New Year's Resolutions

Fuck New Year's resolutions.  Yeah, you heard me.  Fuck 'em.  Fuck judging myself and pointing out to myself all the things that are wrong with me that I really should fix this time for real this year or something.  Fuck everything about it.  This year I'm going to have fun.  I could die, you know?  I could get hit by a god damn bus and have spent the entire year worrying about my weight.  Fuck that.  January, I'm going to get my shit in order.  I have a divorce and a move and stuff to worry about.  Then, every month after that, I'm going to have a theme and a fun.  I have had a little wine, but I've been thinking about this for a while.  Just trust me on this one.

I haven't thought out the whole year yet but February is going to be GIRL MONTH.  I am going to read books and articles only written by women and listen to music only written and performed (at least vocally) by women. I got the idea from CUNT (it is a feminist manifesto) and it sounds like a LOT of FUN!!!

After February, I don't know, but I think I might spend a month being a vegan just to try new things.  Then on some other month, I might try spending every weekend outside.  Maybe one month I'll learn an instrument, I don't know.  I'm going to enjoy the fuck out of 2012.

Even if I gain weight.

Even if I accomplish nothing.

Even if, by the end of 2012 I have all the same regrets I had at the end of 2011.  At least I won't have all the guilt.

Fuck New Year's resolutions.  Who's with me?

Getting Divorced Sucks

I have taken quite a long absence.  Why?  Short answer: I have a very demanding job.  I get Sundays off and sometimes Saturdays but those are few and far between.  I have to wake up to take the eldest to school every morning then come back home then get ready for work and work until 7:00.  There just isn't time for anything.  Oh well.  I'm good at my job and it pays well on good weeks, so this is just my life now.

Even before I took a long absence, I'd moved away from personal posts.  I just really don't like talking about what's going on now too much.  It's complicated and many-layered and there are a lot of feelings that could get hurt with even the slightest peek at the details.  In any case, I have a belly full of Chinese food and I wanted to get some things off my chest.

Getting divorced is not fun.  Rock has been my best friend for the last 10 years and, while I'd like to stay best friends for the rest of our lives, I know it would be selfish and unrealistic of me to expect him to go along with it.  I'm doing my best to earn it - I've not thrown around any insults, there have been no screaming fights, I have been very generous with custody/child support negotiating and have been careful not to get greedy while also not giving more of myself than I have to give.  Though the split was a mutual decision, I was the one who sort of pushed it along, so I'm glad that I did that before we had a chance to hate and resent each other, or rather, before we had a chance to start fighting all the time.  I know at this point I can expect him to resent me.  Anything less would be ridiculous.

I've gotten a good look at Rock's character through all this, too.  I thought after so many years of marriage, there probably wasn't a lot more to learn about him, but I suppose I never expected somebody to practice what they preach quite so well.  He's been very loving and loyal as he always has been.  He's been very kind to my girlfriend and has told the kids that they ought to be nice to her, too.  He treats her with respect and has been very welcoming.  I hope I can be as good a person about these things someday.  It's not always hugs and handshakes, but about 95% of the time it is and that's pretty awesome.

Another thing I've learned since leaving the relationship is that the only thing that ever kept us going was our respect and loyalty for each other.  We were and always will be very loyal and respectful toward one another and I absolutely love that and hope it will never go away.  I'll never tell the world all his faults and I doubt he even has it in him to start telling the world about mine.  I'll always treat him with respect.  However, as partners, we never even came close to working.  We had the same values but not the same needs.  I wanted to go exciting places and do exciting things and I largely ended up spending all of my time alone.  Friends and family can really only fill so much of that gap.  He, too, had needs I couldn't really fulfill.  We were both lonely.  What can I say?  We got married young and we grew apart.  We never even saw it coming.

It's hard to leave somebody I love and like so much.  It's even more difficult to explain to others, and it's still difficult to explain but...whatever, fuck it.  Maybe I'm underestimating you all.

Yes, I'm gay.  Rock was not surprised to learn that and nor was anyone else really except maybe me.  "How could somebody get to their 20s and not know that?" You might be asking.  Well...

I don't want to talk down to anyone, but for the sake of explaining it to as wide an audience as possible, I'll start with this:  Attraction is a complicated and many-layered thing.  There's romantic attraction and sexual attraction and some even say there's a third type but I haven't figured out how it's different from romantic so I'll just stick with two.  My romantic inclinations know no gender.  I was in love with Rock and with the guys I dated before him.  I fell in love with women, too, but was much too cowardly to say anything about it.  The men I fell for were available to me.  The women weren't.  So, I mostly dated men.  "But Heather, doesn't that make you bisexual?"  No.  It makes me bi-romantic.  That's the easiest way I can explain it.  From about age 16 or 17 on, I identified as bisexual to close friends, but was mostly quiet about it.  However, it recently became clear to me that I am by no means bisexual.

I am homosexual.  When I look at men, I can see that they look kind, or thin, or fit, or varying degrees of awesome or not-awesome, but I don't desire sex with them.  Cover your eyes, mom.  That does NOT mean that I never ENJOYED sex with them.  Sometimes, sex is about love and connection and bonding and making the person you love happy, not just about who makes my nipples hard.  In that respect, I very much enjoyed it and even sometimes found myself wanting it.  This is not the way I feel about sex with women.  With women, I can enjoy sex just because it's SEX and sex is AWESOME and OMG BOOBS.  *cough*  Sorry.

You can open your eyes now, mom.

I hope it makes sense as to why it's confusing, and I'm not the only one, either.  Apparently, while men tend to come out of the closet mostly in their teens and twenties, women come out pretty much evenly all throughout the decades of their lives.  I don't know why this is, some think hormones, I think it's possible that women's sexual peak being later has a lot to do with it, but it's really all speculation.

So that's a big part of why Rock and I are breaking up, but it's not ALL of it.  The kids are doing well with the adjustment and seem to understand what's going on.  They were already used to their dad going away for several months a year anyway, and now it's just the same thing except he'll be living apart.  Even the eldest, who fully understands, is happy.

Girlfriend moved in temporarily in late September when Rock went to Norway to do some work.  Rock is coming back on the 20th.  Girlfriend has been watching the kids while I go to work.  She loves the housewife thing and is better at it than I ever was.  She doesn't feel suffocated by it the way I did.  She asked Rock if she could stay through the holidays and Rock said he'd love the opportunity to get to know her better.  Again, he's pretty fucking awesome sometimes.  So, it'll be all of us here for the holidays.  Rock could have stayed in Norway to do work but wanted to come home cause this will be our last Christmas together as a family, as he puts it.  I hope we'll always be family.  We've decided officially to move apart when the school year is over, so long as we can figure immigration and stuff out.

It doesn't ALL suck.  I'm happy to be living my life genuinely.  I'm happy to be in a relationship where I can fulfill my significant other's needs.  I'm happy to have somebody that wants to go exciting places and do exciting things with me.  I'm happy that she likes Rock.  I don't know what the future holds for us, but things are going well.

I guess that's everything.  Thanks for reading.

Her Lipstick Is Not Your Permission

I've been meaning for a long time to write a followup to my post about little girls being sexualized, I just didn't really know where to begin. Fortunately, the internet delivers.

Today's post comes courtesy of Dr. Keith Ablow, a Fox News doctor (seriously do they have their own medical school? It seems that way) and five star asshole of the pink-nailpolish-turns-boys-gay infamy who argues that the girl whose photograph I actually used for my last post has appeared in several other photographs in Vogue and it has turned men into pedophiles. Yes, this is his real argument.

Not only do I believe Vogue is stimulating pedophiles to act on their desires, but I believe Vogue and Abercrombie and Juicy are creating pedophiles by coaxing dark, illegal desires out of men who would never have otherwise consciously felt them, let alone acted upon them.

And we're back to this again. If you'll forgive my boasting for a moment, my last post on the subject actually ended up receiving quite a bit of attention and a number of comments and feedback. Of course I got a lot of nonsensical tripe from the opposition who either didn't read it or didn't get it, but I also got some interesting insight from concerned women, many of them mothers, who wished me to acknowledge that girls being posed in such ways are not only being exposed to a sort of attention from men that they're not yet mature enough to understand or comprehend, but also being primed for her lifetime role in the sex class and learning that being dressed up and displayed is normal and good behavior for women. I'll address both those concerns and Ablow.

So, how exactly, you may ask, does Vogue turn men into pedophiles? Here's Ablow's take on it:

She is wearing diamond earrings, lipstick, eye makeup and a red dress. In another, she looks about 20, with her mouth open and her finger gliding along her scarlet lips. The clear message is that it is A-OK to feel sexually stimulated by her (since that is the obvious intention of the photos), that little girls are inherently sexually desirable and that they desire men, in turn. Why else, the unconscious part of a man asks himself, would she dress that way?

Yes, that's right. She's wearing lipstick and heels. She's wearing things that adult women wear and adult women are sexy. What else are those poor, poor men supposed to do? Here's a thought: nothing. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There was never a man in history who dressed his son up like him and was accused of pimping him out. If this girl's mother dressed this way, she'd be considered classy, fashionable, and beautiful. So what's the difference? They're clothes, not sex, so why is it okay for an adult woman to wear these things in public, but not a child? Because clothes like this are considered to be no less than full consent to sexual advances. That's what the problem is. It's not the clothes, it's not that she looks good, it's not even that she looks sexy, it's that people consider skirts, lipstick, and earrings consent to sex. Oh, and when I say people, I mean men, because women never ever get dressed this way because they're ready to be fucked by all who please. If her mother wore those clothes and men catcalled, sexually harassed, or raped her, her defense and credibility would be significantly diminished. Her complaints would be largely ignored, her body's fate of being invaded considered as inevitable as a car with its doors unlocked in downtown Detroit.

I could simply tell Dr. Ablow and all the men he speaks of, from skeevy perverts jerking off at their desks to otherwise normal guys who are now ashamed of themselves that those clothes do not constitute permission. If they could internalize that - really internalize that - then perhaps the terror of the sexy child would be diminished. Yes, she looks good, yes, you may have some feelings about somebody you would rather you didn't have feelings for, but guess what? That barrier is still there. She is still a child and she is still absolutely not for you. She has put on adult clothing and that does not make her any more for you. Therefore, you are not actually faced with a larger dilemma than you were before. Nobody has told you it is okay. These are pigments and cloths, nothing more and nothing less. Would they believe me do you think? Or would they still perceive her as having asked for it?

Vogue is a magazine made for women who like fashion. These women likely spent their youths dressing up in their mothers' clothes and trying on their mothers' or maybe fathers' lipsticks and jewelry. For these women, looking at pictures of a pretty little girl dressed up in too-dark lipstick and too-big heels inspires feelings of nostalgia. It makes them want to buy those clothes. That is why those pictures are there. Not everything and certainly not everyone is put there for men.

Have her parents failed to shelter her from society's judgments of her? Judgments that she's too young to deal with? Yes! Is she being prepared for a life of having her appearance determined by men's dicks? Yes! Yes, absolutely she has. I never said these things weren't problems - I said that there were much, much bigger problems when we hysterically avoid these things. So, at the risk of being redundant: What's worse than failing to protect her from society's judgments? Worse even than priming her for a life as a member of the sex class? Teaching her that she absolutely must not dress up until she's old enough to consent to sex because every time she does, she's giving adult strangers permission to harass and invade her - that she's responsible for men's entitled attitudes toward her body - that things as innocuous as pigments and cloths can make her or her parents responsible for a crime as gruesome and horrid as pedophilia of all fucking things and that the men who invade her body can hardly help but feel that way. What's worse is setting herself up for a life of self-blame and triple-guessing absolutely everything she wears for fear that when she walks out that door she'll be mocked, judged, and exposed if she fails to cover enough skin and it was her responsibility to prevent that.

I refuse to accept that. I refuse to say that a little girl shouldn't be able to play dress-up because somebody might commit a crime. I refuse to say that a little girl's parents shouldn't set her up in a photoshoot meant to make her look like she just fell out of her mom's closet because some nice guy might be transformed into filth. Wear what you want, little girls. Fight the power.

Notecards

I have a new job, as I've mentioned, and as a result, very little time to do much blogging, where time to do blogging is defined as excess time that must be filled or else I'll just.. stare at walls and drool. There's a shortage of that lately. However, there is no shortage of internet arguing time. There is always time to argue on the internet. So for you, my dear readers, here are a few of the things I've said in other internet places recently. They have been hand-selected to make me look smart.

On whether a slightly overweight woman can be considered "beautiful"

Why is beautiful so important that we must hysterically insist on our acceptance into its exclusive club? I've been denied membership my entire life and honestly I care very little. As far as I can tell, it carries very few benefits. Men will respond better? Don't care. People will want to stare at me? I'd rather they not. You'll forgive me if I don't buy into the line that because I'm a woman I should want to please the world aesthetically. While I can certainly appreciate a beautiful woman - my girlfriend included - it's an adjective we've been coerced into fighting for and I refuse to carry that yoke.

In response to somebody's insistence that homosexual men behave in an effeminate manner in order to further the gay agenda (I know, why bother responding?)

You and F_____ for that matter are assuming that everyone is like yourselves - that effeminate behavior is something affected to annoy you or to be different from you. I have too much experience to believe this is true and have known more than a dozen gay, effeminate men who were neither political nor socially exclusive. I've also known dozens of gay men who were extremely socially exclusive with voices and mannerisms indistinguishable from typical masculine men. There are demonstrable differences in brain chemistry and fetal development in homosexuals that affect feminine or masculine expression. To assume that their behavior is affected is to assume that masculine is the only way a man can possibly be wired unless he just wants to piss you off. It's quite narcissistic.

On why curing hunger isn't as easy as sending livestock to Africa:

You'll learn if you look more into it that raising livestock the way we do in America is only possible because of our environment. We live in a temperate zone which allows us to have large farms apart from ourselves that do the work of creating food for people and for livestock so we can do other things like be captains of industry or what-the-hell-ever. In places like Africa, with the flooding, driver ants, locusts, and extreme weather, you can't farm en masse. If you send them tons of extra livestock to get them going, they won't be able to feed the livestock without starving themselves. We send them our surpluses and do what we can, but there will be a limited supply of food in Africa no. matter. what.

On whether playgrounds being "too safe" is damaging for childhood development

It's all well and good to sit around and complain about how things are too safe for the kids these days and you used to fashion automatic weapons out of rocks and scabs in your backyard when you were a kid, but it's entirely another thing when you're actually the parent. If you are going to choose which playground to take your child to, and you've got a choice between the one with the giant spike that impaled 2 neighbor kids and landed their parents with a few grand in hospital bills or the safety approved one, you know which you're going to choose and the argument that your children's lack of anxiety about the playground will make them skittish later in life will not be worth acknowledging.

In response to somebody who was sick of student activism by people who could "afford to be ignorant"

Perhaps you should consider viewing this from a different perspective. If you can't afford to be an activist, as I cannot because I have a job I could lose, then at what price have you been purchased? From my perspective, I'm a bit sick of tow-the-line mentality from people who can afford to be activists.

On feminism being about "choice"

Saying feminism is all about "choice" is a weak defensive tactic that people use to appropriate feminism to justify decidedly sexist behaviors and beliefs. Feminism is not about choice. Feminism is about making a society that treats women and men equally. Choices to be protected by a man or have cheeseburgers for lunch do not become feminist simply because they fall under the umbrella term "choice."

On why Susan G. Komen doesn't run a "save yourself from breast cancer by breastfeeding" campaign:

They don't promote breastfeeding to reduce your risk of cancer because nobody and I mean nobody would think that it was suitable to tell women that they should have babies and stay home with them or else they are going to die. If you have a baby, your doctor or midwife tells you this benefit of breastfeeding. It's not Susan G. Komen's place to guilt or scare women into childbearing.

On the feminist reclamation of virginity:

You're not a former or current anything. Nothing about you changed the first time you had sex. You lost nothing. Defining yourself by a word used to describe a virtue which women formerly owed their husbands and fathers and churches in a desperate attempt to reclaim something that was based on an archaic definition of sex and becomes nonsensical by modern definitions is meaningless and futile. Virginity is not a commodity and it is certainly not a necessary concept which our culture must preserve for any purpose at all.

On the sexualization of little girls' outfits (yes again)

I really wish people would stop trying to include men as if this is an equal opportunity problem; you know it doesn't work that way. The attempts at parallels are laughable. If a boy wears underwear that looks like typical underwear men wear, he's not sexualized. If he wears an outfit a typical man might wear out clubbing, he's not sexualized. If he wears an outfit a typical man might wear on a date, to a party, in a fashion magazine, to go swimming, or to perform a concert, he's not sexualized.

Examining the reactions that people have to outfits on young girls that are considered "sexualized" is a fantastic way to see the hypocrisy of our culture when it comes to cultural attitudes toward what women wear. What we tell a grown woman looks "fashionable" or "professional" can be put on a girl and nobody sees a problem screaming that she's advertising sex and offering herself as bait to predators. At what age do these things cease to own her and become her property? What is the cut-off date exactly in your mind? At what point do these clothes cease to advertise sex and begin to tell the world that she's fashionable and mature? Why is it okay for boys to wear what their adult role models wear but when girls do it they're growing up too fast? If girls can't have the same freedoms to imitate adults that boys can, we're not helping them.

The solution isn't to police what girls wear, because the problem isn't what girls wear. If there is a problem it is that girls' and women's bodies are seen as public property and up for public review. The problem is that everything a girl or a woman wears marks her and puts her perceived chastity and sexual availability on a scale that everyone thinks they can point to and approve or disapprove of. The solution is that people need to give girls and women the same autonomy that boys and men already have.

Attention Insecure Women,

I don't know if you noticed but all of your needs are invalid. Why? Because you're insecure, that's why.

Remember that time when I went out with all of my guy friends and said I'd be home around 10 then I got drunk and you started calling me incessantly around midnight while I was asleep on my friend's couch? We were totally justified in laughing at you. You probably thought I was cheating or something. A secure woman wouldn't waste my time with that. I'm an adult and I'll stay out as late as I please.

You should be home on time, though, because you're a small little vulnerable woman and somebody could take advantage of you or you could be in danger. Women need somebody to look after their safety.

Oh hey you know that time where you asked me how you looked in that dress and I wasn't paying attention and then you asked again and I said "I dunno, fine" and you threw a fit? Stop being so insecure, okay? You should know I think you're hot even though the girls in my porn magazines don't look anything like you and I'm always criticizing women on television who are old or overweight. I'm just a guy. I have to do this. You should be secure enough to take it.

I love you because you're not like those SHALLOW bitches who want big muscly no-necked men who are fucking stupid anyway. You always tell me my flab looks nice and laugh at my stupid jokes.

Don't even think about answering that phone while we're out on our date. Women are all chatty and ridiculous. Can't ever just put their damned phones away. I went to the fucking trouble to take you out and you have the gall to answer your phone cause your stupid bitch friend has yet another problem with her boyfriend? You disgust me.

And yes I will take this call from John. His girlfriend left him and men have to stick together. Bros before hos. Stop acting all insecure. You can't have all the attention all of the time, you know.

Sincerely,

Men

You All Wish I Was Your Mom

Bug: OH MY GOD MOMMY I THINK I JUST SWALLOWED A BUG!!!

Me: Don't worry I've swallowed lots of bugs.

Bug: Lots?

Me: Yeah like hundreds.

Bug: Why?

Me: They're tasty. Don't worry, it can't hurt you.

Bug: Only frogs eat bugs.

Me: Well, do I look like a frog to you? RIBBIT

Bug: Why did you ribbit?

Me: I DONT KNOW?! I couldn't RIBBIT help it!! OH MY GOD WHAT IS RIBBIT HAPPENING?

Bug: Stop that.

Me: I can't!! RIBBIT!! AM I TURNING GREEN?! RIBBIT!! RIBBIT!!

Bug: Knock it off.

Me: RIBBIT!! *claps hands over mouth* RIBBIT! RIBBIT!!

Bug: Don't worry you're not turning into a frog. Only potions can do that.

Me: *eyes soda suspiciously*

Bug: *exasperated sigh, exits*

Fooled Again

After I wrote about the gender-mysterious baby Storm, a bunch of people started linking to me. I love to comb through my analytics and find out what people are saying about me, so I visited every message board and blog that came up. I was surprised to find that, in the posts where people had linked to me, they were talking about Storm but they weren't referencing my post about Storm. They were referencing a much older post I wrote about parents who were obsessed with their children's gender presentations. I didn't understand why at first. I thought Storm's parents were a bit different. In fact their neighbors or friends seem to have stumbled over a family that normally kept to themselves, not one that was insisting on making a public issue out of it. Then today, I read this article, written by Storm's mother, Kathy Witterick, as a rebuttal to the media attention. Looks like they were one step ahead of me. Sigh. Here we go again.

Why do I keep falling for this? Why do I always get all starry-eyed when I think there's a parent or set of parents out there that truly desires to challenge gender binary indoctrination? Why do I ever think they're different?

In case you just met me, and you're procrastinating something at work, here's the history:

First, I fell for the parents who were supporting their boys who dress like girls.

Second, I realized this was more of a fun new thing parents were doing these days.

Third, I fell for Storm's parents.

So here we are. I won't go as far as to say that I have any animosity toward Storm's parents. I don't know them well enough for that. Let's just say I find myself a little disappointed to learn that Storm's parents' intentions here seem to be unoriginal at best and disingenuous at worst. Let's tackle this bit by bit. First, her insistence that she doesn't have the kids keep secrets:

Having spent many years facilitating on the topic of abuse and violence prevention, particularly as it pertains to children, I would never tell my children (or anyone) to keep a secret. Secrets are not safe and healthy. I, like many parents, have taught my children that some things are private matters, and when you want to share them, you need to do so honestly with sensitivity and consideration. If I had to convince my children not to share Storm’s sex (which I don’t because my children simply are not interested at this point) — I would teach them that someone else’s genitals and sense of how they relate to their gender is their private business, to be shared by them or in a context where safety, acceptance and sensitivity are paramount.

Okay so she hasn't told the kids not to say anything, she's just taught them that sharing information about somebody's genitals is a very serious thing to consider. Not knowing her personally, I can't judge for sure whether she just doesn't realize that these things aren't actually different or if she's fully aware and failing at spin. Teaching a child that sharing a person's sex is the same as discussing their genitals openly and should therefore be done as carefully and rarely is not much different than teaching them that they shouldn't go across the street because there are monsters. Apparently her ideals prevent her from building fences so she relies on falsehoods and fear to do the work for her. Now she gets to clap herself on the back for not being abusive. Good job, I guess.

She also gave us some further insight into her eldest son's gender identity and presentation, discussing how her eldest son's choices of footwear led her to do a great deal of research on gender identity (really? Come on.):

Jazz is five years old. Since he was a young baby, he’s enjoyed colour, texture and vibrancy. When he was 18 months, he loved to wear layers of wildly striped and mismatched clothing and when his grandparents took him to get his very first pair of shoes, he chose the ones with orange toes and pink flowers on the side... As Jazz grew, his love of bright colours (especially pink) and lots of fabric (especially dresses) continued, and he wanted to grow his hair... I re-read the research and approaches of Alfie Kohn, Barbara Coloroso and Adele Faber to find ways to support him... Jazz has a strong sense of being a boy

This really stood out to me quite a bit because it's an issue I covered before, the last time I had to admit that maybe these open-minded parents were a bit self-serving. Why would a person feel the need to go out and do a bunch of research on gender identities following their toddler's love of shoes? And, sorry to sound like a broken record, but I really doubt that a daughter who wanted to play with GI-Joes would have sent her nervously combing through library shelves. Her son picked out some dresses and she made her life about how different he was. Different, different, different. She must understand and support her different child. Everyone in the family must participate in his different-ness. While I hesitate to act like I know too much about a stranger, it strikes me as odd that somebody so interested in removing the gender binary didn't just default to accepting that colorful fashion was just an interest of his. It sounds more to me like his gender was on the very front of her mind all the time. Was it that difficult to accept?

Additionally, I'm not really sure how a five year old has a strong sense of being a boy. This may just be my cis privilege showing itself but I can't really see how a five year old has a solid concept of what it supposedly means to be any gender. This particular five year old, who has androgynous hormone levels and no secondary sexual characteristics (at least for now), who makes a point of crossdressing, is comfortable being gendered female, and therefore clearly does not feel the need to identify socially as a boy, is glued to his gender? Why? How do the parents know this?

Oh look her two year old also apparently strongly identifies as a boy:

Kio also strongly self identifies as a boy, and his choices around behaviours and image are different but have an equal amount of two-year-old integrity.

Okydoky.

I triple swear I've learned my lesson this time.