In the comment section I've put the link to the NY post article that reports that Charlie Sheen's arrest for attacking his wife earlier this month has been followed by greater viewers of his show Two and a Half Men. He supposedly has a long history of violence against women and is still the highest-paid actor in television (that link is posted as well). I've seen a few episodes of this show and it is one of the most mysoginistic that I have ever seen. Unexpected in this day and age. I will probably post on mainstream media's perpetuation of gender stereotypes in a future post.
This is just infuriating to me for a couple reasons. One, having witnessed domestic violence (DV) as a child and being a target of child abuse, such news are little triggers and poke a bit at those emotional bruises. And on a larger level, it is another example of how the issue of violence against women is still lower priority in our society. Of course I understand that things are not clean cut when it comes to business and it is often about the bottom line. However, Tiger Woods lost a lot of advertising contracts for his recent reputation of *infidelity.* Can absolutely NOTHING be done in the entertainment industry such that actors' salaries are penalized for *violence* against women? I see this contradiction as another example of how as a society we outwardly denounce infidelity yet we don't even want to broach the issue of abuse. I'm certainly not saying that infidelity is a good thing, but I can understand how it is possible in a loving relationship and does not necessarily mean that the relationship is over but rather, is a symptom of a problem that could be worked on. Woods' history is much more intense I know, but his personal issues are just those: personal and are separate from his ability to play golf. But when someone is being abused, that is a much larger issue yet Charlie Sheen has not made news as heavily. Why the double-standard? Why do we care so much about keeping unhappy relationships in-tact on the surface despite horrific things that could be going on behind closed doors?
And that's the thing. There is still a lot of silence around the issue of violence against women. We have come much farther and as a society by finally realizing that the issue is not limited to a particular ethnicity, SES, sexual orientation, etc. And I think that the OJ Simpson case really opened the door for that understanding. But we have much farther to go. My experience just in this decade has been that people in general *still* like to avoid the issue or don't believe in how severe abuse can be. When I worked as a volunteer on a domestic violence (DV) hotline, I opened up to one of my coworkers on how my father, in addition to doing physical, verbal, emotional and mental abuse had stolen $15K from my mother's bank account. This led the woman (a volunteer on a DV hotline no less!) to sort of laugh it off and look in the other direction out of ....embarrassment? disbelief? thinking taking a spouse's money is not abuse? On that note, a lot of people have the misconception that all money is family money and so there's no such thing as stealing from a spouse. Well, one, that implies that individuals in couples are no longer individuals and two, when a woman is threatened with death and kept from having autonomy, that sure as shit is abuse, particularly when it's that amount of money-it's her livlihood.
I'd like to believe that people's denial is from a place of love, not wanting to belief that humans are capable of treating "loved ones" in that way. And I'd like to believe that the silence around the issue (since the abuse mostly happens inside walls) makes it unbelievable, not that people think abuse is okay. Well we need to start breaking the silence.
Here are some tips if someone you know discloses experience with domestic violence:
-Listen
-The person might want to hear things like "I'm sorry" "That must've been hard" "Can I give you a hug?" "You are strong and have done a lot despite your experiences and I'm proud of you" "It's okay to get therapy if you think it's impacting your personal goals" "How can I help?" You can choose one or combination of those that fit for you.
-Do NOT take sides. I've had people side with my father or empathize overtly with him but not me (it's true) as well as denounce him. Through my healing process I've been able to have some empathy for him. The parent or spouse or partner is also a human being that the victim has something vested in. Speaking negatively toward the person rather than the behavior does not foster an alliance or trust between you and the person opening up to you.
-Do NOT say things like "that was in the past" or "everyone has problems." Of course those things are true but they are not helpful to the healing process and the person will not feel understood. The person is approaching you or talking about it because the issue still has an impact on him or her and there probably is deeper pain that they don't want to be alone with. All problems deserve empathy, and that is needed before progress can be made.
-Realize that a victim is not automatically "a mess" or psychopathological or cannot function. It is one form of pain that they have experienced that they need help with. Sadly, I've had a co-worker in a shelter once say, "Victims of DV are so broken that I don't think I could be friends with them." That's not compassion. Further, DV is very prevalent; in my research I found some studies that estimated that 1 in 4 women have at one point been abused by a man who said he "loved her."
-Do NOT say, "You must've done something bad in order for him to treat you like that." We had callers on the hotline who told us that police officers had told them that. This was said in *this* decade.
If you are a victim of domestic violence:
-Let yourself cry if you need to.
-Be judicious in who you talk to. Get a feel for if the person can be trusted and with what they can be trusted.
-Talk to a therapist. Unfortunately, going to therapy has some shame and stigma associated with it in our society, and that needs to be broken down too. Therapy is simply getting guidance from someone who can provide it objectively.
-You have the right to process the pain from the past, regardless of your station in life.
We need more compassion and courage so our society can progress...
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Patrick Stewart speaks on domestic violence.
So incredibly moving, that I do not want to detract from it with my own commentary. Will probably post on the issue at a later time. Don't know how to get links in a blog, so the url is in the comment.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
So I'm pro-death?
It is always funny to me that the anti-choice side is more often called pro-life rather than anti-choice. Oh yeah, since I'm pro-choice, I must be advocating for as much death as possible.
How did a fetus that is far from being a complete, independent human being get more status than the woman who already has a life to live? Not to mention that she has to put her body at risk to have the baby? And the fact that most pro-lifers are men? Oh that's right, they don't actually have to go through the process of pregnancy and giving birth.
Furthermore, have we gone completely BONKERS and forgotten a key component of our governmental structure that our forefathers enacted? Gee, I don't know, *separation* of church and state??? Though I might disagree, I can see how folks can see a moral and religious issue with abortion. But just become something is against the law does not mean it is not moral (e.g. drug use). If a woman finds herself with an unintended pregnancy, it is more appropriate for her to seek guidance from religious leaders, family, friends, etc. The LAW should not be telling her what she can or cannot do with her own body. But oh, that's right, we don't encourage open talk about sex and expressing sexuality, nor comprehensive sex education. If a teenage girl finds herself pregnant, she might feel too ashamed to go to anyone in her life. But the pro-lifers think she SHOULD have to resort to a coat hanger or back-alley abortion.
The facts:
-Pregnancy significantly increases your risk for death.
-There can be life-changing conditions to be dealt with after childbirth, such as gestational diabetes becoming full-fledged diabetes.
-Abortions intended to end pregnancy happen in the first trimester, when the pregnancy is most at risk anyway. A lot can happen in the body at that time that could lead to a miscarriage. That's why it's advised that a woman not tell too many people she's pregnant until after the first trimester.
-A condom can break, birth control is not always fool-proof, and rape and incest do happen. Further, birth control pills come with risk and can cause other problems that last for years after stopping use.
-Many girls and women resort to using coat hangers to end pregnancies because of the stigma of being pregnant outside of wedlock, or not having the means to raise a child, or not having the health care needed for a healthy pregnancy (in which case adoption is not even an option). Think this still doesn't happen? Think again..through my clinical work I've heard a handful of such incidences related to clients or someone they knew. So pro-lifers are pro-life how exactly?
If we care so much about saving lives, that to me implies we care about quality, healthy lives:
-Then breast implants and most plastic surgeries should be made illegal. (But wait, no, women gotta have big boobs and be barefoot and pregnant.)
-18 year-olds (kids, basically) should not be sent off to risk their lives for a war that was never clearly justified.
-And oh, men should not be allowed to masturbate, cuz by doing so they are killing half of a life, or those precious sperm God created to make babies. But wait, that's right, men are by nature animalistic and sexual. They HAVE to masturbate every day.
Valenti cites in The Purity Myth (and I might not get this completely correct as the draft I had written was accidentally deleted and I already returned the book to the library) that one woman was charged with murder for refusing a c-section that resulted in one of her twins being still-born. Um, hello! Stillborns can happen even when the doctors think vaginal childbirth is safe. She also cites another woman almost being prosecuted for not reporting her miscarriage in-time. (um, okay.??) And these incidences happened in this decade. Yes, efforts to take away women's control over their own bodies has occurred in many ways. It needs to be up to the woman (and those in her life with whom she CHOOSES to consult) to decide when to have a child and how to go about it. It is her body being put at risk-isn't it her decision on when and how to give birth and whether or not to go through major surgery?
Legislation needs to be based on facts and how it impacts those already living. But unfortunately, people still think that their own religious ideology (or desire to keep women in their place) needs to drive legislation. Abortion should be against the law because someone else thinks that by getting one the woman is killing a soul? Um, don't think so. I just see it as another form of birth control.
Think of how many women's lives would be saved if we just advocated for open communication about sex, comprehensive sex education, and open access to birth control and safe abortions. Yet pro-lifers not only want to make abortion illegal, they want abstinence only programs; that is like pretending that the desire to have sex does not exist. They are shooting themselves in the foot. If they cannot see that, that leaves another explanation: they want women's autonomy to be taken away such that they can only resort to serving men.
It's interesting to me that as a society we have become so self-involved with our busy lives that we don't have time to take the initiative to reach out. Yet we don't hesitate in being judgmental about things that don't impact us, like what others do with their bodies. Much like the saying "Against gay marriage? Then don't have one", I believe "Against abortion? Then don't have one!"
How did a fetus that is far from being a complete, independent human being get more status than the woman who already has a life to live? Not to mention that she has to put her body at risk to have the baby? And the fact that most pro-lifers are men? Oh that's right, they don't actually have to go through the process of pregnancy and giving birth.
Furthermore, have we gone completely BONKERS and forgotten a key component of our governmental structure that our forefathers enacted? Gee, I don't know, *separation* of church and state??? Though I might disagree, I can see how folks can see a moral and religious issue with abortion. But just become something is against the law does not mean it is not moral (e.g. drug use). If a woman finds herself with an unintended pregnancy, it is more appropriate for her to seek guidance from religious leaders, family, friends, etc. The LAW should not be telling her what she can or cannot do with her own body. But oh, that's right, we don't encourage open talk about sex and expressing sexuality, nor comprehensive sex education. If a teenage girl finds herself pregnant, she might feel too ashamed to go to anyone in her life. But the pro-lifers think she SHOULD have to resort to a coat hanger or back-alley abortion.
The facts:
-Pregnancy significantly increases your risk for death.
-There can be life-changing conditions to be dealt with after childbirth, such as gestational diabetes becoming full-fledged diabetes.
-Abortions intended to end pregnancy happen in the first trimester, when the pregnancy is most at risk anyway. A lot can happen in the body at that time that could lead to a miscarriage. That's why it's advised that a woman not tell too many people she's pregnant until after the first trimester.
-A condom can break, birth control is not always fool-proof, and rape and incest do happen. Further, birth control pills come with risk and can cause other problems that last for years after stopping use.
-Many girls and women resort to using coat hangers to end pregnancies because of the stigma of being pregnant outside of wedlock, or not having the means to raise a child, or not having the health care needed for a healthy pregnancy (in which case adoption is not even an option). Think this still doesn't happen? Think again..through my clinical work I've heard a handful of such incidences related to clients or someone they knew. So pro-lifers are pro-life how exactly?
If we care so much about saving lives, that to me implies we care about quality, healthy lives:
-Then breast implants and most plastic surgeries should be made illegal. (But wait, no, women gotta have big boobs and be barefoot and pregnant.)
-18 year-olds (kids, basically) should not be sent off to risk their lives for a war that was never clearly justified.
-And oh, men should not be allowed to masturbate, cuz by doing so they are killing half of a life, or those precious sperm God created to make babies. But wait, that's right, men are by nature animalistic and sexual. They HAVE to masturbate every day.
Valenti cites in The Purity Myth (and I might not get this completely correct as the draft I had written was accidentally deleted and I already returned the book to the library) that one woman was charged with murder for refusing a c-section that resulted in one of her twins being still-born. Um, hello! Stillborns can happen even when the doctors think vaginal childbirth is safe. She also cites another woman almost being prosecuted for not reporting her miscarriage in-time. (um, okay.??) And these incidences happened in this decade. Yes, efforts to take away women's control over their own bodies has occurred in many ways. It needs to be up to the woman (and those in her life with whom she CHOOSES to consult) to decide when to have a child and how to go about it. It is her body being put at risk-isn't it her decision on when and how to give birth and whether or not to go through major surgery?
Legislation needs to be based on facts and how it impacts those already living. But unfortunately, people still think that their own religious ideology (or desire to keep women in their place) needs to drive legislation. Abortion should be against the law because someone else thinks that by getting one the woman is killing a soul? Um, don't think so. I just see it as another form of birth control.
Think of how many women's lives would be saved if we just advocated for open communication about sex, comprehensive sex education, and open access to birth control and safe abortions. Yet pro-lifers not only want to make abortion illegal, they want abstinence only programs; that is like pretending that the desire to have sex does not exist. They are shooting themselves in the foot. If they cannot see that, that leaves another explanation: they want women's autonomy to be taken away such that they can only resort to serving men.
It's interesting to me that as a society we have become so self-involved with our busy lives that we don't have time to take the initiative to reach out. Yet we don't hesitate in being judgmental about things that don't impact us, like what others do with their bodies. Much like the saying "Against gay marriage? Then don't have one", I believe "Against abortion? Then don't have one!"
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Surprise! I like sex.
One of my ex-boyfriends and I were at the store one time and I picked up a box of condoms. When I brought it to the check-out line, he said to me "you dirty girl."
Another, very *square* ex-boyfriend of mine asked me what my intentions with him were and then said "cuz you don't seem like the kind of person who just wants to have fun."
One of my fellow cast members brought up the topic of sex in the green room and asked something to the effect of "what's bad sex?" Someone else responded with "depends on who it's with." I then said "depends on the sex." The cast member said, "Dang girl! And this coming from someone with two degrees????"
Notice anything common among these scenarios? It's pretty clear to me that even in the 21st century in the mind of supposedly educated folks, it's less okay for women to have casual sex, like sex, initiate sex, or talk about sex. If you think it's not, your head is in the sand.
Language certainly has an impact on our attitudes and culture and though we can't really be "perfect" about not perpetuating certain stereotypes, it is certainly our responsibility to at least be aware of them. On the show Friends, Monica tells Rachel "Chandler was pleasuring himself!" Rachel's response is "Eww, that couldn't have been fun to see. But you know, guys do that."
Only guys do that? Girls don't masturbate, or like sex? Apparently the idea of boys will be boys and girls are "sugar and spice and all things nice" has not completely gone away. My fellow cast member's comment makes me think "what, I can only choose brains or genitals but my body can't have both?" I remember how "losing my virginity" (notice the quotes) was such a life-changing decision and Jessica Valenti in her book The Purity Myth very brilliantly talks about how girls' and women's identities and self-worth should not be based on whether or not they engage in this very HUMAN desire and act. Yet someone as liberal, educated and open-minded as me has been impacted by society to where she was thinking "is he THE one? My body is ready but am I?" Once I do this, there's no turning back!
If you think about it, it's just sex for crying out loud. And it takes practice and it can get better and be different with different people. Some remote cultures in islands in the Pacific encourage an early start to sex with the attitude that it's healthy and takes practice. Our worth should not be based on whether or not we choose to take part in such a beautiful experience. But we should be educated about it and protect ourselves. Yet, in the 21st century, abstinence-only programs still exist and virginity on the wedding day is expected of the WOMAN but not the man.
I wonder if "the first time" is as big of a deal for boys, but I sense that it's not and I really resent that. In the book Valenti cites that "there is no working medical definition for the term 'virginity'." Despite this, "losing our virginities" is a big deal. She also cites that 'vaginal rejuvenation' in which the vagina is tightened or hymen is replaced is the fastest growing form of plastic surgery in the US today." So it's not okay to have sexual, HUMAN, experiences. We must "purify" ourselves to be worthy.
In the movie Garden State he says to her something to the effect of "You're innocent and I don't want him to take that innocence from you." Girls and women have to be innocent but boys and men can be around the block a few times and not be judged in the same way. As my sister so beautifully said, "We're all human. Can't we all just have experiences?" So in fact, this message is just as prevalent in our current century as it was before. And if we support such shows and movies, we are part of perpetuating the problem. We cannot completely control what Hollywood makes, but we can certainly speak out about the gender inequities.
But we first need to make the effort to think about them in order to do so, rather than being blind or passive observers.
Another, very *square* ex-boyfriend of mine asked me what my intentions with him were and then said "cuz you don't seem like the kind of person who just wants to have fun."
One of my fellow cast members brought up the topic of sex in the green room and asked something to the effect of "what's bad sex?" Someone else responded with "depends on who it's with." I then said "depends on the sex." The cast member said, "Dang girl! And this coming from someone with two degrees????"
Notice anything common among these scenarios? It's pretty clear to me that even in the 21st century in the mind of supposedly educated folks, it's less okay for women to have casual sex, like sex, initiate sex, or talk about sex. If you think it's not, your head is in the sand.
Language certainly has an impact on our attitudes and culture and though we can't really be "perfect" about not perpetuating certain stereotypes, it is certainly our responsibility to at least be aware of them. On the show Friends, Monica tells Rachel "Chandler was pleasuring himself!" Rachel's response is "Eww, that couldn't have been fun to see. But you know, guys do that."
Only guys do that? Girls don't masturbate, or like sex? Apparently the idea of boys will be boys and girls are "sugar and spice and all things nice" has not completely gone away. My fellow cast member's comment makes me think "what, I can only choose brains or genitals but my body can't have both?" I remember how "losing my virginity" (notice the quotes) was such a life-changing decision and Jessica Valenti in her book The Purity Myth very brilliantly talks about how girls' and women's identities and self-worth should not be based on whether or not they engage in this very HUMAN desire and act. Yet someone as liberal, educated and open-minded as me has been impacted by society to where she was thinking "is he THE one? My body is ready but am I?" Once I do this, there's no turning back!
If you think about it, it's just sex for crying out loud. And it takes practice and it can get better and be different with different people. Some remote cultures in islands in the Pacific encourage an early start to sex with the attitude that it's healthy and takes practice. Our worth should not be based on whether or not we choose to take part in such a beautiful experience. But we should be educated about it and protect ourselves. Yet, in the 21st century, abstinence-only programs still exist and virginity on the wedding day is expected of the WOMAN but not the man.
I wonder if "the first time" is as big of a deal for boys, but I sense that it's not and I really resent that. In the book Valenti cites that "there is no working medical definition for the term 'virginity'." Despite this, "losing our virginities" is a big deal. She also cites that 'vaginal rejuvenation' in which the vagina is tightened or hymen is replaced is the fastest growing form of plastic surgery in the US today." So it's not okay to have sexual, HUMAN, experiences. We must "purify" ourselves to be worthy.
In the movie Garden State he says to her something to the effect of "You're innocent and I don't want him to take that innocence from you." Girls and women have to be innocent but boys and men can be around the block a few times and not be judged in the same way. As my sister so beautifully said, "We're all human. Can't we all just have experiences?" So in fact, this message is just as prevalent in our current century as it was before. And if we support such shows and movies, we are part of perpetuating the problem. We cannot completely control what Hollywood makes, but we can certainly speak out about the gender inequities.
But we first need to make the effort to think about them in order to do so, rather than being blind or passive observers.
Welcome!
The idea to start this blog was sparked today as I was reading The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti. In general, whether I'm reading a book on women's issues or not, I am constantly battling them in my head. Being a woman, being raised by a woman who was in a terribly abusive marriage and yet displayed amazing strength and courage, and being passionate about striving for a world in which women are no longer oppressed, made me realize that I need to start blogging about all the "ah-ha" moments I have through these internal conversations.
You might be wondering about the blog title. Being a feminist, I still shudder just a tinge at using the word, not because I'm ashamed of being one (quite the contrary! as you will see in subsequent posts. :) ) but because of the connotation that the term has in our society today. It has become equated with "Feminazi" and male-hating and crazy and loud and ornery and bra-burning (which incidentally never did occur but the rumor spread like wildfire, as Sheila Tobias states in her book The Faces of Feminism). And in order to start the conversation with non-feminists to get closer to a more liberated world, perhaps using language that does not make people shudder could help.
But I am *not* a feminazi, hence the title "Femi-non-zi." I am about women being empowered, using more of their talents and abilities, not being viewed as sluts for enjoying sex, and not being told that they cannot, or should not, or *should*, just because they are women. I am for women's happiness NOT being based only on whether or not they are married, or have a boyfriend, or have kids, or have a particular type of body. I advocate for women making their own money to which their own name is attached so that they don't have to depend on someone for their livelihood. And I advocate for the law to stay away from their bodies.
As a dear friend of mine once so profoundly told me, there is a difference between "equality" and "equity." And to me, equality implies there is an equal sign, that everything on the right will balance out exactly to everything on the left. But the reality of the world is, that is not possible nor is it necessary. It's not possible in a relationship to use a balance sheet to check that one spouse did the dishes exactly 1/2 the time and the other 1/2 the time. Similarly, perhaps women cannot be totally equal to men and vice versa. After all, women have to be the ones to bear children, at least today, for the most part anyway. But that does not mean that the ground cannot be more equitable for the genders in society, just as a healthy relationship can be without a balance sheet for each chore.
So the goal of this blog is to share ah-ha moments and ideas on how we can get closer to more equity between men and women. I look forward to your thoughts!
You might be wondering about the blog title. Being a feminist, I still shudder just a tinge at using the word, not because I'm ashamed of being one (quite the contrary! as you will see in subsequent posts. :) ) but because of the connotation that the term has in our society today. It has become equated with "Feminazi" and male-hating and crazy and loud and ornery and bra-burning (which incidentally never did occur but the rumor spread like wildfire, as Sheila Tobias states in her book The Faces of Feminism). And in order to start the conversation with non-feminists to get closer to a more liberated world, perhaps using language that does not make people shudder could help.
But I am *not* a feminazi, hence the title "Femi-non-zi." I am about women being empowered, using more of their talents and abilities, not being viewed as sluts for enjoying sex, and not being told that they cannot, or should not, or *should*, just because they are women. I am for women's happiness NOT being based only on whether or not they are married, or have a boyfriend, or have kids, or have a particular type of body. I advocate for women making their own money to which their own name is attached so that they don't have to depend on someone for their livelihood. And I advocate for the law to stay away from their bodies.
As a dear friend of mine once so profoundly told me, there is a difference between "equality" and "equity." And to me, equality implies there is an equal sign, that everything on the right will balance out exactly to everything on the left. But the reality of the world is, that is not possible nor is it necessary. It's not possible in a relationship to use a balance sheet to check that one spouse did the dishes exactly 1/2 the time and the other 1/2 the time. Similarly, perhaps women cannot be totally equal to men and vice versa. After all, women have to be the ones to bear children, at least today, for the most part anyway. But that does not mean that the ground cannot be more equitable for the genders in society, just as a healthy relationship can be without a balance sheet for each chore.
So the goal of this blog is to share ah-ha moments and ideas on how we can get closer to more equity between men and women. I look forward to your thoughts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
