience disturbed. The last we see her she's on an island drinking a fancy drink and taking in the sun. Well-played, m'lady.
Mentioned:
Blue Velvet (1986)
Frank Booth quotes
* "Love Letter" on Youtube
Crimson Tide (1995)
Zoolander (2001)
Zoolander's finest moments at Youtube
The Dark Knight (2009)
Batman (1989)
A View to a Kill (1985)
A James Bond cinematic music primer at Wikipedia
The Thing (1982)
Alien (1979)
Descent (2007)
Pirates of the Carribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
Mystery Men (1999)
The Shadow (1994)
Body Heat (1981)
childbirth is natural / childbirth is danger danger!! or perhaps: if you’re a woman you suck
I totally had this baby to make you all happy, and it didn't even work!
A recent slight disintegration of discussion at a feminist blog I generally enjoy underscores the facts:
Women get it coming and going regarding childbirth and children. Just: constantly. And from the most elaborate and varied angles. It's almost breathtaking.
Just a primer in case you're completely clueless: women are put down if they don't want children or feel ambivalent on the subject. Childfree women (or childless women, or if someone can find a term that doesn't offend those with kids or without, let me know) are harangued pretty regularly - when will you have kids? What? You don't want to? Why not? What's wrong with you? Oh you poor (unnatural, frigid, spiritually-devoid) thing. If you don't have kids you don't have a life. Tsk tsk.
Women who do want children but can't make it happen - their bodies don't provide the technology, they don't feel they could support a child, they don't have the support they require, there are physical or mental or chemical or financial barriers? These women are constantly marginalized from the smallest throw-out sentences in children's books ("A womb is a special place inside a woman where babies grow” purrs a very well-meaning, liberal-sentiment children's book) to the glowing pictures of women-in-hospital, life fulfilled, yay baby! Birth is talked about as "natural" - yet in the fervor to reclaim and rescue America's abysmal birth culture these discussions can further alienate and hurt those who don't have a "natural" or complication-free experience. Infertility is somehow still a woman's "fault" or failure; at best there is an insensitivity about the whole business. "Just adopt!" chirps the seriously problematic hand-wave (socioeconomic class fail, to start) so many pipe up with when a woman has a problem breeding the more typical way. To my own consternation I hear women chirping proudly how easily they get pregnant, it happened at the drop of a hat, blah blah, with no regard to the woman standing next to them whose eyes fill with tears at hearing such oblivious enthusiasm.
Women who want children and then have them? Here's where we get right up close to the subject of birth where misogyny really ramps up. You see garden-variety and boring misogyny when birth is discussed in any detail: accounts of orgasmic birth* (best-case, awesome birth scenario) and birth rape** (a very bad-case scenario) vilified, pooh-pooh'd, or ridiculed. It would be boring and played-out if I didn't regularly see how much these dismissals hurt actual women, their children, their partners, their families.
I'm one of the last category mentioned above - a woman who wanted, then had children - and I could wax eloquently on how that opens a whole shit-storm of criticism. You birth the baby in the hospital or with drugs? You're a sell-out, a wimp, a failure, either a privileged prima donna or a sad statistic. This goes double (or triple) if you have a C-section or if you (gasp!) formula-feed your child. Women are cut open and subjected to the complications of heavy-duty abdominal surgery (the current C-section rate in this country is on the rise and at about 30 percent; some states have a 38% rate) and then the women themselves are made to feel like failures.
Have a baby at home (on purpose)? You are an irresponsible, silly, vain (or ignorant) hippie. [raises hand]
And for mothers, this is just what you'll get five minutes after breeding the little person(s). I haven't got into the de-statusing and wage gaps and judgment (work outside the home or not? You'll get it either way) and picking-at for childcare and schooling and career choice that await women in all walks of life.
Not everyone wants to admit this, but babies and childbirth are kind of everyone's business - yes, men too. And yet your "everyday man" and fathers are, of course, mostly exempted from the vicious part of these conversations. While (white) men are still the primary women's health policy makers, the OBs (who generally assist in most births in this country), the law- and policy-makers in this country, and even though they are often in positions that direct quite a bit about how pregnancy, labor and delivery goes down for many American women, they do not suffer the consequences and recrimination for birth outcomes nor passionate discussions about integrating family life with paid work. In the trenches, where women hurt the most, some of their bodies savaged or messed with and their life choices - to breed or not to breed, and how things play out when living their lives - sneered at, their emotions on edge and their sufferings and triumphs diminished or laughed at. Too few men take these issues up as the human rights concerns they are. Women are shunned and blamed for their suffering, if not additionally accused of Ruining America for being not-mothers or not-good-enough mothers or over-involved mothers.
I have no easy answers. Yet probably Step One would be to give more credence to women and their lived experiences. If a woman says she doesn't want to have a child, please do not second-guess nor pity her, and please take away from this Actual Real Woman a commitment to stop assuming all women want babies, babies, piles of babies. If the statistics show a wage gap and a lack of fair housework distribution between heterosexually-paired partners, respect that as a reality that involves, you know, actual people, and is a further testimony to our culture's continued inequalities which yes, we should be working to fix. If a woman speaks up about her birth or birth culture in this country, please take this as seriously as a discussion on your pet social justice topic, because reproductive rights and experiences fall under human rights issues that are happening to, again, real people. Allow the many suffering women and babies and the statistics in America's poor birth climate some consideration. If you can't or won't do much about it, at least respect those who are fighting the good fight. Because there are good reasons to fight it.
Step Two might be to stop attacking individual women for their choices or their life circumstances. Just because you are personally squeamish about the phrase "orgasmic birth" does not give you the right to mock the real, actual women who find the subject important. Just because you breastfed and stayed home to take care of your children does not give you the right to weigh in on the love, hard work, and commitment of any particular woman who did not (in this example) breastfeed or stay home. Remember, we don't pick on dads for this stuff, which is a red-flag for sexism at best.
And finally - again, just for starters - we all need to listen and believe. Because something about the anti-women sentiments that rear up in these conversations remind me of a phrase I hear oft-repeated in school and childcare environments, a phrase I have never liked: "You get what you get, and you don't throw a fit". Our cultural history has been one of silencing women, calling their concerns about housework or babies or jobs with or without kids silly, allowing their bodies to pay the price for being female. You don't have to understand it all (indeed, even highly-involved activists are continually learning), but belittling the conversation? Uh, no.
Because: "If you don't find time to change the world, then you're busy keeping it the way it is." (unattributed)
Mentioned/Further Reading:
"Non-Medical Reasons for a Rise in Caesarian Sections" at Sociological Images
* Several accounts of orgasmic birth at unassistedchildbirth.com
** Birth rape: "More Than a Traumatic Birth" at truebirth.com
A review of Heather Has Two Mommies at Raising my Boychick
"Maternal Death in the United States: A Problem Solved or a Problem Ignored?", 3 part article by Ina May Gaskin
VBACtivism at the Feminist Breeder
Film Feministe: Ninja Tedium Edition
Sometimes ninja films are hard to take seriously. Wait, "sometimes?"
Like all reviews in The Film Feministe, I strive to reveal a brief synopses of a film as well as an analysis. Occasionally my reviews include minor plot spoilers; caveat emptor.
A not-so-secret? I like action films. Or rather, I watch them, especially when I want to put my brain in Neutral and hand-sew or knit (or in the case this last couple days, to rest - I am fighting a head cold). One can't enjoy - let alone critique - an action film without a hefty dose of Suspending Disbelief and a desire to see stuff blown up or punched or perhaps an "ethnic" fruit market driven through by a police car (alternatively said vehicle will annihilate cardboard boxes in an alleyway). Of further note, action films are often so incredibly and boringly sexist (and racist, ageist, and homophobic to boot) that if I get a heroine who doesn't show 3/4ths of her cleavage as she stands and squeaks while the menfolk do the fighting (pick up the gun, lady!) I'm at least a bit happier than I otherwise might have been. So I try to watch an action film that promises a good enough time and a lot of escapism and hopefully some watchable hijinks. On that note and without further ado... I give thee Film Feministe: Ninja Tedium Edition!
Ninja Assassin (2009)
Trivia question: do you know what situs inversus is? It's a pretty rare condition whereby the organs in one's chest and abdomen are arranged in a mirror image of, you know, everyone else's. It effects less than one out of 10,000 people.
In the case of 2009's action adventure Ninja Assassin, the relevant point is as follows: in cases of situs inversus the heart is located on the right side of the chest and thereby will resist the kind of stabbing technique you or I, or let's say your average ninja, would employ to kill this person. And not to be a Ruin McSpoilerpants but this particular biological anomoly comes up twice via two separate characters in the film (and no, they're not related). The fact the film uses this at all, let alone twice, well, it's rather an indication of the caliber of writing inherant.
Oh, Ninja Assassin. I was so wanting to enjoy you. The first few minutes of the film I felt kind of hopeful we'd have an earnest, campy, over-the-top adventure with perhaps an adrenaline-pumping urban pop/house soundtrack (I felt this way about the partnering of Chow Yun-Fat and Mira Sorvino in 1998's The Replacement Killers, which Ninja Assassin bore a passing resemblance to). Our first scene promises some badass silliness when a bunch of Yakuza thugs are massacred by ninjas as bloodthirsty and lethal as they are creative. Example: one fellow's noggin is sliced off right at the jawline so you see his intact tongue and lower teeth bobbling on his neck as the top of his head flies artfully into the next close-up shot (I froze-frame the carnage and it still held up on closer inspection). So, well done on the gore front.
Yet instead of camp we are treated to an earnest and sluggish film chopped into backstory that then descends into shoot-'em-up, explosions, and prolific katana-fodder. Not to mention the Ultimate Movie Bad Guy (the ninja-clan patriarch, a douche of epic proportions) has a voice and demeanor totally lifted from Splinter in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (perhaps this would lend more gravitas to the film for some viewers; not so in my case). The story arc? Not so much. Let me break it down: secret ninja clan going back 1,000 years, turns out they've been behind every cool and mysterious assassination ever, and they're soooooo badass (as the movie has several talking head governmental types assuring us multiple times), and they raise little kids to be all evil cold-blooded soldiers (who can also instantly heal 2" deep gashes to their abdomens by using Thinky-Spiritual Magic), which most of the little kids (and later adults) seem to think is just dandy. No, I'm not making this up. So one little ninja by the name of Raizo gets a little resentful and for reasons explained in typical romantic-tragedy backstory starts to think the endless abuse and wretched life of ninja-slave isn't that fun. He decides to leave and become a ninja-assassin resistance fighter, spending his time avoiding assassination himself and hanging out in his apartment practicing his skills. Meanwhile a cute cop - I mean Europol agent - named Mika Coretti (played by Naomi Harris) begins to uncover the whole ninja clan conspiracy, so Raizo feels compelled to protect her from the hordes of killers that set on her path. And Raizo and Mika almost have this romantic thing going on but the movie doesn't even give us that much. You know a lot of big blockbuster films seem hesitant or unable to place an Asian male in the role of a romantic lead. Just sayin'.
Back to Ninja Assassin, ever heard the phrase freshets of blood? That's what this film has. A veritable plethora of freshets, if I may be so inclined to mix fifty cent words (and I may). Yet unlike Quentin Tarantino's over-the-top deliberate fetishization of arterial spray he used to deliberate and kitcshy exploitive effect in the Kill Bill series, Ninja Assassin seems to take the gushes of blood quite seriously. The ubiquitous and bountiful gore-splosions aren't intended to be exaggerations (though they notably are), often showcased by a pornographic slow-motion geyser assisted by crew members offscreen chucking buckets stuff on our stars.
Still, Rain. In case you don't know, Rain is the stage name of the Korean enterainer (pop singer, dancer, model, actor, businessperson, and designer) starring as the adult Raizo in the film. Anyway, I didn't know much about Rain before seeing the film, but he was nice to watch and seems a talented enough soul if you go look him up online (which I did). Whatever lacked in the film, Rain made the whole thing worthwhile. The man is relatable, appealing, acts well enough (given the material), and is athletic, sexy and cuddly (the latter adjective probably just shows my age). I didn't even mind scenes where he apparently took the trouble to set up these elaborate jungle gyms in his apartment and then kick at them and swing his kusarigama around with much fanfare. As in: seriously, it would take you a couple hours to set up the obstacle course and then you'd tap the whole thing out in three-point-four minutes of leaping about (after applying prodigious amounts of chest-grease).
I'll be looking for Rain in the future - or perhaps re-watching Speed Racer, another Wachowski-produced adrenalin-fest he plays a part in. I wish the young man a successful Hollywood career, albeit perhaps with a bit better writing and a little less soaking by a Karo syrup concoction.
Photo credit: super green ninja "with lasers", by TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³ at Flickr.
Mentioned:
The Replacement Killers (1998)
the over-involved Momster, a convenient premise to continue the laydee-hatin’
Why did I even bring this thing home?
The anti-mother element in our culture is one of the hardest things I live with. I feel its sting on behalf of many categories of mother (because yes, our culture categorizes us) even when I don't have personal membership in the latest group being lambasted (formula feeders, c-section patients, morbidly obese mothers, underclass mothers, mothers of color). When mama-bashing occurs in a way that seems it could apply to my specific person, I feel it lasered in on my any possible defect even though hell, I know I'm a pretty good mom and a decent human being.
Still, whenever I fail - however briefly or epic in nature - it's the cultural judgment and denigration of womanhood and motherhood, this enormous pressure to be all kinds of awesome (intelligent, fit, beautiful, kick-ass, kind, organized, unique, sexy, wise and whip-smart), that roars loudest in my ears. For the moment I swim in guilt and smallness, knowing I'm deficient, and no other mom is as shitty as I, and I'm screwing my kids up, and it's too late even though they're only six and eight because I've set up all this pathology with my Horribleness and I'd should just give the whole thing up but then that would really screw up my kids and just: Suck.
But that's just me. No other mothers ever feel this way, right? <snort!>
Because, you know, mothers are one group we don't like to give a break to (like so many groups we belittle). Our culture's judgment and callousness towards mothers seems so needlessly cruel (although I suspect it has its uses, more in a minute). Whenever our media crows the latest horrific thing that has happened to some American child the wail sets up: "Where was the motherrrr?!?". More disturbing still, there are those who seem to think the misfortunes befalling children are the just deserts to these women who've somehow failed their children (Seriously? Because a child being harmed or killed or dying isn't already, you know, some of the worst shit that could ever befall many, if not most, parents?). Mothers are too involved, not involved enough, overbearing, pathetically passive, too selfish, too selfless, too absorbed in their children, too preoccupied with things not their children. They're sell-outs if they stay at home to raise families; their priorities are skewed (and wrong and anti-family) if they aren't home enough.
Briefly, and before I get to my main point, in late October 2009 I remember reading the sickening account of the Richmond, California 15-year old girl who was raped by many male assailants during a school dance. The story was deeply sad and awful as such stories are; troubling me further were the vast amounts of comments online blaming both the victim herself - and her mother (just for, I suppose, the two of them not having the female decency to avoid rape). As many point out, internet discourse can be shockingly uncivil or cowardly; yet as it is also pointed out, it can also reveal thoughts and feelings people harbor deep within. In the Richmond story I was struck by how much blame was attributed to the females in the case: the victim and her mother - women both deserving sympathy, support, and compassion, I hope it need not be said.
This might seem a shocking example of wrongheadedness but I am here to say it's nothing new.
It hardly matters the most recent bit I've read on the internet that gets immediately to the Mama-hating, because it's such a common trope. Funnily enough and as I've said, it always hurts to read. Today's example (which I am deliberately not linking to; it's actually not that important who wrote it) happened to be the charge that moms are Boring and their over-involvement is The Cause of Our Country's Problems. You know, by ardently caring about chemicals in baby bottles or our parenting techniques or the carbon footprint of our family car we are creating a culture of tit-sucking Dependents who won't be able to do anything for themselves.
Right. So now: Mamas? You're boring. Also, P.S., you're Ruining America.
This flavor of vitriolic Mama-depreciation is nothing new. Authors, pundits, and pop-culturalists have trotted out this particular bit since long before I ever birthed my own: the obsessed monster of a mother who has no life except for living vicariously through her kids. She used to have a career but now she's all nipple-shields and carseats and SUVs (we used to diss her minivan and soccer-chauffeuring). Her involvement with and work for the family are not the result of her genuine caring and the heterosexist hierarchy that both demands these efforts and offers little status nor esteem for them, but rather the infantile projection of her own Narcissism and shallowness. Her interest and fascination with family life and babies demonstrates her profound limitations; these will surely and inevitably lead to her attempting to manage everything about her children's lives which will result in ruining said children's lives and, by extension, Everything Else. So at this point an article like this will typically have some really cute and sarcastic (but rarely real-life) examples of Epic Fail, like how this woman's children will be living at home at age 40 and won't be able to hold a job, yawn yawn, you get the idea.
There are so many problems with this sort of article it's hard to know where to start. Let me just begin with what occurs from the example of my personal lived life, because funny thing is? No woman I've personally known is anything like this caricature.
I started my family in a mid-to-upper class environs, mostly white, mostly "progressive" (that means liberals who think their views are better than everyone else's), and to a soul very - very - doting first-time parents. The women I knew were those the Over-Involved Mother insults are often referring to: they had privilege (white, straight, moneyed as far as the globe goes), obsessed in doing well by their kids and often mourning their careers (whether on temporary hiatus or rejected permanently). They found themselves up to their thickened middles in kid-care and parenting books and temporarily sexless marriages (not a uniform factor to all unions I knew, but common enough). They really did care about this stuff and they talked about it - not all the time, but a heck of a lot. They were literally just like these articles claim! OH SNAP! HA HA! LADIES ARE STOOPID!
Of course, all these women had personalities, drives, desires, and yes, ambitions extending beyond family life. A conversation on the playground about the best highchair might not sound too earth-shatteringly Thinky to someone who doesn't have to worry about keeping a baby safe while eating (and anyway, as to highchair conversations being dull, I wonder why mothers should be required to be more damned entertaining and urbane than anyone else?) but the women themselves were not boring. You had only to ask, to spend time paying attention - to change the subject if need be because hell, that's allowed - and you'd find them as Special Snowflake as, well, anyone really. Like M. who was an amazing cellist (who kept teaching music even after breeding) and a pretty gifted photographer and had a career in pro-choice activism. Like A. who'd waitressed and barfly'd and traveled Central and South America and now balanced a single income with a family of four including a former trust-fund husband while they both didn't really know how to pay bills. Like S. who was the most organized person I knew and had made it a priority to travel to lots of druggy outdoor festivals and made Wild and was a catalog of counter-culture. Like A. who with her husband started an art supply store, and who could get so passionate about social justice that while she talked her breastfeeding child would pop off and A's nipple would be an angry point while her mouth and mind, undistracted, spoke her passionate truth. Like B. who read fashion blogs and knew more fashion than anyone I've known and started a little recipe blog such I ended up starting my own (I have decent enough readership, incidentally). Like T. who was a former teacher and had gone through difficult and heart-wrenching infertility treatments and who taught me a lot about being less of an asshole about that sort of thing. Like K. who was a former drink-and-drug ingenue, a chemical engineer, proficient seamstress, social activist, and B-movie buff. Hey, psst, that last one is me.
It's true that many of these women did obsess, and I do mean obsess, about partnership and new motherhood (P.S. they obsessed and thought and dreamed and talked about lots of other stuff, too). And why shouldn't they? It is fucking crazy! It has been, for me at least and alternately during different times in my life: amazing, exhilarating, more exhausting than anything I've known, rewarding, deeply troubling, by turns sublime and mundane. I've had a lot of hard-working (and incidentally, a handful of well-paying and relatively socially prestigious) jobs, and while I loved those jobs and cared deeply and performed well, there's nothing that has rocked my worldview quite like mamahood (probably because I was raised in a culture and family that kind of sneered at it). I am not a boring or shallow or eye-rollingly obsessive person for caring - even caring a lot, for a time in my life - about homebirth or cloth diapers or cooking or sewing up the most perfectly soft blanket I ever could. I'm not more silly than anyone else doing any other thing because each of these efforts increases my awareness of my abilities, of others' needs, of the earth, the environment, my neighbors, of Love, of craftsmanship and failure and triumph.
Additionally, it seems almost Feminism 101 to point out the conversation dissing over-involved (and boring!) mothers gives fathers an Out entirely. For every over-involved laydee wondering how to pen a birth plan there is often a father who relies on her to shoulder the large part of the burden of worrying about such a life-changing event. For every highchair enthusiast female there is often a male bankrolling or helping to bankroll the purchase. Women who run about cleaning house and looking up recipes and reading on parenting techniques are often partnered to an (often male) person who comes home to a child (or children) well-loved and well taken care of. What gifts these must be for him! (He often comes home to dinner made, a house and checkbook managed, and a partner who deeply cares about his happiness and helps care for his needs, whatever her personal idiosyncratic tendencies.)
I know some people would like to believe that because I or any other mother (remember, we do not punish fathers so direly for showing any of the above passions or proclivities) gets excited about reading up on childhood allergies or learning how to clean with vinegar and baking soda or cooking gingersnaps for a school function that we are tedious Bores of the first degree. I mean, it's a little confusing because people like eating the gingersnaps and benefitting from our volunteer efforts and they sure as hell, at some point, likely benefited from such a woman taking care of them. But now? It's so passé. And worthless. And shitty for America.
So, I don't relate to the Freakishly Over-Involved Mother because I haven't yet met her. Now a real, true, rabidly-focused or even pathological parent? Yes, this person exists (in male and female form). I know this because - guess what, there are all kinds of people out there! (Like today I read about people who fervently collect artifacts involving human hair!*). She's just: damned rare. Really. Or she's remained elusive to me at least. And don't be so quick to smirk at a mother's passion and endeavors - a passion that may very well be a temporary life stage borne of the life-changing event of parenthood. This passion will often involve forging a person who cares passionately about other people, and her endeavors hopefully help raise a generation that learns how to care for one another as well. After all, truly caring for one another - deeply and with consistency - is not always a culturally-expounded virtue.
Because seriously? Next time you think moms are so, you know, MOM-like and boring and shallow because they give a shit about strollers? First off, consider going and fucking yourself**, because someone changed your diapers and fed you and loved you up (and if you didn't get the last I am deeply, deeply sorry), and secondly - just, give me a break. Women are people. Even moms are people. Just people, no more, no less. And they certainly don't owe you some kind of hip Awesomeness, all the time.
Kind of crazy, huh?
Mentioned:
Rape in Richmond, CA from CNN.com
"What's Wrong With Granola, Anyway?" by Wendy Priesnitz from Natural Life Magazine
* Annual Hair & Trade Show in French Link, IN. Mr. Kendall, curator: "Mr. Kendall: "My life revolves around hair."
guest post: we’re coming to eat your CHILDREN!
Turns out this headless fattie has a head. And a brain. Heart, mind, passion.
This was posted today at my friend Jasie's blog, By The Seat Of Our Pants. It's what we might call an excellent dish of 101 with awesomeness on the side. Please go to the original article at Jasie's site if you'd like to join the discussion.
Seriously? In my opinion if you are serious about human rights and not espousing and supporting the opinions of a myriad of Haters (plenty of people will give articles like this a skim-over but will not in fact be serious about these things), you'll read this essay and the links Jasie provides. Bookmark the article and come back to it. It will still be here for you. Promise.
And thanks, Jasie. Well done.
OMGOBESITY epidemic - We're coming to eat your children!
Except... we're not. We're totally not. Fat people have no secret agenda to "make the rest of society fat". Those of us involved in the Fat Acceptance Movement don't have any hidden ulterior motive to try and assimilate you into FATNESS. Because it simply doesn't work that way. Scientists and dietitians and creators of weight loss and diet programs have not found a safe and effective way to permanently turn fat people into thin people. Alternately, there is no proven way to take a thin person and make them permanently fat. So don't lose sleep over it.
I know that for some of my readers, this post is going to come off eye-rollingly 101, but I don't touch on the subject of fatness and Health At Every Size all that often outside of my FATshion outfit posts, so I really would like to go there.
These truths we hold to be self evident:
- You cannot claim to know anything about my health just by looking at my size. No, I am not riding the fast train towards Diabetes, I do not have high blood pressure, my knees are doing just fine supporting my weight, and I have never once had a doctor express concern that I may develop any of those conditions. I don't have a family history of diabetes, and while, yes, there has been hypertension in my family history, I have personally found that avoiding stress and getting enough sleep and exercise has kept high BP at bay.
- You cannot tell anything about my diet or activity level just by looking at my fat body. I have known many thin people who are sedentary and many fat people who are avid joggers, swimmers, tennis enthusiasts, ultimate frisbee players, belly dancers, hikers, and yes, fitness instructors. Fat people don't inherently avoid exercise or stuff their faces full of twinkies all day. I have known fat vegans, vegetarians, locavores, omnivores, and eat whatever is around-vores. The same goes for people who happen to inhabit thinner bodies. Plainly put - people are unique and different from eachother. This includes our bodies.
- If you are a person who used to be fat and has lost a significant amount of weight and kept it off for over 5 years, congratulations - you are either a unique and special snowflake, or the higher weight you used to be was NOT your bodies natural set-point. Our bodies do have a natural weight-range that they settle into, based on many factors. These include, but are not limited to: genetics, environment, whether your body has birthed children or not, lifestyle and career, metabolism, access to fresh air and pure food, income and socioeconomic status... the list goes on. I have maintained the weight I am at for awhile now because that is the weight my body settled at. Sometimes I eat quite healthily, sometimes I forget to eat regularly, sometimes I eat large amounts of calorie-dense foods because they are delicious and pleasurable. My exercise level also fluctuates depending on my mood, the weather, my amount of free-time to participate in athletic activities, etc. Through all of those fluctuations, my weight remains steady between 225 and 230 lbs. I am between 5'2" and 5'3", this weight puts me into the "morbidly obese" category. Many people have certain connotations associated with the term "morbidly obese" and from what I have seen, they don't include a body like mine that enjoys physical activity, home-cooked meals and good health.
- Headless fatties who are portrayed in the media to illustrate the "obesity epidemic/crisis" are people. They DO have heads... and names and personalities and families and lives and are whole people. Please remember this when spouting off about "personal responsibility" and how all those OBESE people are costing YOU money because of their assumed ill-health and grossness. Thankyouverymuch.
- My health and my body is not public property. It is no one's business but my own. The fact that I put myself out there and publicly give details about my life is MY choice. I don't owe it to anyone to be the "good fatty" who does everything right and is still *gasp*... FAT. I don't owe it to anyone to be visible and upfront and honest about my health. It is MY choice.
- With that said - I do think that the governing body of our country has a responsibility to provide decent health care and resources for its citizens. I support universal health care and am 100% for whole foods being served in schools, people getting off the couch and out into the fresh air, advocating cooking at home with wholesome ingredients, fresh seasonal produce being available to people of all races, income-levels, and sizes. All too often I see these ideas trotted out under the guise of "fighting obesity", though, and that saddens me to no end. So many well-meaning people who truly want better health for all, whose hearts are very much in the right place are putting their focus on the wrong thing and/or are getting dangerously close to suggesting that a portion of the population is somehow "wrong" for existing the way they currently are. Those are some mighty dangerous waters we're swimming in. Michelle Obama, Jaime Oliver, Michael Pollan, Lenore Skenazy - please, please, please stop focusing on eradicating fat in our nations children (and everyone in general). It's not going to happen and it shouldn't be expected to happen. We're on the same page in so many ways, but when I see headlines that read "Is It OK to be Fat?" or "Obesity Killing Millions" it's hard not to get a little worked up and a little defensive... See what I'm saying?
- By eschewing the diet & weight-loss mentality I have not "given up" or chosen to just be FAT FAT FAT. I have simply decided to do what's best for my sanity and my health by leaving behind disordered eating practices and unrealistic "goals". I don't owe it to you or my mother or society at large to fit into some arbitrary little niche of what is acceptable. I'm listening to my internal voice and harnessing my power and strength to buck a system that IS NOT WORKING.
a little bit of related reading/viewing for you:
- But don't you realize fat is unhealthy?!
- IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY: Death Fat contextualized
- The Fatty Commandments: What Do You Want?
- Eat food. Stuff you like. As much as you want.
- The fantasy of being THIN.
- On dressing femme, being a “bad fat”, and changing the FA blogosphere.
- Joy Nash's videos: A Fat Rant, Staircase Wit, et all.
- Embracing the morbid.
- a community of women challenging "fashion rules", wearing what they want, being unapologetically FAT, and supporting eachother!
Tweets!
- tonight i’m strutting around with the Mick Jagger rooster walk « Kelly Hogaboom September 4, 2010
- Male as the Neutral Default". Once again, big surprise. I'm sick o' this shite, holmes. September 2, 2010
- Street Harassment | Progressive Political Cartoon by Barry Deutsch August 31, 2010
- YouTube - Dancing at the Movies - Music Video August 26, 2010
- the conversation that never happens « Underbellie August 24, 2010
- for your reading pleasure « Kelly Hogaboom August 21, 2010
- que estamos de vacaciones « Kelly Hogaboom August 19, 2010
- No Offense, But I Was Just Kidding: Dealing with Mean Jokes « Rachel Simmons August 17, 2010
- Should I buy a co-sleeper? (classic) | August 15, 2010
- You Can Tweet Like This, Or You Can Tweet Like That, Or You Can Tweet Like Us. « PostBourgie August 13, 2010
