Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
But do you realize what you have to DO???
Okay, so...Al and Tipper Gore are getting a SHOCKING divorce. Why is it so shocking? I don't know; I suppose just because it's in the news, and everything in the news is SHOCKING! (Even when it's not.) So, Joy Behar decided to cover the story on her HLN show. A cursory Google search did not turn up a transcript or video, so you'll have to take my word for what transpired.
Okay, of course, they went through the whole being-shocked-about-the-Gores-splitting up thing, and then started speculating on "WHY????" Because, Al and Tipper say they just want to be not married anymore, and there isn't "someone else" for either of them, and...people are having an unbelievably hard time just believing them; there must be something more. Anyway, so they were speculating about who is "really" cheating...and Judy Gold, (a lesbian comedienne; yeah, it's relevant), said, "You know, I think it's Tipper cheating! I think she's cheating with a woman!"
The other people followed with disgruntled "nah"s, and the like, and when they settled down, another [presumably] straight woman on the panel besides Joy, (and I didn't recognize her, and the cursory search turns up nothing, so I can't find her name, sorry,) said something to the effect of, "Oh, I'd leave my husband for a woman, sure, if I was sick of him. I'd just say, 'Screw it.' Why not?"
Behar's reply was, "But do you realize what you have to DO???"
It was really a rather homophobic thing to say. Not because I think Behar was trying to be malicious...just because, well, our society is homophobic and I don't think people realize what they are saying when they say, "Ew, I could never do that," or some variation. It's like the equivalent of a straight person saying, "Yeah, my husband/wife and I, we've been together x years and have y kids," to a gay person, who then says, "Ew...I could never do the whole PIV thing, sorry..." Even though that might be true, it's still uncalled for. And besides, I was a little put out that a straight couple splitting up has fuck all to do with lesbians, (so far as we know right now,) but you know, there go lesbians, as a demograph, across the coals...for um, laughs, on a very important "news" (gossip) show...and a lesbian was the one who hung the lesbian piñata, by accusing a presumably straight woman of being a lesbian...believe it or else, y'all! Even if Gold's suspicions are genuine...especially if her suspicions are genuine...give your sisters a little respect, all right? Let them have some dignity. Have you not been in this world long enough to know what happens when gay people get jokingly brought into a conversation? They get made fun of...and some of us just don't appreciate it, even when it's "good natured." (Yeah...)
But all that aside, there is another reason I wanted to have this post. There's more than homophobia in the joking comment that Behar made; there's another dark undercurrent. Do you realize what you have to DO?
Of course, the panelists didn't venture into any discussion or explanation of what you have to do; they just abandoned it after some laughs. I guess there was really no reason for any of us to wonder what you have to do...we already know, don't we? Hahahahahaha. Ha. Ha. But I do wonder. What do you have to do? Honestly, I want to know....what do you have to do?
Do you have to be sexual with a woman to have a relationship with her? Is that the implication? Why? Not that the other woman even said that she didn't...Behar just assumed she didn't, because, of course, "Ew," but I'll just follow her lead and also assume (argument's sake, and such) that the other woman didn't want sex with women. Why would that preclude her from a relationship with another woman? If one woman can want a relationship with a woman without sex, why can't two women? And why can't those two women have a relationship with each other when they find each other? Where does the obligation come in? Where does the expectation come in? Sure, some women will not consider having relationships with women unless there will be sex. But some women would be willing...even pleased or relieved.
I don't like this way we, as a society in general, treat sex like it is inevitable; like it's an obligation, like it is ever something that someone can legitimately owe someone else. But yet, we do. You can't really be free to give sexual attention to someone purely because you want to if you're not equally free not to give it purely because you don't want to.
I have been researching asexuality, because I realized that I didn't know anything about it, and I wanted to know more. I am indebted to the asexual bloggers that have taught me so much about freedom and consent. I mean, I have been reading about feminism, and rape, and consent for years now, but reading the asexual blogs made me realize just how bad our culture is about associating sex and obligation, and further associating them both with love. "If you really loved me, you would pay the toll." Is love really like that? Is sex really like that? Really? Why? It doesn't have to be. It shouldn't be.
If you don't realize what you have to do, let me tell you: nothing. You have to do nothing. Freedom is a fundamental human right. No matter what any government says; no matter what any society says. If you don't have freedom, then your rights are being violated. You don't relinquish your right to freedom when you are in a relationship; if your partner is ignoring your right to freedom, then your partner is violating your rights. They have the freedom to keep walking up the road if they don't like your freedom, but they don't have the right to make you do anything you don't want to do.
You have to do nothing. That's what you have to do.
Okay, of course, they went through the whole being-shocked-about-the-Gores-splitting up thing, and then started speculating on "WHY????" Because, Al and Tipper say they just want to be not married anymore, and there isn't "someone else" for either of them, and...people are having an unbelievably hard time just believing them; there must be something more. Anyway, so they were speculating about who is "really" cheating...and Judy Gold, (a lesbian comedienne; yeah, it's relevant), said, "You know, I think it's Tipper cheating! I think she's cheating with a woman!"
The other people followed with disgruntled "nah"s, and the like, and when they settled down, another [presumably] straight woman on the panel besides Joy, (and I didn't recognize her, and the cursory search turns up nothing, so I can't find her name, sorry,) said something to the effect of, "Oh, I'd leave my husband for a woman, sure, if I was sick of him. I'd just say, 'Screw it.' Why not?"
Behar's reply was, "But do you realize what you have to DO???"
It was really a rather homophobic thing to say. Not because I think Behar was trying to be malicious...just because, well, our society is homophobic and I don't think people realize what they are saying when they say, "Ew, I could never do that," or some variation. It's like the equivalent of a straight person saying, "Yeah, my husband/wife and I, we've been together x years and have y kids," to a gay person, who then says, "Ew...I could never do the whole PIV thing, sorry..." Even though that might be true, it's still uncalled for. And besides, I was a little put out that a straight couple splitting up has fuck all to do with lesbians, (so far as we know right now,) but you know, there go lesbians, as a demograph, across the coals...for um, laughs, on a very important "news" (gossip) show...and a lesbian was the one who hung the lesbian piñata, by accusing a presumably straight woman of being a lesbian...believe it or else, y'all! Even if Gold's suspicions are genuine...especially if her suspicions are genuine...give your sisters a little respect, all right? Let them have some dignity. Have you not been in this world long enough to know what happens when gay people get jokingly brought into a conversation? They get made fun of...and some of us just don't appreciate it, even when it's "good natured." (Yeah...)
But all that aside, there is another reason I wanted to have this post. There's more than homophobia in the joking comment that Behar made; there's another dark undercurrent. Do you realize what you have to DO?
Of course, the panelists didn't venture into any discussion or explanation of what you have to do; they just abandoned it after some laughs. I guess there was really no reason for any of us to wonder what you have to do...we already know, don't we? Hahahahahaha. Ha. Ha. But I do wonder. What do you have to do? Honestly, I want to know....what do you have to do?
Do you have to be sexual with a woman to have a relationship with her? Is that the implication? Why? Not that the other woman even said that she didn't...Behar just assumed she didn't, because, of course, "Ew," but I'll just follow her lead and also assume (argument's sake, and such) that the other woman didn't want sex with women. Why would that preclude her from a relationship with another woman? If one woman can want a relationship with a woman without sex, why can't two women? And why can't those two women have a relationship with each other when they find each other? Where does the obligation come in? Where does the expectation come in? Sure, some women will not consider having relationships with women unless there will be sex. But some women would be willing...even pleased or relieved.
I don't like this way we, as a society in general, treat sex like it is inevitable; like it's an obligation, like it is ever something that someone can legitimately owe someone else. But yet, we do. You can't really be free to give sexual attention to someone purely because you want to if you're not equally free not to give it purely because you don't want to.
I have been researching asexuality, because I realized that I didn't know anything about it, and I wanted to know more. I am indebted to the asexual bloggers that have taught me so much about freedom and consent. I mean, I have been reading about feminism, and rape, and consent for years now, but reading the asexual blogs made me realize just how bad our culture is about associating sex and obligation, and further associating them both with love. "If you really loved me, you would pay the toll." Is love really like that? Is sex really like that? Really? Why? It doesn't have to be. It shouldn't be.
If you don't realize what you have to do, let me tell you: nothing. You have to do nothing. Freedom is a fundamental human right. No matter what any government says; no matter what any society says. If you don't have freedom, then your rights are being violated. You don't relinquish your right to freedom when you are in a relationship; if your partner is ignoring your right to freedom, then your partner is violating your rights. They have the freedom to keep walking up the road if they don't like your freedom, but they don't have the right to make you do anything you don't want to do.
You have to do nothing. That's what you have to do.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Controlling your feelings
There are several trains of homophobic thought among people who are anti-gay, particularly religious people who are anti-gay. One is that gay people are just plain evil; they do bad because they are bad, and so on. Another is that they are misguided; something happened along the way that fucked them up and made them think that they feel this way, but of course, they don't really, because God would never design someone to feel this way on purpose. Then there is another theory that, yes, romantic feelings toward people of the same sex are natural, but rather than something to be embraced, they are put there as a hurdle...you know, like a test from God, to see if you have the willpower to overcome them and live a morally upright life, (ie, tie yourself up in an "opposite marriage" and make babies with your opposite-sex partner). Of course, there may be other anti-gay theories that I'm not identifying right now, but these seem to be the ones that I see recurring a lot. I've also made the observation that Evil Theory might be older, (although it is alive and well,) Fucked-Up Theory is like a historical connector between Evil Theory and Control-Your-Feelings Theory, but Control-Your-Feelings Theory is gaining a lot of momentum with the conservatives, (like Ted and Gayle Haggard, for example.) I suspect that the reason is that gay folk are visible enough now that haters have a hard time convincing people that they are the wanton murderers that they alleged in Days of Yore, and that they come from many diverse backgrounds of varying levels of fucked-upness, that it's even hard to blame their environments anymore. The only theory left for anti-gay conservatives is Control-Your-Feelings Theory.
When the anti-gay family member of a gay person learns of their relative's gayness, they sometimes have to muddle their way upward through all these theories on the way toward acceptance. Let's say there is this (hypothetical, of course) lesbian, whose parents generally think that gay folk are evil. Maybe not extremely evil, but evil enough to go to Hell when they die, just the same. They have a hard time believing that their own offspring could be evil, (which isn't surprising; even people with truly evil offspring have a hard time believing that little Teddy or little Jeff could actually kill all those people and chop them to bits.) Evil theory doesn't hold up long for the lesbian's parents, so they move on to Fucked-Up Theory. Was it because of all that simultaneous sexual harassment and rejection from boys at school? Was it because we signed the waiver to keep her out of Comprehensive Health Day? (and so on.) Eventually, they move on to Control-Your-Feelings Theory. Perhaps God did instill lesbian inclinations in their daughter, so that she could valiantly defeat them, because God believed in her. A lot. And let's say that her parents spent the longest time in this mindset, and spent the next several years trying to convince her to kill these feelings and replace them with others.
Not only do anti-gay family members harm their gay relatives in the obvious ways when they speak and act toward them out of Control-Your-Feelings Theory, but there is a more subtle, yet possibly just as damaging way they affect their gay relatives.
The gay relatives, out of resistance, never learn how to control their feelings and kill off their love when it is appropriate to.
I suppose, in ways, they are not any worse off than straight people, whose impulses have been honored, nurtured, upheld, and celebrated as normal, natural, beautiful all their lives. I don't guess a person like that would have much cause to learn to control their feelings or kill off their love when it is appropriate to, either.
But I do think that after you've been actively instructed to change your feelings, ignore them, force yourself to feel some other way...that you might be more likely to allow whatever romantic feelings you have overtake you and overpower you with little thought to the consequences it could have for you and the people who care about you. I think you might be more likely NOT to realize when the LORD has put a hurdle in your way and challenged you to overcome it.
Suppose Hypothetical Lesbian gets involved in an abusive relationship. Suppose her now-accepting parents try to warn her that this woman is bad business, and she should stay away. "But I love her; you can't help who you love!" / "Yes, we know, but she's bad for you." / "I don't care; I love her, those are my feelings; I can't do away with them." / "You have to."
Controlling your feelings is not a bad idea all the time. While I think it's unproductive and abusive to insist that someone change their orientation, I think the art of controlling your feelings is one that gay and straight folk should both be skilled in. Sometimes love, natural though it might be, has to die in order for you to live. Killing your love for one woman who is bad business is not the same as killing your love for women, but I can see how a person might mistake them for being the same.
When the anti-gay family member of a gay person learns of their relative's gayness, they sometimes have to muddle their way upward through all these theories on the way toward acceptance. Let's say there is this (hypothetical, of course) lesbian, whose parents generally think that gay folk are evil. Maybe not extremely evil, but evil enough to go to Hell when they die, just the same. They have a hard time believing that their own offspring could be evil, (which isn't surprising; even people with truly evil offspring have a hard time believing that little Teddy or little Jeff could actually kill all those people and chop them to bits.) Evil theory doesn't hold up long for the lesbian's parents, so they move on to Fucked-Up Theory. Was it because of all that simultaneous sexual harassment and rejection from boys at school? Was it because we signed the waiver to keep her out of Comprehensive Health Day? (and so on.) Eventually, they move on to Control-Your-Feelings Theory. Perhaps God did instill lesbian inclinations in their daughter, so that she could valiantly defeat them, because God believed in her. A lot. And let's say that her parents spent the longest time in this mindset, and spent the next several years trying to convince her to kill these feelings and replace them with others.
Not only do anti-gay family members harm their gay relatives in the obvious ways when they speak and act toward them out of Control-Your-Feelings Theory, but there is a more subtle, yet possibly just as damaging way they affect their gay relatives.
The gay relatives, out of resistance, never learn how to control their feelings and kill off their love when it is appropriate to.
I suppose, in ways, they are not any worse off than straight people, whose impulses have been honored, nurtured, upheld, and celebrated as normal, natural, beautiful all their lives. I don't guess a person like that would have much cause to learn to control their feelings or kill off their love when it is appropriate to, either.
But I do think that after you've been actively instructed to change your feelings, ignore them, force yourself to feel some other way...that you might be more likely to allow whatever romantic feelings you have overtake you and overpower you with little thought to the consequences it could have for you and the people who care about you. I think you might be more likely NOT to realize when the LORD has put a hurdle in your way and challenged you to overcome it.
Suppose Hypothetical Lesbian gets involved in an abusive relationship. Suppose her now-accepting parents try to warn her that this woman is bad business, and she should stay away. "But I love her; you can't help who you love!" / "Yes, we know, but she's bad for you." / "I don't care; I love her, those are my feelings; I can't do away with them." / "You have to."
Controlling your feelings is not a bad idea all the time. While I think it's unproductive and abusive to insist that someone change their orientation, I think the art of controlling your feelings is one that gay and straight folk should both be skilled in. Sometimes love, natural though it might be, has to die in order for you to live. Killing your love for one woman who is bad business is not the same as killing your love for women, but I can see how a person might mistake them for being the same.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Book "Review"
I just finished reading Reverberations Across the Shimmering Cascadas by Jeffner Allen. She presents, as part of her philosophy, this idea that grammar conventions limit expression by defining the boundaries of expression, and therefore, they limit even what can be communicated. They don't always present us with words for concepts that we want to communicate, and they virtually forbid us from inventing our own words, and so if you are to follow their rules, there are things that you can't even talk about. It's not a notion that was completely new to me when I started reading her, but I think it may have been the first time I witnessed this principle in action.
Often, the biggest argument for standardized language is that if everyone were just allowed to do it in her/his own way, comprehension would be too difficult. Standardization provides universality and uniformity and makes most language most accessible to the most people. We have to agree to abide by a set of rules or else there won't be any structure. There'll be chaos! Sure, people of color will get marginalized. Sure, rural people will get marginalized. Sure, ESL people will get marginalized. Sure, queers will get marginalized. Sure, disabled people will get marginalized. Sure, every person who is not a standard person will get marginalized, but at least standardized language will be most accessible to most everyone. Standard language for standard people.
It took a moment to learn Jeffner's language, but once I did, I did not have any trouble comprehending what she was saying, and she was able to communicate with me more directly, and more intensely, and more immediately, and with considerably more emotion than is usual. It felt like a very smooth, effortless transmission from the text to my understanding.
I don't know her, and I didn't come to the book with any familiarity with her manner of writing, but that didn't matter. Her language is not my language, but it didn't matter. Her language served the purpose of language, and did a better job than standardized language does most of the time. So, the main argument that language works better when there are rules doesn't really hold up. Not really. She does a great job of demonstrating that, and also of telling a beautiful story (or stories) about the tenderness between women in lesbian relationships.
Often, the biggest argument for standardized language is that if everyone were just allowed to do it in her/his own way, comprehension would be too difficult. Standardization provides universality and uniformity and makes most language most accessible to the most people. We have to agree to abide by a set of rules or else there won't be any structure. There'll be chaos! Sure, people of color will get marginalized. Sure, rural people will get marginalized. Sure, ESL people will get marginalized. Sure, queers will get marginalized. Sure, disabled people will get marginalized. Sure, every person who is not a standard person will get marginalized, but at least standardized language will be most accessible to most everyone. Standard language for standard people.
It took a moment to learn Jeffner's language, but once I did, I did not have any trouble comprehending what she was saying, and she was able to communicate with me more directly, and more intensely, and more immediately, and with considerably more emotion than is usual. It felt like a very smooth, effortless transmission from the text to my understanding.
I don't know her, and I didn't come to the book with any familiarity with her manner of writing, but that didn't matter. Her language is not my language, but it didn't matter. Her language served the purpose of language, and did a better job than standardized language does most of the time. So, the main argument that language works better when there are rules doesn't really hold up. Not really. She does a great job of demonstrating that, and also of telling a beautiful story (or stories) about the tenderness between women in lesbian relationships.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Wednesday Night God Bless
Tonight is Wednesday...isn't it? *Sigh.* (This is what happens to you when you don't go to school or work for a long time.)
Anyway, this Wednesday night, God bless* Chely Wright.
Saw her in concert a few years ago with Brad Paisley. When I say a few years ago, I mean, it must've been, like...ten or so. That was around the time that I was trying to snag her videos on VHS off of CMT, (told you this was a while ago). All that while, she was in pain, and has been since she was in third grade, praying for God to let her not be gay, as she explains in the video above. My favorite part of the video is when she says that she feels like it is her birthday because she is finally out, and doesn't have to fear being exposed anymore. It's odd when the thing you fear most brings the most relief. (But I gotta disagree with the text at the bottom of that video box before you click it; she did not want to end her life over her sexuality. She wanted to end her life because our world is full of homophobic assholes. Her sexuality is not at fault for all of those tortured years.)
God also bless* Ceara Sturgis, whose senior picture got dropped out of the yearbook---not because she is gay and wore a tux, as many sources say, but because people hate queers, and because separate modes of dress for men and women are part of maintaining the (hetero)sexist status quo. Her gayness and tuxedo are NOT responsible for her exclusion.
(Photo credit, and additional article.)
You know, I think she may just have the most adorable senior picture anywhere in the world ever. And I'm about sure that neither Principal Ronald Greer, nor Superintendent Rickey Clopton, ever rocked their senior photo tuxes with such style and grace, despite all their very illustrious manly manliness. God bless Ceara for standing up for herself, and her mother, for standing beside her.
*God also bless everyone else in the world everywhere.
Anyway, this Wednesday night, God bless* Chely Wright.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Saw her in concert a few years ago with Brad Paisley. When I say a few years ago, I mean, it must've been, like...ten or so. That was around the time that I was trying to snag her videos on VHS off of CMT, (told you this was a while ago). All that while, she was in pain, and has been since she was in third grade, praying for God to let her not be gay, as she explains in the video above. My favorite part of the video is when she says that she feels like it is her birthday because she is finally out, and doesn't have to fear being exposed anymore. It's odd when the thing you fear most brings the most relief. (But I gotta disagree with the text at the bottom of that video box before you click it; she did not want to end her life over her sexuality. She wanted to end her life because our world is full of homophobic assholes. Her sexuality is not at fault for all of those tortured years.)
God also bless* Ceara Sturgis, whose senior picture got dropped out of the yearbook---not because she is gay and wore a tux, as many sources say, but because people hate queers, and because separate modes of dress for men and women are part of maintaining the (hetero)sexist status quo. Her gayness and tuxedo are NOT responsible for her exclusion.
(Photo credit, and additional article.)
You know, I think she may just have the most adorable senior picture anywhere in the world ever. And I'm about sure that neither Principal Ronald Greer, nor Superintendent Rickey Clopton, ever rocked their senior photo tuxes with such style and grace, despite all their very illustrious manly manliness. God bless Ceara for standing up for herself, and her mother, for standing beside her.
*God also bless everyone else in the world everywhere.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Bahahahahahaha....
This is from MySpace's home page today...
New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love ...
The Onion | MySpace Video
New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love ...
The Onion | MySpace Video
Monday, February 8, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
"Self-Respecting Turkey"
Any self-respecting turkey is going to be jealous that you'd rather have wine and cheese for Thanksgiving than his/her roasted flesh. You know, turkeys go to so very much trouble to make sure that their bodies are delicious to you.
I guess Facebook's ad bot missed the part of my profile that said "vegetarian"...
I meant to capture a screenshot of it the first time I saw it; it was too funny...well, funny and sad...the ad straight above it then was a plee to "virtually foster real cats" and "help them find homes." The juxtaposition of those two ads...I tell ya...
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Lab-Grown Pork
Well, scientists have figured out how to grow some mushy pork in the lab. It could end world hunger! That's something that grains, vegetables, fruits, and especially actual slaughtered animals have not been able to do thus far. But lab grown pork? Will end the world's troubles, it seems.
You see, animals won't have to suffer! (Except the ones that the original cells are taken from...we don't know how they feel about this budding innovation.) Vegetarians, well...they won't have to feel all those inconvenient feelings they feel about meat-eating anymore. Just ask PETA...they are among the ones that have been pushing for this new technology, (as is the Humane Society.)
And...hell, they can even control the amounts of fat and shit in the pork, making it better for you than natural pork! (I'm sure with a little more practice, they can impart the pork with all the nutrients you'd get from plant sources, too.)
I suppose that this new super food will be so perfect for the animals, for the environment, and for us, that I will be seen as a wasteful, ecosystem-murdering, selfish, old-school vegetarian for continuing to eat crops that take acres and acres of land to cultivate than simply eating pork grown from air and magic....as early as 2014, y'all...after all, once it's invented, I'm sure it's the ONLY thing people will eat...except maybe for some lab-grown chicken now and then. Some say that's been going on for years now.
I am trying to put my finger on exactly what part of the lab-grown pork news is giving me such a queasy feeling; why I feel the need to make fun of it so. Yes, the world hunger thing...that is a big part of it. That's a huge part of it. It's as though they believe that it's a shortage of food that causes world hunger...and not money and class and all that stuff that it's more comfortable for not-starving people not to think about. Other than that, I suppose I should be celebrating the idea that in the future, meat-eaters can have their meat without killing animals.
I guess it's because I know, as a vegetarian, that the deaths of the animals is part of the reason for meat-eating in the first place; if an animal has got to die for a human to eat, then that human...no matter what their own circumstances as far as oppression, or lack of it...gets to be the oppressor while they consume that food. If you're eating an animal's flesh, then you are a conqueror...even if you're typically the conquered. Even if you're poor, you're eating something that, until recently, only the wealthy could afford. When you're eating meat, there is someone lower than you, no matter how low you are on the interhuman "food-chain." I don't expect all meat-eaters to consider this; I suspect that it would disturb most to dwell on it too long, but that underlying social structure is there. It keeps animals "just animals," and that makes it all the more easy to buy all the other "just _______"s. Humans acquire a taste for meat because they eat meat; those things that you don't eat, you can't appreciate the taste of, and they eat meat because they kill animals. Maybe meat does taste good to people, but that's an effect of meat-eating, and not the cause of it.
Lab-grown pork operates under these principles: Humans will eat meat. Animals must die for meat to exist, unless we can produce it without the use of animals. Therefore, it is necessary to grow meat in a lab.
Vegetarianism operates under these principles: Humans don't need meat to live. Animals must die for meat to exist. So give up the meat.
For some reason, I think the second alternative is a bit simpler and more logical.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
On editing my "Interested In", and other things...
Okay, so...with her last post, Daisy made me curious enough about this FarmVille on Facebook stuff I've been seeing around that I decided to check it out.
So CUTE! The cuteness, it overwhelms me! Strawberries, and rice, and soybeans, and squash, and pumpkins, and raspberries, and...and...you can pick them...and horses, and cows, and trees! And you can make your avatar have a purple mohawk! And you can even have a house, when you get a couple more thousand coins than I have now...hehe. But, anyway....
I noticed that two of my neighbors, especially, have become seriously successful at FarmVille, so you know, I decided...why don't I look at their friend lists and see if there is anyone else I know? Obviously, they got like a zillion neighbors, and so they must have other FarmVille players...? So, I started looking at their lists, and damn....so many new profiles of high school people! I didn't realize there were that many people that I knew that weren't already on my list.
Among them was my best friend from seventh grade. She accepted my request almost immediately, and we started messaging/texting. She has two kids and a husband now. The discussion started turning in that direction, and then she was asking me if I'm married and/or have kids.
Well...see, I, just this week, edited my profile to take off that I was "Interested in: Women", that I was "Liberal," that I was "religious mutt," and the url to this blog. It's not that I mind my friends seeing; indeed, I had that stuff up there so they could check me out. But since I need to start working soon, I needed to clean some of that stuff off and delete some particularly controversial wall posts and notes, so that you know...when prospective employers look, they won't see any of that and be negatively influenced. It ain't fair, but it's life. I hate it, but it's life. I'm still thinking of changing my name to "Moody Springs" so they can't find me, ha!
Well, there was something very liberating about having my real information up there. Not omissions, but the truth. Especially "Interested in: Women." I waited till I was graduated from university to put it up there, and liked having it up there. In a way, it saved me the talking. No weird confrontation; no awkward moment where you finally go for it and just fucking tell them you're gay already...just a simple line of text on a web page. Let em read it, if they are curious enough about you to read all that stuff on the page. Let em ask you about it, if they are comfortable enough to do it and respectful enough when they do. It's not like I don't drop enough hints IRL.
Well, so now that's down, and the old anxiety is back. If I'd only had it up there, my seventh grade friend would know now. She would have seen it on her first view of my page. She'd be rejecting my friend request for it because she's so bothered by it, or rushing to tell me how okay it is, or any response between those, but she'd know, in any case. I tried to explain away the husbandandkids thing by saying that I don't really feel like a mother, and I'll leave it to the women like she who really feel that it is their path to do it. And all the while, that awful spiritual heartburn bubbling up...so familiar, but I haven't felt it in so long that it's strange. Horrid, I tell you. I don't know how I managed to live with it every day when I was young. Even with my parents! Even in the house here, where I live! I don't miss it.
I could put it back up there, but that would be stupid now. I would just have to take it back down later. Right now we've been texting a lot the past couple of hours, and if I start talking to her a lot, like in school, I'll end up having to tell her at some point. If it calms down, and she just stays one of the people on my list who I just type to once in awhile, then it ain't such a big deal. I guess I'll cross that bridge when I get there...and in the meantime, try to take the winding route that avoids that bridge. Ah...just like the good old days.
When I was in seventh grade, I barely knew I was queer myself. I'd be lying to say I didn't have any knowledge at all. Well, okay, I had quite a bit, but I refused to call myself queer. There would be a husband and kids one day, cuz that's how it was. I would just "experiment" as they say, while I was young, and then at the moment when I absolutely had to do the husbandandkids thing, I would do it. No one would be the wiser. Things would work out. I would be a normal woman, and good at it. God would love me, and everything would be all right.
God does love me, and everything will be all right...and better. I still think coming out sucks, though...
So CUTE! The cuteness, it overwhelms me! Strawberries, and rice, and soybeans, and squash, and pumpkins, and raspberries, and...and...you can pick them...and horses, and cows, and trees! And you can make your avatar have a purple mohawk! And you can even have a house, when you get a couple more thousand coins than I have now...hehe. But, anyway....
I noticed that two of my neighbors, especially, have become seriously successful at FarmVille, so you know, I decided...why don't I look at their friend lists and see if there is anyone else I know? Obviously, they got like a zillion neighbors, and so they must have other FarmVille players...? So, I started looking at their lists, and damn....so many new profiles of high school people! I didn't realize there were that many people that I knew that weren't already on my list.
Among them was my best friend from seventh grade. She accepted my request almost immediately, and we started messaging/texting. She has two kids and a husband now. The discussion started turning in that direction, and then she was asking me if I'm married and/or have kids.
Well...see, I, just this week, edited my profile to take off that I was "Interested in: Women", that I was "Liberal," that I was "religious mutt," and the url to this blog. It's not that I mind my friends seeing; indeed, I had that stuff up there so they could check me out. But since I need to start working soon, I needed to clean some of that stuff off and delete some particularly controversial wall posts and notes, so that you know...when prospective employers look, they won't see any of that and be negatively influenced. It ain't fair, but it's life. I hate it, but it's life. I'm still thinking of changing my name to "Moody Springs" so they can't find me, ha!
Well, there was something very liberating about having my real information up there. Not omissions, but the truth. Especially "Interested in: Women." I waited till I was graduated from university to put it up there, and liked having it up there. In a way, it saved me the talking. No weird confrontation; no awkward moment where you finally go for it and just fucking tell them you're gay already...just a simple line of text on a web page. Let em read it, if they are curious enough about you to read all that stuff on the page. Let em ask you about it, if they are comfortable enough to do it and respectful enough when they do. It's not like I don't drop enough hints IRL.
Well, so now that's down, and the old anxiety is back. If I'd only had it up there, my seventh grade friend would know now. She would have seen it on her first view of my page. She'd be rejecting my friend request for it because she's so bothered by it, or rushing to tell me how okay it is, or any response between those, but she'd know, in any case. I tried to explain away the husbandandkids thing by saying that I don't really feel like a mother, and I'll leave it to the women like she who really feel that it is their path to do it. And all the while, that awful spiritual heartburn bubbling up...so familiar, but I haven't felt it in so long that it's strange. Horrid, I tell you. I don't know how I managed to live with it every day when I was young. Even with my parents! Even in the house here, where I live! I don't miss it.
I could put it back up there, but that would be stupid now. I would just have to take it back down later. Right now we've been texting a lot the past couple of hours, and if I start talking to her a lot, like in school, I'll end up having to tell her at some point. If it calms down, and she just stays one of the people on my list who I just type to once in awhile, then it ain't such a big deal. I guess I'll cross that bridge when I get there...and in the meantime, try to take the winding route that avoids that bridge. Ah...just like the good old days.
When I was in seventh grade, I barely knew I was queer myself. I'd be lying to say I didn't have any knowledge at all. Well, okay, I had quite a bit, but I refused to call myself queer. There would be a husband and kids one day, cuz that's how it was. I would just "experiment" as they say, while I was young, and then at the moment when I absolutely had to do the husbandandkids thing, I would do it. No one would be the wiser. Things would work out. I would be a normal woman, and good at it. God would love me, and everything would be all right.
God does love me, and everything will be all right...and better. I still think coming out sucks, though...
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Sacred cow
This article discusses the difference between the way Americans (Christians) and Indians (Hindus) view cows.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Do you know what is brilliant?
This woman. And her bingo cards.
I decided to Google "anti-vegetarian bingo cards," because I have seen some funny ones for other topics around the 'net, and I thought surely that anti-veg ones must exist already. And they do. And they are great.
Especially the Speciesist Feminist one. This is my favorite block: "Considers veganism an eating disorder. Thinks you’re a misogynist for even suggesting it!" I've been thinking about this a lot since reading this post, which I found in a link from Shakesville. The post is titled, "It's not a diet, it's lifestyle activism," and lumps guilt over not eating vegan in the same category as guilt over eating too much/being too fat/drinking soda...(I suppose it is not too much a surprise that people would categorize veganism that way, considering the work of PETA.)
I had tried to write about this a few days ago, before I found the bingo cards, but it was all coming out angry and rantish. But after I read the bingo card, I pondered it some more, and I think I realize what pisses me off so bad about it.
You see, there are two reasons in the world why women, (or men, for that matter,) feel guilty:
1. Society burdens us from the moment we are born with a bunch of unnecessary guilt over things that we should not feel guilty about.
2. We have done something wrong, and damned ought to feel guilty for doing it.
I thoroughly believe that it's wrong that women are made to feel "guilty" because their bodies don't fit a socially constructed ideal, or because they don't want to go without food in oft-futile effort to achieve that ideal, but you know what? Meat is manufactured because meat-eaters provide a market for it, therefore, if you are a meat-eater, then yeah, you contribute to the reason why animals die. Impoverished people don't die because you ate or didn't eat,* but animals do die because you eat them. That cause-effect relationship is not merely an abstract or philosophical one. Lacto-ovo vegetarians like myself...we eat dairy and eggs, and we do contribute to the suffering and deaths of animals exploited for dairy and eggs. I feel bad about that, and not because maintainers of the misogynist status quo, (or the "green" subset of them,) are imploring me to feel that way. Sometimes guilt is genuine, and does come from inside, because it is warranted. Because our actions can have consequences that do reach beyond ourselves.
*Although it is true that people who are "have-nots" are so because others of us are "haves," a starving child is never going to be affected one iota specifically because you passed up the sweet or because you didn't clean your plate. There are things you can do to help them out, but your own eating or not eating is beside the point.
EDIT: After I think about it, I want to add that it is possible that a nonvegan isn't really responsible for the deaths of animals by consuming "animal products"...I mean, if you eat steak and wash it down with a big glass of milk, sure...but if you use soap with beef tallow in it, not so much. The original post did not make that distinction, so I wanted to at least mention it.
EDIT 2: A great example from the brilliant bingo woman, I found, as I'm reading her previous posts, to the point I was trying to make about our own starving not helping actual starving people.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Painting
What happens (among other things) in the life of your narrator while blogging slows down...
Speaking of Ellen....
I went to the Charter.net homepage so I could send my Pa an email. So far as I know, that is the only email I can email from that he has in his contacts, because whenever I email him from my "real" emails, he doesn't get them. Anyway, while I was on the home page, I saw this...
I mean...I suppose that is supposed to be Ellen; she's mentioned in the stories by the side, there. She's got a mic, and that goes with "Idol" I suppose...it looked like her till I focused on the picture...
Because it is the way most passers-through find my blog...
I've added the popular quote from Ellen DeGeneres in my banner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
