A Fresh Start

Bennett knows the word 'man.' He'll see a picture of one or a man on the street and say 'man!' This morning while getting dressed he was saying the word and listing some of his favorite characters. I said 'Sokka is a man. Papa is a man. Mama is a woman. And Bennett is a boy, who will become a man.' He shook his head. I said 'You don't want to be a man?' He shook his head. 'Do you want to be a woman?' He nodded his head vigorously.

Let the gender games begin!

This is a post for all those born male and for mothers of males.

If you are a male, did you play with guns? Did you turn non-gun items into imaginary guns? Do you think this is something innate in males? If not, where did you learn this behaviour from? As an adult male now do you have any parenting perspectives on this, or advice for the new mama of a male?

For mothers of males, do your sons play with guns or have gun play? If so, at what age did this start? Does this bother you? If so, how do you discourage this? Any thoughts for a new mama?

Two nicely written blog posts about Sarah Palin:

Scroll down to the second half of Savage Love.

A religious feminist's point of view on Palin.

This article in today's NYT drives me nuts. While I do think that having kids, particularly infants, makes a woman have to work harder at getting things done, it is not insurmountable. The discussion of whether Palin is ready to be VP based on her having 5 kids, one of which has special needs and is an infant, drives me crazy. This discussion would never come up for a male candidate. Ever. I assume Sarah Palin has help. Either her husband or a nanny or a house keeper or some one is helping with family and home tasks. Men have help - their wives. But since Palin IS a wife, crap - who does she have to help? She should be taking care of everything! When does she find time to govern??

"...many women, citing their own difficulties with less demanding jobs, said it would be impossible for Ms. Palin to succeed both at motherhood and in the nation’s second-highest elected position at once."

But no one has ever said that about a male candidate have they? That because of the difficult task of raising a family and having a career it would be hard for a man to keep being a good father and do his job responsibly. Obama has two kids, we haven't heard this one yet, have we?

It IS hard having an infant. But we don't know if Palin is breast feeding. Probably not, is my guess, and that makes things easier for her. I'm sure Palin has help, because being a parent IS demanding work. But she's clearly getting it done, isn't she? Why would voters turn against her because they themselves can't imagine running a country? If the average mom had a house keeper and a nanny I bet she'd be able to get a lot more done.

This article is nonsense. The NYT loves to raise the "mommy wars," in fact they may have coined the term. And I hate it. It pits women against one another. I'm not sure the mommy wars even exist.

Today was the day I went in to two of my friend D's 10th grade theology classes at an all boys' Catholic high school and talked about abortion in a social justice context. I was nervous. It's been years since I've been in the classroom, I haven't been sleeping well, I just wasn't as prepared as I normally would like to be, and well... it's a Catholic high school.

My friend D: we met at grad school, his undergrad is in Latin and Greek, his master's is in Patristics (early Church fathers), he's an Eastern Orthodox convert, and he's goofy and brilliant too! I am very honored that he asked me to come in and talk to his students. Before I go into what I said (I know some of you will be very interested, others not so much), I want to say that I was soimpressed with the school and the students. Who knew that a classroom of 15 yr old boys could be engaged and respectful in such a discussion?? They never once mocked each other for their opinions or ideas. Of course, not everyone seemed enthused or contributed - I mean, they are 15. But in comparison to my two years spent working primarily with 15 yr old boys in a public school, I was beyond impressed.

Personally, I have some issues with private school. But over the course of the morning I found myself thinking, "Wow, I would totally send my son here!" The grounds are nice, the faculty I met were open and friendly, the school's motto is "A De la Salle graduate is a man of faith, integrity and scholarship" - character traits I can get behind. The Catholic order that runs the school focuses on social justice. Catholicism, while not my favorite partly because of their strong adherence to dogma, is a very broad denomination. Some orders, like the Jesuits, focus on teaching, some on serving the poor, some on priestly duties; there is a whole array of emphases and attitudes in the Catholic Church. D had told me a little about this particular school and that the 10th grade theology curriculum was all focused around social justice. I think this is unbelievably cool. So while the official Catholic Church stance on abortion is unequivocally "NO, and no birth control either!" the curriculum for this unit encourages broader discussion about the issue. I can only dream that public schools would allow this sort of discussion around the topic!

( So what did I talk about? )

Overall, it was a really successful and enjoyable day. I'm going back next Thursday to speak to D's third theology class. I look forward to it.

10,000 BC. I saw it. Last night, with Adam, alizarin71 and our upstairs neighbor. It was a fun outing. But SUCH a stupid movie. It is possible that my extreme tiredness made me prone to the severe crankiness I experienced upon leaving the theatre. Besides being a ridiculous hodgepodge of culture, archeological, geographical and historical elements and being pretty dull in plot, the film also triggered one of my major pet peeves: a movie made by men all about men, featuring nothing but men (I'm sorry, two women characters don't count).

Yet when I enumerate the good things about this film I wonder why I'm so annoyed. Here are the good things about the movie:
+Beautifully shot, great art design, nice music
+Features hardly any white people!! *(BUT...)
+The love interest saves herself at the end *
+Great values - loyalty, keeping your word, being brave, stepping up to responsibility, affection between men, banding together in unity makes great things possible *
+Very well done special effects
+No sex or nudity or swearing (how rare is that in a grown up movie??)

I want to add silly escapist fun to that list, but honestly the movie was kind of boring. Very formulaic. We know what's going to happen. Let's get to those Buts:
-There were hardly any white people, or at least plain white faces. However, the two whitest faces were the main man and woman. Perhaps I'm just picking a fight on this point, but I don't think so. There was some legend about a blue eyed woman, blah blah blah, so the main girl wore these horrible blue contacts, making her look vapid since her pupils never changed in size. Not something we think about normally, but try reading a face whose pupils never alter. Weird.

-The love interest/main woman (Evolet) does indeed save herself when she is taken by one of the baddies in the end. Which was great. And she does show strength of character and resourcefulness throughout the film. But the movie isn't about her, even though she's the reason D'let (main guy) goes on this journey. Evolet is a woman to whom things happen. In that regard she is a completely passive woman. Her lines, which are few, consist mainly of "You came back for me" "You left me behind" etc. Pah! The other woman is the main tribal elder, the seer-woman. But she also doesn't DO anything. Again, she is a passive woman to whom visions come. I AM SO BORED WITH THIS FEMALE TROPE.

-The values of the film are great. I wholly support them - for men or for women. Yet repeatedly these values are only demonstrated by men and discussed in male terms. There is a great set of lines where Tik'tik, D'let's mentor and tribal chief, tells D'let that "Every man draws a circle around himself. For most men that involves himself, his woman and his children. Some men draw a larger circle that encompasses his larger family and maybe his tribe. But some men draw an even bigger circle that encompasses even more people." (paraphrased, emphasis mine) I guess women don't need to think about their own boundaries since we're just objects to be won and bred with. Where are the movies showing women acting valiantly, with strength and honor and dedication to a higher cause? Oh, I'm sure they're out there, but let's also clarify this: where are those movies with women embodying those values without being martyrs or at the expense of their male counterparts?

I also think that so many of modern middle class films employ the "band together and rise up against injustice/usurpers!" motif and I am continually confused by this. Do we like this and relate because it reminds us of our early American history? Because we sure as hell ain't banding together to overthrow injustice, tyranny or theocracy today. In the film, the tribal people band together to free their people from slavery at the hands of the greedy, religiously insane proto-Egyptians building their pyramidical symbols of power and largesse. So we root for these tribes - they are in the right! Down with tyranny! But do we connect this kind of injustice with sweat shop labor? Or migrant produce pickers? Or sex trafficking? Or even religious hegemony in our own modern politics? Of course we don't. Do we just live vicariously through these characters? That's my guess. Better to support honor and loyalty and bravery in the face of injustice in fictional characters than have to be those things ourselves.

Ok, I may be taking a silly movie out of context. Sure. Each movie on it's own is fine, but when we have the vast majority of films with this sort of structure, and CERTAINLY the vast majority of films made by men about men for men, I do not think I'm overreacting. [This is where I get shit for loving 300. I do see the irony, the hypocrisy. I still maintain that 300 is camp. I also still have no problem with people liking individual films. Hell, if I hated every misogynist, patriarchal film I'd never like anything. By the way, no comments on 300. I'm looking at you Alizarin!]

As an experiment, I decided to reorder my netflix queue to reflect movies about women (for example, Fellini films about women don't count) or by women - 22 out of 170. I've decided that I need a break from all this maleness. So for some undefined period of time I will only listen to music by women, watch films about women and/or by women, and read books by and/or about women. Depending how long I decide to do this I may have to make an exception in June for the first opera in Wagner's Ring Cycle at the SF Opera. And of course, there's the new Batman film coming out this summer AND the Ironman movie (both movies made by men about men, superheroes no less) starring the immeasurably wonderful Robert Downy Jr. But those I can catch on DVD if need be.

It's not that I hate men, it's that I loathe the patriarchy.

In this month's issue of Vogue two female governors are profiled: Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kansas) and Sarah Palin (R-AK). It's a good article profiling two strong and competent women in government. I think it's cool that Vogue decided to profile them. Occasionally Vogue has a great article... good thing I knew to watch for this, otherwise I'd have missed it seeing as how I'm not a Vogue reader. I think it's interesting that Palin is not photographed upclose or in her traditional hair-up-and-glasses look. She's quite an attractive woman, however you dress her.

Also, this AP article lists Sarah Palin as a possible Republican VP pick. I think that would be cool. She's the only Republican woman on the list of potentials. Sebelius is also listed as a possible VP pick, but for the Dems.

I made the mistake of watching the cell phone video of the stoning to death of a 17 year old Iraqi girl. It was an "honor killing." As Twisty Faster posted:

The Daily Mail and other reports title the story more or less like this: “Teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy.” Implying that the girl, however much sympathy we have for her, nevertheless brought the savagery on herself.

I knew better than to watch it. I think there are more than one? I've gotten emails, seen various posts, but finally went back and clicked on one. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I did not need to see a mostly dead girl, with her skirt up around her waist, bloodied, surrounded by a circle of men yelling and picking up huge rocks and hurling them on her.

Do I cry? Do I throw up?

Men are scary. How can women thrive, much less live, in a place where making a personal choice violates some other man's claim to property and he can, with a little help from his friends, kill you? In broad daylight. And no one will stop them.

And people roll their eyes when I talk about feminism and patriarchy.

I am not surprised that I scored quite masculine given the few questions on assertiveness. Highly gendered questions. Now, if they had asked questions about cooking, chores, entertaining, etc I would have scored feminine for sure.

Anyway. I hope everyone out there had a great holiday. I threw a Yule party. I have been told it was a success but I wasn't very present for it. My head was fuzzy and I was so tired. However, I accomplished a major feat: I made a successful Christmas pudding and sauce. It was my first time (I think) making this traditional UK/Australian dessert. I was so excited that it turned out that I wanted to immediately call my mother in Australia and be all child-like, "Look Mumma! Look what I made!" I restrained myself.
Christmas itself was a calm, peaceful event. The lack of obligation or pressure from family made the holiday truly relaxing and gave me plenty of time to think about what the holiday actually means to me.

Now we are rolling into the new year. I have been thinking about new year's resolutions. Normally I eschew them. I never go out on new year's eve (drunken crowds, expensive drinks, and drunk drivers, no thank you). But this year.... this year deserves a drunken going out. It's also been an autumn of winnowing and re-evaulation. My new year's resolutions are to get more excersize (I am getting a bike!) and to get my finances in order. The last one will be the real challenge. I pay a lot in student loans; without them I'd be doing quite nicely! I want to start saving. I want to be able to travel more. It is absurd to me that I don't travel - ever. I go to Australia every so many years on my parents' dime. I haven't been Home in a year and a half, and who knows when I will? I owe several people visits. It's time. I just gotta figure out how to make it happen. Someday, oh say about the summer of 2007, I'll need/want to leave Oakland. Where will I go? Seattle? Vancouver? Juneau? Wales? And how will I (we) get there?

This news story makes me sad and angry, and leaves me shaking my head. How can people assume that proximity to a homosexual relationship will warp children? How can we still be caught up on "sexual roles"? The poor daughters who now must live without their mother. I look forward to raising children in a home that doesn't care about gender or sex roles and is completely comfortable with things queer. I want my future daughters to know, like I told my neice once, that they can be anything they want to be when they grow up - they don't even have to be a girl. (Sons, likewise.)