Semantics

I'm not sure when it became a "thing," but I'm noticing a trend where people who, I presume, are trying to be politically correct, refer to women as "females." Probably most notably in the Kimmy Schmidt open titles, "Females are strong as hell." What I'm not seeing is a corresponding switch from "men" to "males." This bothers me.

It's semantics, I know, but words have power and carry weight and bring certain connotations with them. I know there was a movement a while ago to get away from the word "woman" as it contains "man," and I get it. But by the same token, "movement" contains "men" and we didn't change that to "movemynt," because at a certain point it all gets silly. There are only 26 letters in the English language alphabet and to try to avoid any and all combinations of "m-e-n" and "m-a-n" gets ridiculous.

What bothers me about replacing "woman" with "female" is that is takes the humanity out of the equation. "Female" is a very scientific term, used to define the member of the species capable of producing eggs and bearing children. "Woman" is the word used to describe a human female. The same as adult male chickens are roosters and adult female chickens are hens, adult male humans are men, and adult female humans are women. To call women "females," to me, takes away the specificity of what species we are, which is, in my opinion, even more degrading that the fact that the letters "m-a-n" exist in the word "woman."

Biologically, yes, I am female. Transgender women identify as female as well. But I think all of us would like to think of ourselves as more than a set of sex organs, which is what the term "female" implies to me, and which is why I prefer the word woman. It gets even stickier when we note that men are not being called "males," implying that men are humans with complex lives and thoughts and fears and language abilities - all of the lovely things that make humans humans. We are, again, widening the gap between men and women, allowing one gender to be human and the other to be defined exclusively by its gender.

Granted, this also doesn't allow for agendered individuals, as much of the English language was developed at a time when we thought of gender as more of a binary system as opposed to the spectrum we now understand it to be. But perhaps, instead of allowing men to be human, women to be sex organs, and agendered individuals to feel completely out of place, we need to develop three new words - or six new words, or twelve new words or whatever - that better describe the variations of human existence, as opposed to further alienating more than half of the population.

Just a thought. From a woman.

April 8 - Sexuality

This is, admittedly, a half-formed thought, so if it comes out really strange or makes no sense, that is why. 

I was thinking about sexuality today, kind of in the context of some of the badass women I've been seeing on TV and in movies lately. While there is a huge part of me that is like, "Yay strong women who can (literally) kick ass when they need to!" there is another part of me that wonders why they all have to do it in skimpy outfits and high heels. Think about the female super spies you see, or the Bond girls, or female comic book heroes. Sci-fi and comics, I think, are important in this aspect because a lot of cues for how we should act in the future are and have been first introduced in the alternative worlds created by fantasy writers. And while a lot of these women in these worlds are smart and strong and independent and brilliant and wonderful role models, there is still this overarching stench of sexuality on them. I get it, I do. From a very practical standpoint, a lot of these women were written by men, or by women who know their material has to appeal to men if it is going to sell, so of course they are sexy. But I think some of the time, it is passed off as these characters being comfortable and secure in their sexuality, them owning their own sexuality, which manifests in skimpy, sexy, form-fitting, semi-impractical costumes. This is the part with which I take issue. 

First of all, there is a lot about a woman that is sexy that has nothing to do with her cup size. I know that on occasion, when I've worn menswear (suit and tie type menswear), I've gotten comments about how sexy it is, or what a good look it is for me. Everything is covered, but it's a sexy look. I know other men who have said there is nothing sexier than a pregnant woman. By which I mean to illustrate not only that sexy is subjective, but that it means something different to everyone. So why do almost all of our female superheroes embrace their sexuality with form-fitting or revealing clothing? Couldn't one own her sexuality in sweats?

And the real problem that I see resulting from this has manifested best in our young Hollywood starlets who want to transition from girlhood to womanhood by embracing their own sexuality and walking around half naked. From where I'm sitting, that is not embracing one's own sexuality; that is subscribing to someone else's idea of what sexy is. Not to mention, they're running around "being sexy" all of the time for everyone, which makes it an act. What happens when one of these starlets finds someone with whom she actually wants to be honestly sexy and vulnerable? How do they know the difference? How does she?

So my half-formed thought was what if owning one's sexuality did not mean showing it to everyone, but making sure someone earns it or deserves it before sharing it? If my sexuality is mine, I should be able to dictate when I use it, when I share it, and who I share it with. And maybe it is just where I am in my life right now with all of the crap I've been thinking about lately, but I think I want to make sure someone earns the right to my sexuality before I share it with him. Is that crazy?

What is perhaps crazier is how we have programmed ourselves as women to think that our worth is dictated by the men in our lives, and that if we don't have this guy now, we'll never have anyone ever. I thought it when I was younger. If a man wanted to date me, I had better go because he chose me. If a guy wanted to make out, I should because he chose me. What I think I'm starting to realize now (and how sad that it has taken me this long) is that I do actually have a choice in the matter. I don't owe anyone else a glimpse of my sexuality, a glimpse of my soul, or a glimpse of my heart. These things are mine to be shared with those I choose, not to be broadcast all over the interweb, or to hang out of an unbuttoned mesh shirt. 

So if you'll excuse me, I'm going to enjoy the fact that I am a sexy, attractive, brilliant, strong, independent woman while wearing a tie, a sweater vest, button down shirt, jeans, and Chucks. This is my sexuality and I'm gonna own it. 

November 20 - Butter

People have talked for years about the phenomenon whereby a physically attractive person can become less attractive if he or she is unkind, or how a non-traditionally physically attractive person can become moreso if they are strong of character. This should not be news to you - I'm sure you've experienced it first hand. We all have. Many of the people I hold most dear would not fall into the Hollywood Leading Man or Leading Lady category, but they are the most beautiful people I know.

I think this goes for sex appeal, too. Take, for instance, current "hearthrob" Benedict Cumberbatch. Let's be honest, he's a little odd-looking. While watching the first season of Sherlock, it bothered me that he didn't seem to have any pores. But he totally won me over in the role, and from doing some (perfectly innocent) interweb searches, I've found I kind of dig the persona he puts out there. I admire his work, and I admire how he handles himself off stage, too. And these things are what have turned him from this weird pore-less man into a sexy guy I'd love to meet and work with.

I bring this up because People Magazine named their Sexiest Man Alive today and I have to say, I thoroughly disagree with the choice. I don't usually pay that much attention, though when Channing Tatum won it, I had to look through my own list of sexy qualifications and got the feeling the IQ qualification might fall a little short, but I was okay with it. He seems decent. This year, they gave the title to someone who is either not very talented or intelligent in real life or doesn't want people to think he is, so he puts on an asshat public persona. In either case, I don't think he's a very good role model. Yes, he is nicely shaped, but remember what I said in the first paragraph? Have you heard the phrase "butter face," as in "she's hot, but her face is nasty?" This guy is a butter mouth. He's nicely shaped, but when he opens his mouth to speak or sing, it kind of makes me ill.

There are many, many, many men I think are sexier than this year's Sexiest Man Alive. But for the sake of similar comparisons, I'll throw this one into the mix. Also a tall, skinny musician with dark hair and lots of tattoos. But he writes songs about how everybody should be writing songs, and how he'll look out for his god daughter as she grows up, and how life is meant to be lived to the fullest. He's funny and historically minded. He likes to learn facts about each city he visits on tour. He likes to learn a new cover song every day. He likes to read books, including autobiographies about people of whom he's not particularly fond just for the sake of learning about someone who is different to him. He loves his friends and loves making music. He's fascinated by English folk songs, and he loves to share his knowledge. On a personal level, I emailed him to thank him for his music and he responded with a very pleasant "thank you" email within about eight hours. By all accounts, he seems to be a decent human being. Not perfect by his own admission, but decent. Funny. Smart. Talented. Hot.

So for as much as I complain about the objectification of women, and as much as I do like to occasionally objectify men as a joke, could we please stop celebrating idiocy? If we're going to adopt anything about geek culture and make it cool, can we adopt the bit where we pay attention to people's personalities and celebrate the smart and funny ones who have some character?

I wish I didn't secretly know that that is asking too much. Go listen to Frank anyway. He's lovely.

September 12 - Coming of Age

I've been thinking a lot lately about the slew of young female pop stars or actors who "come of age" by turning into hot messes. I've been thinking about them much more than I would like to, but I do have a question and I'm not sure what the answer is, so I'm going to chat about it for a bit today to try to see if anything gels.

I think it is important to note, too, that young male stars sometimes come of age by turning into hot messes, but not nearly with the frequency that young female stars do (at least not anymore). There are the classic examples of Danny Bonaduce and Todd Bridges who grew out of their "cute boy" phases and got into drugs and got into trouble with the law and whatnot. I would argue that their shenanigans didn't hold a candle to Lindsay Lohan's or Miley Cyrus' or Amanda Bynes'. And when we look at young male actors now who find a way to come of age in Hollywood, showing their maturity often times involves wearing nice suits to premieres, or taking more dramatic roles in films. I will just throw out the names Joseph Gordon Leavitt, Zac Efron, Justin Timberlake, and Daniel Radcliffe. All of these men have grown up in the Hollywood system fairly recently and while yes, Daniel Radcliffe has now done nudity on stage and on film, all of these men have somehow managed to keep it together. Justin Timberlake is probably the one focusing the most on sex in his career (he is the one who brought it back, you know), but watching his videos and listening to his music (which, admittedly, I don't do very much as it is not to my taste), it appears that his image of what is sexy for a man is a more classic styling. Three piece suits. Suave appearance. He's not running around in a Speedo trying to be sexy.

However, when young women in Hollywood feel the need to grow up, come of age, find themselves, or make a break with the young, sweet image of their youth, they do so by eschewing clothing, taste, manners and sensibility. There is the occasional notable exception like Emma Watson who parted with her Hermione image by cutting her hair, but the vast majority of young starlets think that the way to "grow up" is to wear less clothing and behave like idiots. Lindsay Lohan. Amanda Bynes. Miley Cyrus. Brittney Spears. They embrace the idea that sex appeal equals maturity and naked equals sexy. Why is that?

I think a perfect example of this is the video for "Blurred Lines." Whether you are watching the version wherein the women are nude or the version wherein the women are wearing skimpy undergarments, the basic image is the same. Here are a bunch of men expressing their individual styles, all looking sexy in suits and sunglasses and whatnot, and here are a bunch of women who are completely interchangeable, all looking sexy because they are naked. I don't know the lyrics for the song, nor do I want to. I was so beyond offended when I saw the semi-clothed version of the video that now I quickly change the radio station whenever the song threatens to come on. I want nothing to do with the song, the message, or the image associated therewith.

Scratch that - I'm not going to talk smack about something I've never read. I just went to find the lyrics online and I can now say that having read them (or having tried to), I continue to be sickened by the existence of that song. Now I can make the fully informed decision to avoid the song at all costs.

Now, I understand that finding one's own sexuality is an important part of growing up. Children are not supposed to be sexy; adults are supposed to procreate. Somewhere in between there, you have to figure out how. Not to mention the role that sexual intimacy plays in our relationships, whether or not there is procreation involved. So I can see how equating "growing up" with "having sex" happens. What I take issue with is how this seems to have morphed into "growing up" meaning "ready to have sex in public with anyone who might be walking by because I am turned on all of the time." One can embrace and even advertise one's sexuality without it becoming the focal point of one's entire existence. Yet with so many young Hollywood starlets, that is the way it goes.

There are a lot of "coming of age" movies out there, too, about young men - high school seniors or college freshmen - who have set the goal of losing their virginity by a certain end date. When they reach that goal, they are lauded and applauded by their friends. For a long time, the women in those films (or those situations) were considered sluts. I understand (and agree with) the backlash against the idea that it is okay for men to be sexually experienced but not for women to be so. I understand embracing that idea and adopting the "I'm okay with my own sexuality and with my level of sexual experience and with my sexual appetite" attitude. What I see, though, is that our culture is still a long way away from fully accepting female sexuality. We still call those girls sluts. We still look down on them. Slut-shaming happens all of the time. All of the time. Women who are not particularly sexually promiscuous are still called sluts if they wear short skirts. It has nothing to do with her sexuality, really. It has to do with how those around her see her, and they see the short skirt or the low cut top as an invitation to touch, grope, and grab. Hell, I was riding a crowded train once wearing a knee-length skirt and the guy standing behind me started feeling up my leg and lifting my skirt's hem. I smacked his hand away and got off the train at the next stop. That had nothing to do with my sexuality, whether I am a slut or not, or what my relationship status with men was. That had everything to do with his fucked up attitude that women exist to pleasure men. If our starlets continue along the path they are currently on where twerking is the highest form of social expression, that attitude will never change.

So I understand the desire to grow up and find oneself. And I understand that it has to be difficult to do so when everything you do is so scrutinized by an unforgiving public. And I can see how public speculation regarding when a certain starlet may have lost her virginity or online countdown clocks to when a girl becomes "legal" can really mess with a girl's sense of self-worth. Or how they might push her to just say, "Fuck it; they think I'm a slut? I'll show them how slutty I can be." It still makes me sad how many young women go this route.

See, for me (and I know I'm the odd one here), I know now and have known for a long time that my brain is my most attractive feature. The few men I have dated have been attracted to me for the conversations we have and the various artistic talents I possess as much as, if not more than, they have been attracted to me physically. Because another way to separate oneself as an adult from oneself as a child is by gaining knowledge, wisdom, poise, and experience. Take Emma Thompson, Helen Mirren, or Cate Blanchett, for example. They each have more sex appeal in a wisp of hair than Lohan, Bynes, and Cyrus combined. They are intelligent, wise, humorous, poised, and talented. These qualities are what make them sexy and attractive, whether they dye their hair pink, choose to wear acrylic stripper heels, or not.

Can we find a way to teach our daughters that? Can we teach our daughters that intelligence and compassion and humor are sexy? Yes, the onus goes on our sons, too, to know that women do not exist solely for their pleasure and that when a girl says no, she means no, and that women are to be respected and treated as equals, regardless of whether or not looking in the general direction of her genitalia makes you feel all tingly. But I think as long as we have generations of starlets being told by their managers and agents and associated yes-men that they won't be taken seriously unless they're willing to bare it all (literally), young girls looking up to those starlets are going to grow up believing that in order to grow up, they have to get naked.

I don't want my nieces to grow up that way. I don't want my nieces to feel that kind of pressure to look a certain way or behave a certain way in order to prove that they are grown up. I want them to know that they are amazing young women (or will be - the oldest is currently four, so even in my pseudo-feminist world, she's a little young to be called a woman) who are valued for their hearts, minds, and souls as well as their bodies. I want my nieces to be able to come of age without becoming hot messes. Is that really so much to ask?

March 1 - Human Sexuality

First of all, if you've not seen this video, please take the three minutes and forty-nine seconds to watch it because it is so beautiful. If you didn't already love Hank Green, or if you don't understand why I love Hank Green, this is it. Right here. I've seen the video probably half a dozen times and it still chokes me up. So please, go watch it and then come back to read the rest of this post. I'll still be here.

Watched it? Yes? Good?

Okay. So that's the starting point for this discussion, and I just want to say really quickly that the beauty of two shiny boxes exploding into millions of shiny boxes is what gets me every time. So much beauty and so much love. It reduces me to the point of not being able to use words. I love that image of millions of shiny boxes, each one as beautiful as the last, in all of the colors of the rainbow. I like thinking about human sexuality that way.

I realize that not everybody looks at human sexuality that way, though, and it makes me sad. Because for me, it kind of goes like this.

Let's say your entire life, you've been attracted to redheads. Who isn't attracted to redheads, right? They're gorgeous and graceful and every time you fantasize about who you want your ideal life mate to be, that person always has red hair. And then one day, you meet this brunette who just knocks you on your ass. This brunette is kind and thoughtful and intelligent and likes the same leisure activities you do and the two of you communicate well and have similar life goals and spiritual beliefs and you just can't imagine your life without this person. Suddenly, the fantasy of the redhead seems so much less important than the idea of spending your life with this specific brunette, yes? I think most people can wrap their brains around that - the idea that you fall in love with the person, not necessarily the package they come in. So let's extrapolate that same idea out further and say it's not just the person's hair color that isn't what you expected yourself to love, but their eye color is different than you imagined. Or their body shape. Or their skin color. Or their genitalia. Are you not still falling in love with the person instead of the package they come in? At what point is it okay to draw the line and say that's not acceptable? At what point is it okay to say, "No, you and this other consenting adult are not allowed to enter into a relationship because of x?"

(I point out "consenting adults" because I think it is important for me to clarify that I think pedophilia is the point at which lines must be drawn. Kids who are too young to understand what is going on should not be subjected to the sexual desires of others. For that matter, adults who are old enough to understand what's going on should not be subjected to the sexual desires of others with whom they don't agree, though one would hope the adults have the tools to be able to say "no" to such situations whereas children may not know how to stand up for themselves.)

I bring this up because a bill passed the Illinois State Senate which would make gay marriage legal. It is now being debated in the Illinois State House. I'm not the praying sort, but if I was, I would be praying with all of my might that this bill passes and Illinois legalizes gay marriage. It's a no-brainer to me - if two people choose to spend their lives together, they should legally be allowed to do so, and they should be afforded the same legal rights that go along with marriage as every single other married couple. I can't think of a good reason why they shouldn't.

Granted, there are those who say it is "against God." Maybe your God. But if I don't believe in your God, why do I have to be subjected to his laws? The United States grants separation of church and state in many areas, why not this one? There are so many religions and spiritual orientations in this country, and we all have the right to practice whichever one we want; why does one religion get to dictate who everyone is or isn't allowed to marry?

There are those who say it undermines the institution of marriage. Well, I hate to point this out, but marriage is a man-made construct, and an "institution" that has gone through quite a few changes since it's original inception. It came about likely around the time people figured out that men were involved in the baby-making process and and some men didn't want to be raising another guy's kid, so marriage was invented to pair up a man and a woman for procreation purposes so the guy could make sure he was only providing for his own offspring. Romantic, no? These days, marriages exist that have nothing to do with procreation - some couples just choose not to have kids. Marriages exist between more than two people in some religions so there are more people around to take care of the kids. And somewhat recently, we introduced this concept of "love" into marriage - the idea that you should like the person you're going to spend the rest of your life with instead of just entering into a contract with them to share lands and rear offspring. The notion of a romantic marriage seeped into the legal system, allowing spouses the right to visit one another in the hospital when others are not, allowing spouses to inherit from one another when one passes away, allowing tax breaks, and the like. Because if you love someone, you should be able to share in those things and provide for one another, right?

So if we take the idea that you may fall in love with someone you didn't expect to fall in love with, and the idea that you should be able to share your life with the person you love and provide for them and whatnot, the logical conclusion as I see it, is that this right should be extended to everyone, regardless of the sex or gender pairings. Right? Because where and how can you draw that line?

I know, I know, the homophobes are saying you draw the line at two people of the same sex getting married because that idea makes them uncomfortable. You know what? Denying gay and lesbian couples the right to get married will not prevent them from being together. It will not prevent them from falling in love and dedicating their lives to one another. It will not stop them from making love to one another. It will not stop them from building families or building homes or raising brilliant, beautiful children together. All it does is prevent them from being able to be there for each other when they die. It prevents them from being able to provide for one another's future. And why would you want to do that to someone who has done nothing but love another human being? In what world does that make sense?

I wanted this post to be eloquent and thought provoking and...better than I think it is. I wanted it to be one of those things that people read and can't argue with the logic of, but I don't know that it is that. I guess I mostly wanted to say that I want to live in a world where every shiny box is treated with the same love, reverence, and respect as every other shiny box, because there are so many, they are so beautiful, and because ooo! Shiny!