Pick Your Topic Tuesday

Here’s the deal: You suggest a topic, and If I pick it, I’ll write a 300 word minimum post about it by Friday. You will get full credit for suggesting it. Leave your suggestions in the comments below, and I will declare a winner on Wednesday night.

I can’t wait to see what this week brings!

Pick Your Topic Tuesday: Sexual Consent and Female Agency

Image via Wikipedia

My thanks go out to The Arbourist, from the blog Dead Wild Roses for this week’s topic suggestion. If you haven’t checked out Dead Wild Roses yet please do. It is a voice of reason amongst the theocratic, radically conservative virus that is currently infecting North America. On any given day, you will be treated to posts that range from eviscerating the myth that is religion, to challenging the narrow minded political and social ideologies that are becoming pervasive in Canada and United States. It’s a great blog that never ceases to provide relevant discourse.

This week’s topic is as intriguing as it is volatile; it raises the question as to whether or not women’s sexual consent truly exists in our patriarchal society. In light of this topic, I thought that inviting a guest blogger who happens to be highly educated and vocal in the realm of Women’s Studies, Feminism, and Gender Roles, would be appropriate. I will be adding my two cents in the comments section, but from here on out, the bright light of this post will be shining directly on my partner, Michelle Beltano Curtis, from the blog Carving Out a Voice. Take it away Michelle!

Sexual Consent and Female Agency

In this blog by Jill at I Blame the Patriarchy, she posits that women are unable to give sexual consent:

… because in a patriarchy, agency is not conferred equally upon women and dudes. This untoward circumstance creates a contingency wherein the notion of consent is, for women, entirely non-substantive, a figment, a desperate fantasy invented to obscure the true nature of women’s status as the sex class.

The problem I have with this position is that she is virtually giving men in patriarchal societies cart blanche to do whatever they want, locks in the endless position of the existence of patriarchy and virtually forces women into the irrevocable role of the victim so long as any drop of patriarchy remains either institutionally or personally. She posits it in such a way as to render the entire situation not only hopeless, but something we shouldn’t try to alter short of the wholesale destruction of our culture rather than the careful and methodical one act, one person, one law at a time kind of change we have no other choice for it to be. I find both of these positions to be untenable, dangerous and lacking in the way that I’ve come to see the world through decades of personal experience, scholarship and critical thinking.

Jill’s argument assumes that the core of all patriarchy is sexual and personal and in doing so, she assumes the advances women have made to date to be pointless and completely ineffectual. It also feeds on the idea that women must still cower in fear at every turn and by doing so is only playing into the very hands of those men still so thoroughly entrenched in male privilege. Sure, this is still a patriarchal society and there are still a number of issues to be addressed including a one in six chance (and quite possibly higher) of women experiencing sexual assault sometime in their life and maybe we should all still be scared, but is this really a tenable solution for women? Is this really the attitude with which we should live our lives? Where is the assertion of female power in this? Where is the notion that we are indeed women and not girls and as such should begin to assert our own kind of authority in which we have a right to say no and the ability to do what we can to fight it? I cannot agree any less that having willing sex with a male partner is and can only be rape and is non-consensual because as many times as I have been in this position, I had to not only accept my own culpability as a cog in the patriarchal machine, I had to be willing to fight it, both internally and externally, but I did eventually arrive at a place where consent truly is mine to give. That is not to say that it’s the fault of the victim, nor would I ever, but there is also something to be said for victim mentality making women easier prey for perpetrators and that we not only have a responsibility to reduce the number of patriarchal hunters in this world, but also the availability of prey.

I feel this way because I was a victim of multiple instances of sexual and physical abuse, which kept recurring so long as I retained the very victim’s mentality of which I now speak. Since I have done the hard work of getting healthy and accepting myself as victim no more, I am no longer a victim, nor have I been for a very long time.

Furthermore, to say that equality between the sexes in a sexual or personal (romantic) relationship is impossible (which is what is being argued here ultimately) is not only overlooking the above mentioned, it’s also anathema to my own experience. Finding equality in an opposite-sex relationship can be difficult, but not impossible. I know this, because I have enjoyed an egalitarian, non-patriarchal relationship with a man for almost seven years. And it has nothing to do with “compulsory.” It’s a choice I made based on finding and falling in love with a man who is anything but patriarchal. I didn’t expect it, I wasn’t even looking for it, but I sure as hell knew what to do when I found it; hold on for dear life.

For some time I felt the way Jill does and chose as a bisexual woman not to date men any longer. As a scholar of women’s studies and self-identified lesbian, this theory, originally posited by Adrienne Rich in her essay “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” spoke to me as truth at the time and in many ways it still does, however this is a slight mutation of it; an inflexible one that’s partially taken out of context, not to mention more than thirty years old which obviously cannot take into account the changes we have experienced in this culture since, including the ability for women to assert their autonomy within more (not completely) equal standing as far as what they can bring into a marriage.

To a large degree what is missing, is women’s ability to assert their equal rights within a non-violent and mostly healthy relationship mostly because they still believe or feel like they are NOT on equal ground, that they deserve to be victims because they “chose” heterosexuality and are still raising their daughters (in some cases) and the daughters of others to be this way. Furthermore, we (as mothers and a society) are still instilling in male children that they have a certain amount of privilege over their female counterparts and this, THIS is what continues to sway the possible balance, quite possibly much more effectively than any law we can enact. This is what I see to be one of the biggest struggles for women and the crusade for equality over all, not to mention in opposite sex relationships and it certainly doesn’t make sense to see hiding from it in a gynocentric world as a solution.

In addressing this specific idea (especially without being rooted within the context of 1970’s female experience and the socio-historical context from which Rich was speaking) what I came to realize is that while it does indeed have socio-historical significance especially on the subject of lesbianism, it is nonetheless a cop out to assume that one can only escape patriarchy through same sex female love, and most especially that it is somehow the ultimate act of feminism. Hell, it’s barely tolerable complicity, feeding into the idea that with the participation and interaction of men that it’s positively unattainable. It’s divisive and only serves to create the same kind of patriarchal binarism many feminists are desperate to escape and it separates women in a movement that’s already too small and too fragile.

If you surround yourself in a gynocentric world, as I did for eight years, the problem is no longer “your problem.” It becomes “their problem;” you know, those “silly” women who actually still feel the need (either as a matter of sexual orientation or otherwise) to participate in a relationship with the opposite sex. Just for clarity, I’m being sarcastic here, because I think sexual orientation is both more and less complicated than we tend to make it. Natural attraction is at play here and to simply think one can throw off the shackles of oppression by no longer participating in heteronormative relationships also suggests that women should live an unnatural life as opposed to addressing the very real concerns created for women in this patriarchy.

It’s also too simplistic and assumes far too much. It not only allows for avoidance of the problem that patriarchy presents for the heterosexual/bisexual woman and which still inevitably effects queer women whether they participate in it or not via work, laws and exposure to violence and sexism virtually anywhere outside the home. Patriarchy effects all institutions within the culture which upholds it; everything from how we educate our children to the shaping of marriage as a patriarchal institution to the lack of true equal rights enforced by our government to the disparity of wage earning to the right to our own reproductive freedom to… you get my point.

What I’ve found more through personal experience than scholarship (this is also too simplistic as what we know and how we see the world informs our lives to the core) was that the lack of inequality in heterosexual relationships, indeed in any relationship, is a two way street and I not only had to find the right man (or woman for that matter, as we’re just as effected by the ideas of domination and disrespect for the individual) to have an equal relationship, I had to let go of my own sexist notions about both women and men. Yes, being thoroughly initiated in the world of patriarchy makes it very difficult for a woman to succeed in this, and perhaps even harder for men because they have to let go of all the assumed privilege, but it’s not impossible. What it takes is a long freaking search and honest work. What it takes is making the right choices and being unyielding in those choices. What it takes is accepting the truth of female power and maintaining constant vigilance over those learned ideas about the inequality of women and thus the self so they don’t come up and trip you flat on your face even for a second. It’s hard work, but it’s possible, and through doing so, you’re not only transforming your own relationship from patriarchal to egalitarian, but you’re also affecting every person around you who sees how you and your partner (male or female) live your life. Accepting that as a woman you’re a victim in your everyday life and so must run to the illusory safety of gynocentrism; that’s the antithesis.

Michelle Beltano Curtis holds an MFA in Creative Writing and a BA in Women’s Studies. She teaches college level writing and literature and writes poetry, fiction and some hybrid forms thereof. In her spare time, she blogs about her adventures in writing, her work at a domestic violence shelter, education and much more. To read more of her work, visit http://carvingoutavoice.wordpress.com.

Related articles

• Transmuting More Of The Patriarchy (deniselefay.wordpress.com)
• The Modern Feminist (themillennialwoman.com)
• The Perpetual State of War that is Patriarchy (radicalhub.wordpress.com)
• Feminist critics of SlutWalk have forgotten that language is not a commodity (thefword.org.uk)

And The Winner Of Pick Your Topic Tuesday Is

The Arbourist, from the blog Dead Wild Roses. His question this week concern’s women’s sexual consent; does it truly exist in a patriarchal society? The question he poses arises from this blog post that he came across, which claims that true consent can never exist as long as patriarchy is in place. It’s a very interesting topic to consider, as well as a very tricky road to maneuver,which is why I ‘m adding a twist: a guest blogger .  My partner, Michelle Beltano Curtis from the blog Carving Out a Voice, is going to bring her Women’s Studies, feminist expertise to this gender relations round table. Although I consider myself quite feminist, it just doesn’t seem right to me to extricate on whether or not women’s sexual consent truly exists; particularly since I have a penis. However, I will say that Michelle and I are on the same page on this issue, but you’ll have to wait for the post to find out which side that is

Although Michelle is writing this week’s post, I will do the usual introductions, featuring credit to The Arbourist for suggesting the topic, as well as telling you a little about Dead Wild Roses. The post will be up no later than Friday evening, and will feature the usual Tin Foil trimmings.

Thanks to everyone for the great suggestions; I hope to see you back here next Tuesday!

 

Related articles

• The Winner of Pick Your Topic Tuesday Is: (tinfoilhatman45.wordpress.com)
• The Winner of Pick Your Topic Tuesday Is: (tinfoilhatman45.wordpress.com)
• Pick Your Topic Tuesday (tinfoilhatman45.wordpress.com)
• Pick Your Topic Tuesday (tinfoilhatman45.wordpress.com)
• This Week’s Winner of Pick Your Topic Tuesday Is: (tinfoilhatman45.wordpress.com)

Pick Your Topic Tuesday

Here’s the deal: You suggest a topic, and If I pick it, I’ll write a 300 word minimum post about it by Friday. You will get full credit for suggesting it. Leave your suggestions in the comments below, and I will declare a winner on Wednesday night.

I can’t wait to see what this week brings!

Pick Your Topic Tuesday: Really? Another Apes Movie?

Image via Wikipedia

My thanks go out this week to Phil at Possible Experience for his winning topic suggestion of weighing the pros and cons of the newest Planet of the Apes movie. If you haven’t checked out his blog yet please do. Phil gives some terrific insight on the political arena, as well as providing some great opinions on current events. Do your self a favor and stop by Possible Experience; you’ll be happy you did. By the way Phil, I will be adding you to my blog roll, keep up the great work!

Without further adieu, I bring you:

Really? More Ape Movies?

Those damn dirty apes are back, and coming soon to an over priced theatre near you! Due to be released on August 5th, The Planet of the Apes franchise is about to be rebooted with the Rise of the Planet of the Apes. The newest guerrilla beats man movie is directed by Rupert Wyatt and features James Franco (Harry Osborn from the Spiderman trilogy). Set in modern day San Francisco, the movie is a reality based cautionary tale, telling the story of how human society is overthrown by apes that are led by a genetically altered ape named Caesar.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes movies from 1968. The original featured Charlton Heston, and evolved into 4 sequels, two TV series, as well as two sets of comic books. In addition, there was the 2001 remake featuring Mark Wahlberg, a film that was so bad, it made me want to fling my own poo at the screen in disgust. Wyatt is already planning several sequels in the anticipation that the Ape franchise will successfully be revived.

Do we really need a new Apes movie, let alone a whole series of them? Let’s take a look at the pros and cons:

Pros

 The movie is rumored to have some awesome special effects: The same company that did the visually stunning special effects for Avatar handled the effects for Apes. I think it’s safe to assume that the effects in this movie will knock your socks off.

 John Lithgow is in the movie: Anything with John Lithgow in it has to have some redeeming qualities, right?

 James Franco and Frieda Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire) are the co-stars: Some delicious eye candy to go along with the dazzling special effects. Ok, I’m kind of curious.

 Creationists are going to be pissed: Apes taking over the planet? Outrageous! God would never allow it!

Cons

 Republicans will probably think this is a political documentary: Based on the 2008 elections. I can see Glenn Beck pointing his fat racist finger, and exclaiming “See!” “ This is what happens when …”

 The film continues the stereotype of apes: As long as there are Apes films, we are never going to overcome the fear and hatred of Apes. We will forever view them as dirty aggressive animals, who want nothing more than to take over the world and force everyone else to bow to them and their god. This movie is starting to sound like it was produced by Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann, or (insert name of GOP presidential candidate, governor, or congressmen here)!

 I’m really getting sick of; Reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels, etc. Does anyone in Hollywood come up with anything original anymore? What’s next? A reboot of Revenge of the Nerds? Or how about this: A prequel to the Jaws franchise. In this version Brody meets and has an affair with the shark while he’s attending Police Chief of Small Tourist Islands College. The affair is hot and heavy, but Brody breaks it off because of peer pressure from the other police chief hopefuls. The Great White hootchy mama shark is forced to leave, bitter at Brody for forsaking their love in order to keep his Barney Fife like school chums.

There you have the pros and cons; what do you think? Should there be an Apes reboot? I don’t really care either way. I’m not going to go see it. Its way too fucking expensive to go to the movies, and if I’m going to take out a bank loan to see a flick this summer, it’s going to be for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2. Now there’s a franchise I would love to see continue on!

Related articles

• New RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES Clip Introduced by Andy Serkis (geektyrant.com)
• : The Only Way I’ll See ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ (sovietpanda.com)
• New RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES poster has Caesar staring us down! (geektyrant.com)
• James Franco’s Latest Gig? Art Instructor (eonline.com)
• ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ Comic-Con Trailer: Apes Run Amok (screenrant.com)

And The Winner of Pick Your Topic Tuesday Is:

Phil, from Possible Experience with his suggestion of a thoughtful discussion of the value/dis-value of yet another Planet of the Apes movie.  I will have a minimum 300 word post on this controversial topic no later than Friday night. The post will give credit to Phi for his suggestion, along with some background on his blog.

Thanks to everybody for their great suggestions this week; I’ll see you next Tuesday!

Pick Your Topic Tuesday

Every Tuesday morning, I  open up the floor to suggestions for a topic that you would like me to talk about. Submit your suggestion in the comments section after my Tuesday morning prompt post. I pick one of the topics submitted, and deliver a minimum300 word post no later than Friday, with all the Tin Foil trimmings.

Here’s the criteria: no topic is taboo, however there are no guarantees how I treat the topic. I will research and form my own opinion, and write about it in my own special way Please be as specific as you can with the topic, if you submit something broad like “religion” for example, I just may go down a rabbit hole that you would not expect.

I will announce the winning topic no later than Wednesday night. The person who suggests the winning topic for the week will get full credit in the post featuring the topic . If you’re a blogger, I will make sure I include your blog site info. Plus the winner will receive total consciousness, so you’ll have that going for you.

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.

Pick Your Topic Part Deaux: Breast Feeding Baby Doll Nurtures Controversy With Puritanical Parents

My thanks to my good friend Marcy Harris for her winning topic suggestion concerning the controversy surrounding the breast feeding baby doll that was recently introduced to the American toy market. Marcy doesn’t have a blog, so I can’t promote it obviously, but I can tell you this about her; Marcy and I have known each other since we were kids. We grew up in the same neighborhood, and went to the same elementary and high school. Although we were always good friends as kids, we went our separate ways after high school and didn’t reconnect until our 25 year reunion a few years ago. Here’s the deep dark secret about Marcy that I alluded to on last nights blog post; it’s actually more telling about me than her, but it’s my blog, and I can do what I want

I carried a secret crush on Marcy for three years. Starting in 7^th grade and carrying over to high school, I was as madly in love with her as any hormone raging teenager could be. The trouble was that I was incredibly overweight, shy, and possessed virtually no self esteem! I couldn’t have asked her to go with me if my adolescent life had depended on it! The ironic part is that for some of the time that I was secretly crushing on her, she was crushing on my brother! Sorry Marcy, I had to go there

Without further adieu, I bring to you

Breast Feeding Baby Doll Nurtures Controversy From Puritanical Parents

In 2009, the Spanish company Berjaun Toys introduced “Bebe Gloton” (Greedy Baby) to the European market. The baby doll, which simulates breast feeding, was wildly popular in Europe; so much so that 2 years later, it was introduced on the American market as the “Breast Feeding Baby Doll.” The doll comes with a special halter top that has a flower for each nipple; each flower has a sensor inside that corresponds to a sensor inside the baby doll. When the child places the doll close to the flowers, the doll makes motions and sounds that resemble the act of breast feeding. After it’s done feeding, the child has to burp it or the doll cries. The toy comes in either male or female gender, as well as several ethnicities. Sounds pretty cool, does it not? Well, apparently not according to a lot of parents who are protesting to the manufacturer about the doll.

The major complaint from parents is that the doll sexualizes the child, and forces them to grow up too early. Poppycock. The doll does no such thing.

First of all, unless it’s between two adults, breast feeding is nowhere near sexual; it’s a natural, beautiful experience of a woman bonding with her child. By breast feeding, a mother is giving her child a part of herself, nourishing and nurturing the youngster by holding the child close to her breasts, and offering the baby her milk. Every animal does this, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, either real or simulated. Furthermore, it is in a child’s nature to mimic the adults that they interact with. Just as two lion cubs will mimic adult lions behavior of stalking and fighting, so too will children copy their parent’s actions in order to prepare themselves for adulthood. What’s so wrong about letting children experience such an important aspect of motherhood? It beats sitting them in front of a TV all day, either watching mindless shows or playing video games. It sure as hell beats letting a child play with toy guns or swords, or anything else that promotes violence at such an early age! Hell, if the doll had come out when my son was a toddler, I would have gotten it for him if he asked for it. I wouldn’t now though, since he just turned 17. That would just be awkward and kind of weird.

Are there any legitimate complaints about the doll? There is one. The fucking thing costs almost $100.00! It’s a wonderful toy, but who in the hell can afford it?

For those of you who think that the Breast Feeding Baby Doll is inappropriate and should be taken off the market, I have three words of advice:

Pick Your Topic Tuesday

Image via Wikipedia

. Every Tuesday morning, I  open up the floor to suggestions for a topic that you would like me to talk about. Submit your suggestion in the comments section after my Tuesday morning prompt post. I pick one of the topics submitted, and deliver a minimum300 word post no later than Friday, with all the Tin Foil trimmings.

Here’s the criteria: no topic is taboo, however there are no guarantees how I treat the topic. I will research and form my own opinion, and write about it in my own special way Please be as specific as you can with the topic, if you submit something broad like “religion” for example, I just may go down a rabbit hole that you would not expect.

I will announce the winning topic no later than Wednesday night. The person who suggests the winning topic for the week will get full credit in the post featuring the topic . If you’re a blogger, I will make sure I include your blog site info. Plus the winner will receive total consciousness, so you’ll have that going for you.

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.

Why Native Americans Do Not Celebrate Columbus Day

Image via Wikipedia

Unless one has lived under a rock for their entire life, we have all heard of Christopher Columbus. In every grade school history book are recounting of how “in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue.” He is accredited with founding the new world, in an attempt to find a western trade route to Asia. He has been afforded commemorative statues and monuments, as well as having many American cities named after him. What we don’t often hear or read about is that he created a legacy of enslavement and brutality that would last for centuries. It was Columbus who would lead the way for a hemispheric annihilation of civilizations that were here thousands of years prior to his first voyage to the “new world.”

When Columbus landed in the Bahamas in October of 1492, he mistook the region of the Caribbean as the orient. He thought the island of Cuba was Asia, and the island that now contains Haiti and the Dominican Republic, named Hispaniola, as an island off the coast of China. Armed with a generous contract of retaining 10% of any and all profits, as well as governorship of any new found lands, the former merchants clerk from Genoa would earn himself the moniker of “Admiral of the ocean sea (Atlantic ocean),” a title he negotiated with the King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella in return for his expeditions. When Columbus entered the Bahamas after 33 days at sea, his first native encounter was with the Arawak Indians, many of whom swam out to the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria to greet him. The Arawaks, a hospitable culture, were friendly to Columbus and his crew, but Columbus could only focus on one thing; he fixated on the tiny pieces of gold that the Arawaks used to adorn their ears.

Columbus kidnapped many of the Arawaks in order to lead him to more gold. They sailed to Cuba, and then to Hispaniola, where flakes of gold were visible in the rivers, and the tribal chieftain presented to Columbus a mask of gold. It was on Hispaniola that the first European military base in the Western Hemisphere was built. After completion of Fort Navidad, Columbus left for the Azores and then Spain leaving behind 39 crew members to find and store gold. During his second voyage of late 1493, he returned to Hispaniola to find that all 39 crewmen were killed by the natives, in response to the crewmen capturing women and children and using them for sex and labor. As a result, Columbus decreed that any native 14 or older must collect established amounts of gold every three months. Each native who abided received a bracelet of copper tokens, those who were not wearing these bracelets had their hands cut off, and bled to death. Those who ran away were hunted and killed.

While the Arawaks did try to fight back, it was futile. The Spaniards were armed with muskets and swords, and rode horses. The Arawaks were virtually helpless against them. After several massacres at the hands of Columbus and the Spaniards, the Arawaks turned to another strategy: Mass Suicide. Within 2 years, half of the 250,000 indigenous people were dead by suicide, small pox, massacres, or hard labor. By 1515, there were 50, 000 natives left; by 1550 there were 500; by 1650, the indigenous people of the Caribbean were completely gone.

The brutality of Columbus and his crews would set the pace of exploration and colonization in the Western Hemisphere; after Columbus came Cortez who wiped out the Aztecs of Mexico. After Cortez, there was Pizzaro who eliminated the Incas of Peru. After Pizarro came the English and French; more so the first British settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts, who set the tone by eliminating the Powhatan and Pequot respectively.

The first recorded encounter with Native Americans and the British was in 1585, when Richard Grenville landed in Virginia, after a few friendly exchanges with the Powhatan Indians; Grenville sacked and burned their villages, when it was thought a member of the tribe stole a small silver cup. In 1610 Jamestown, the British settlers overtook a Powhatan settlement, killing several while kidnapping their queen and her children: The children were shot and drowned while the queen, who was later stabbed to death, was forced to watch. The earliest American dreams were begat from nightmares of blood and anguish.

At the time of Columbus’s landing in the Bahamas there were an estimated 10 million natives north of Mexico. While Columbus and his crew may have taken care of the first 125,000, it was the combined efforts of the European nations that would reduce the native population to under a million in the present day. Through slavery, murder, disease, displacement, and assimilation, a densely populated North America was stripped of entire civilizations that were egalitarian, cultured, and thriving. A European culture which was blood thirsting for wealth and land was, willing to thoroughly dispose of tens of millions of beautiful indigenous people.

Tell me again; who were the savages?

Related articles

• Native Film Tackles Columbus Day Issues (indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com)
• What did Columbus first call America (wiki.answers.com)