Fortune Cookie.

How did I celebrate Chinese New Year, you ask? Well other than going down to visit my folks this weekend (traditionally we Do celebrate Chinese New Year for 15 days after the new moon), today Hubs and I got food from our favorite Chinese restaurant and my hubby got this curious fortune...

Every man is a volume if you know how to read him. :)

And yes, the smiley face Was in fact at the end of the fortune. Hmm, a volume, like a novel? Is it trying to say that men have a lot to them if you can learn how to read them since they don't say things directly? And what does it mean that a man got this fortune himself? Maybe it meant something else by "volume" and we have a case of Engrish.

And speaking of Engrish, I was recently enlightened to this amusing website, Engrish.com. Meanwhile, my brother got some Engrish in person while he was visiting China. I'll definitely keep my eye out for some while I'm in Hong Kong this summer...

Picture courtesy of  my brother.

Women And Peace.

Involving women in the peace building process of any country recovering from war has been an interest of mine for a couple of years now, since I started to more seriously research the psychological effects of war on children. This interest was further explored by me during my trip to Uganda, where it was often a topic of discussion as the Juba Peace Talks were beginning their long journey to which the finish is still not in sight. This is a topic that I would like to further explore eventually through my work and definitely through keeping up on readings, which brought this speech to my attention. Presented by Donald Steinberg, Vice President, International Crisis Group, to UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations Townhall Meeting on December 6, 2007, this speech is called "Beyond Victimhood: Involving Women in Peace Operations."

The first sentence that caught my attention was: It took me only a few weeks after my arrival in Luanda to realise that a peace agreement that is “gender-neutral” is, by definition, discriminatory against women. This sentence struck me because it just highlights how patriarchal most countries and cultures still are. Steinberg goes on to discuss how he discovered this fact when councils and meetings that were open to both sexes ended up being attended only by men. The reasons why this was so were not explicitly explored by Steinberg, but it's easy to give the reasons if you've have any knowledge on cultural structures in Africa. Most women are expected to care for the children and run the family. Leaving the home for any reason is often strictly forbidden, as in many countries women are not even allowed to work. To leave the family to attend a meeting is completely out of the question for many women, and so in making the peace agreement what Steinberg considered "gender-neutral" (because there were no genders identified in the document) was actually not gender-neutral because it was written by men and in the context of a man's world. Men attend meetings away from home, at least in the cultures we're speaking of, not often women. In order to be completely inclusive of both sexes, keeping women's lifestyles and responsibilities in mind mind is essential. Instead of having a town-hall-type-meeting, could they instead go into the villages and take the effort to walk from home to home to discuss the issues with the women? Maybe even have small gatherings at a couple of different homes where the women can bring their children. These are the considerations necessary in a world that is still rigidly defined by gender roles.

The next sentence that I was jumping out of my chair saying, "Yes! Yes! Why didn't I think of putting it that way?" was: Given the prominence of sexual abuse during the conflict, including rape as a weapon of war, amnesties meant that men with guns forgave other men with guns for crimes committed against women. I seriously got goosebumps with that sentence because it's something that happens in so many post-conflict situations and is a serious injustice to the Actual victims of the wars. Women and children are used as weapons in many wars, through rape or use of child soldiers, and yet they are ignored in the peace building processes. It's infuriating at the very least and completely unjust.

Steinberg outlines the current challenges facing women in the peace building process as:

• Courageous and talented women trying to help build peace around the world still face discrimination in legal, cultural and traditional practices.
• We have been unable to expand the scale of outstanding conflict resolution done by women’s organisations at local levels and extend them writ large throughout their countries.
• Sexual violence and threats against women in power impose a stigma of victimisation and a real danger that makes even the most impressive and courageous women think twice before stepping forward.
• Men leading peace conferences still exclude women or shunt them off to ante-rooms while “real” negotiations take place.

Steinberg outlines some good issues that are keeping women sidelined in many peace building processes, and he continues the article by offering some proposals on how to further correct this problem. Some of the proposals are more vague than others, but I particularly liked the one about rebuilding social structures of particular importance to women, because if you know anything about women in many high conflict areas is that they do not care about social change if they can't feed and take care of their children. Helping women meet their basic needs gives them the freedom to join the more social causes and the peace building process.

Overall I felt that Steinberg made some strong points about involving women in the peace building process. I wished the article went more in depth, but any focus or discussion on this topic is strongly encouraged and appreciated by me! Focusing on women's special needs in post-conflict nations is still a fairly young concept that is gaining more traction as of late and something that someday I hope to contribute to.

I'll leave you with a quote that one of my co-workers shared with me today... now she shared it with me verbally so she wasn't even sure she got it right and she couldn't remember who said it, so it might be slightly off, but you'll get the point (by the way, if you know the complete quote or who said it, please leave a comment with the info):

If we raised our children we wouldn't have to heal our adults.

The Vagina Monologues.

So I randomly bought the October issue of SELF magazine right before I went to Denver. I say randomly because I don't buy magazines ever and I've never read SELF. But this SELF issue had a huge piece on Breast Cancer, which I was really interested in, and had an article on Sarah Michelle Gellar, who played Buffy so of course I was all about that.

Now I don't read magazines much and so I'm just getting to the end of this issue when I find an article on women having cosmetic surgery on their genitals!! From injecting the mythical (and unproven) G-Spot with liquid similar to the lip injections (collagen) to make it more "plump" and sensitive (for about $1,850) to cosmetic labia reshaping, vaginal tightening, liposuction of the mons pubis and reduction of the skin around the clitoris, apparently this is all the rage now.

Here's a testimony from the article on the G-Spot injection:

"It's like having a mini-heartbeat in my crotch," she explains, a sensation that arouses her even during yoga and Spinning classes, or when she drives along bumpy roads. During sex, Staltare says, she has volcanic, multiple orgasms "like huge waves that keep lifting me higher and higher."

When confronted about the fact that it has not been scientifically proven that the "G-Spot" has any sexual powers, Dr. Matlock (from the E! channel show Dr. 90210 who routinely performs these sorts of procedures) asks "Does God exist?" You can hear the sound, scientific reasoning behind that response...

I can understand why a women would do the G-Spot injection if she was struggling to have an orgasm, I've known girls who have gotten their clitoris pierced for the same reason, but the price tag for the inject (which usually wears off in about four months) is a little steep to me, especially since you know insurance would never cover it.

But it's the vagina reshaping surgery that really baffles me. One young college student who had labia reshaping surgery states:

"I've never wanted my boobs done or any kind of plastic surgery, but my labia made me very uncomfortable."

The self-consciousness started, she says, when she noticed that her labia minora was longer than those of other girls. And then, of course, a boyfriend of hers made her aware of the labia reshaping surgery when she confided her labia insecurities to him. First of all, how the heck did she notice other girls' labia? I played a sport in high school (well, ran cross country), gone to the gym, changed in front of numerous girlfriends, even showered with a girlfriend once in a time pinch (and in a rather large shower, so don't get any ideas!), and I have not Once seen another girl's vagina or noticed her labia. The surgery for this girl deformed her labia more since they just sliced it and she was left with a whole lot of bleeding and with the labia unevenly cut at an angle. She ended up having to pay for more surgery to reconstruct her labia totaling her costs to nearly $14,000 out of pocket.

I'm completely aghast at this obsession for the "perfect vagina." I'm already quite disdained at the country's obsession with perfection and beauty, but this is literally taking it too far. Who decides what a "sexy" vagina looks like? The article states that doctors have treated patients for labia reshaping from the ages of 14 to 60! I personally think it should be consider neglect for parents to let their child get this surgery. A doctor states that he is helping these people because they're so self conscious that they won't wear a bathing suit at the beach. While I'm completely confused as to how a large labia would be obvious enough in a bathing suit to cause embarrassment, I'm extremely annoyed that young girls can just walk in and get this surgery with little difficulty. Even for Gastric Bypass there is an extensive psychological work done beforehand to make sure that it is a medical necessity and not just for looks or because someone doesn't feel like working the weight off. Now I know GB is a lot more intrusive than labia surgery, but labia surgery can definitely go wrong and can actually be so painful that sex is not possible or even desensitize the area so the woman has little to no sexual feeling left afterwards. Overall, there has been very little proof that these surgeries lead to long-term happiness in women or that there aren't any complications down the road, and mostly this proof has not been gathered because the doctors who are providing these procedures are unwilling to share their client list in order to conduct research on their effectiveness. Their reluctance is proof enough to me that this surgery is completely unnecessary and useless and the doctors know it.

I mean what else can women be made to be insecure about? I wouldn't say that I'm always happy with my body and I'm definitely not perfect. Hell, my boobs are completely different cup sizes! But has that ever bothered me or my husband? Other than bra shopping, not at all. And hey, if my husband had to pick my breasts out of a boob line-up, he'd know mine right away. Plus, I think he likes the variety. So why not take your "imperfections" and view them as unique special things about yourself instead of things that need to be fixed? Because frankly, once these women get their vagina surgery done I guarantee you they will find something else they hate about themselves in no time...

I Heart Adrian Peterson.

Not only am I feeling the Offensive Rookie of the Year award going to my man A. Peterson, but I think he'll easily be in the running for Offensive Player of the year period.

As a rookie, not only is he leading in rushing yards with a total 1036 rushing yards, but he also has already broken the record for total yards rushed in a single game by rushing for 296 yards with 3 TDs against the San Diego Chargers in the Vikings' stunning win over them today! I was loving him before, but now he has a little shrine in the corner of my room... okay, so not really, but I damn well better be getting his jersey for Christmas this year, ladies cut, size small (hint hint, hubs). In addition to his amazing big play ability, Peterson already has the rep among his teammates as a hard worker, a team player, and a genuinely down-to-earth nice guy. What's not to love?

Beyond Adrian Peterson's amazing ability, the Minnesota's D, which is well known for being able to stop the run (I think they were second in the league against the run), they were also well known for being dead last against the pass. However, today they stepped it up, forcing one of Philip Rivers' worst games of the season so far. Our D limited the Chargers to converting only 25 percent of their third downs (4-for-16) and on average maintained about ten minutes time of possession over them.

I'm so ridiculously excited about this win. Yes, I know that the Vikes or 3-5 and not really in a great position in their Division with the Packers at 7-1 and the Lions at 6-2. But a win against the Chargers, a solid team on both sides of the ball, while they were hot (winning their last three games) is huge for the confidence of our team. I am worried about T. Jack though, the hit he took was nasty, and although he's going through some growing pains I obviously prefer him to Bollinger and Holcomb. I really think Jackson has a huge upside, he throws rockets, is mobile and is pretty accurate, especially with the short passes which fits the West Coast Offense that the Vikes like to run. Our WRs often make Jackson look worse than he is, dropping passes they should catch, which has been a problem with the Vikings for a while. Rice and Shiancoe are starting to come up big for us though, so I'm hoping they can keep it up and that T. Jack isn't seriously injured. I did see him on the sidelines after that nasty hit, which is good news.

I'm not completely off my rocker though. No, I don't think the Vikings are going to the Super Bowl or anything like that. I actually think it's a long shot for them to make the Play Offs, and I know better as a long time Vikings fans to get too hopeful about this win because the Vikings have a tendency to lose games their expected to win and to win games nobody, not even Vikings fans (yes, I did pick against them this week), expects them to win.

But the win still feels goooood.

As a side note, I don't know if I've ever mentioned it before, but boy do I hate intellectual snobs. In my job as a social worker, most of my co-workers have college degrees, and many have graduate degrees. In a meeting on Friday a high level director (with a MSW) was talking about how she was listening to NPR that morning when it cut out and this sports show cut in and how she could feel her IQ dropping as they talked. Now I'll listen to NPR but I also listen to sports shows and not being able to not voice my opinion I immediately turned to her and said, "Oh, have I mentioned to you yet that I'm a Huge sports fan?" And she just shrugged and said, "I just don't get it." It's totally fine if someone doesn't like sports, but to be such a intellectual snob about it like "I'm too smart for sports" is just fricking retarded. Sports and competition has been inherent in human beings since the beginning of time and to act like it is below you is acting like you're above being human, which is just retarded. The fact that so many people all around the world are completely pulled to and obsessed with sports means that it has power, and to dismiss it and not recognize the power is more unintelligent than any sports watcher I know.

Sorry, had to vent a little, as a huge sports fan and all, I guess I can't just intellectualize my annoyance away.

Discuss.

I was interested in a quote I saw today and am calling all my writer readers to discuss:

A writer is a person for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people.
- Thomas Mann

I'm not quite sure whether I agree or disagree yet, but am very intrigued by the quote, I'd love to hear others' thoughts on it.

Everybody, Get A Life!

I had a girlfriend a few years back who constantly gave me crap for liking the Steelers and more specifically Ben. She was working in Findley, but hadn't grown up there, and was always telling me everyone said he was a jerk and she heard he was a womanizer, etc. I never really paid attention to her because people gossip and to me gossip is as empty as air. But what did bug me was that when he came home the summer after his rookie year she was calling me in the middle of the night gushing, "Oh my gosh, I just saw Ben at a bar. Now I'm going to this other bar I heard he went!" Then later called him a jerk because apparently she was yelling at him to get him to talk to her while he was talking to somebody else and his body guards had to ask her to leave him alone. Later she found out he was talking to an old high school friend. So anyways, people are fickle and in many ways seem to be desperate to be associated with someone "famous" because that will make you suddenly important. The stories that flew from my friend's mouth of her friends who hooked up with Ben and whatnot were ridiculous and sad. I really didn't care about which bar Ben drank at or who he may or may not have hooked up with, but it was disappointing to see a friend grasp at fame in that way.

Well, looks like she's not the only one, and at least her grasping was with the real Ben. It disturbs me how desperately I feel our society clings to celebrities, it's like a high school popularity contest or something. I sympathize with the girls who were duped by Jackson, but you truly had to be desperate to think that man even looked like a football player. I'd heard about this guy before, but ESPN was nice enough to put all of his offenses in one nice article.

As for Jackson, WTF dude, get a life. YOUR OWN!

How Can You Help If You Don't LOOK?

One of my biggest pet peeves is when proclaimed animal lovers refuse to watch Animal Planet's Animal Precinct or when people who adore children don't want to talk about child sexual abuse. I say bullshit. If you care so much about animals and/or children then you need to actually SEE the abuse that they are forced to endure in order to help them at all. You can't truly help someone unless you understand what is happening to them. I will force myself to see things that make me want to puke, but it's because I want to help and I know that no matter how hard it is for me to see what they've gone through, I'm not going through it so I'd be quite the shallow bitch to complain or say I can't handle it. It's been with this attitude that I've gotten through some Rape Crisis calls with a woman covered in blood, or with a mentally retarded child. I've always made a promise to myself and to the women and the children of this world who are in pain that I will never turn away and I will always try to shine a light in the dark places of this world that nobody wants to look at.

It is with this in mind that I was quite distressed when I read this on The Smoking Gun. It's a report talking about how a new Dakota Fanning (who I love) movie Hounddog isn't finding any buyers at the Sundance Film Festival. And why? Because the movie depicts a rape scene of a young girl. You can read the script of the rape here, and it's very clear that it doesn't show any indecent shots of young Fanning, yet people are still balking at the thought of a rape of a young girl being shown. As Smoking Gun says, yes, it is a very disturbing script and it is probably even more disturbing to watch, but the fact also is that it is Reality! Girls are raped more often than our country wants to admit and to shun a movie that accurately depicts this is a travesty and just absolutely disgusting to me. No, it would not be an easy scene to watch, but that's the point. It's supposed to evoke horror and disgust from you, and hopefully then you might be moved enough to do something about it or at the very least be more aware for your own children's safety.

The film industry has disappointed me by their cowardness.

Speaking of ignoring the abuse of women and children, more abuses by the Janjawid.

The Hidden Genocide

I've wanted to adopt from China since I did a project on the One-Child Rule in China. I learned about the hidden genocide of baby girls that occurred as soon as the law was put into affect in 1979 and I have no doubt that the genocide continues. I read stories of baby girls being found in gutters and allies, often chewed on by wild dogs. Baby girls were drowned and suffocated and thrown out with that week's trash.

Recently, I've been baffled by the recent reports that there's such a high demand for Chinese babies that they're actually running out and have therefore constructed even stricter restrictions for International Adoption. I first heard of this talking to a friend (I honestly can't remember who, otherwise I'd send her this article) who said that they're running out of Chinese babies. I didn't believe her for a second because I was very aware of the situation in China and the fact that baby girls are still loathed to the Chinese who'd rather have a boy as their only child rather than a girl. But I was baffled at the news that the Chinese government has increased the restrictions on adoptions and are granting fewer babies to International applicants. It is distressing news to someone who cares deeply about the baby girls in China and also to a prospective adopter.

This New York Tims article (thanks for sending it my way, hubby!) touches on some of the possible reasons for China reining in foreign adoption:

The issue of abandoned and institutionalized children remains a taboo subject in China, a problem the government does not even acknowledge exists. The impulse to hide it seems to stem partly from embarrassment and partly from fear of revealing the grave human rights abuses the one-child policy has produced; surely, watching a parade of well-off foreigners cart off thousands of babies would make the Chinese authorities understandably uncomfortable.

If I know anything about Chinese culture it's that it is a very proud culture, so I can buy this reasoning. What I can't buy is that nobody's doing anything about a very obvious human rights violation. According the the Times:

According to a February 2005 report in The Weekend Standard, a Chinese business newspaper, demographers in China found a ratio of 117 boys per 100 girls under the age of 5 in the 2000 census. Thanks to China’s one-child policy, put into effect in 1979 in order to curb population growth, and a strong cultural preference for male children, this gender gap could result in as many as 60 million “missing” girls from the population by the end of the decade, enough to alarm even Chinese officials.

And what happened to these girls? According to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (a term that takes on a whole new meaning when referring to China), there are about seven million abortions in China per year, 70 percent of which are estimated to be of females. That adds up to around five million per year, or 50 million by the end of the decade; so where are the other 10 million girls? If even 10 percent end up in orphanages... well, you do the math.

Just to give you an idea of the new stricter guidelines for international adopters:

Under the new Chinese adoption guidelines, the international adoption celebrity Angelina Jolie could not adopt from China (she’s not married, and alas, she and Brad have more than two divorces between them, which is a no-no); nor could the actress Meg Ryan (again, not married). Another person who is not eligible is yours truly. My husband is over 50, so I would have to trade him in, marry again, wait the required five years (another new rule) before beginning the adoption process, and by that time I would be sneaking up on 50 myself.

It is comforting to know that Madonna is still eligible, at least until she turns 50, gets fat (the new regulations call for a body mass index of less than 40), gets divorced or goes broke (anyone with a net worth of under $80,000 is excluded).

Yeah, a little crazy there. Also, no mental or physical illnesses and no disabled persons. So far, once I turn thirty, I'll still be eligible. But then the process right now takes between 16-24 months, nearly double what it used to take. You truly have to wonder if China's putting its image or the children first with these new guidelines. After all I know overweight and disabled people who'd make much better parents then some of those image obsessed people running around out there, so using that as a guideline seems extreme and unnecessary, if not prejudice. But history tells us that China has rarely put their baby girls first over anything, ever. And so one can only assume that the orphanages (which China Rarely lets foreigners visit, you need permission from the government to visit any orphanage in China) are still overcrowded with unwanted baby girls, perhaps not murdered by their parents, but slowly being murdered through malnutrition and disease by the China's pride.

Tofu = Gay

So somebody needs to come over and push my mouth shut because I literally cannot believe this article:

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products.

Thanks to The Daily Dish for this enlightenment. Tell you the truth, if this is true then I'd happily feed my son tofu! I've always said that I'd be thrilled to have a gay child because at least I'd know that the child would grow up in a completely loving and accepting home and hopefully will then be better prepared with our support to face the world of homophobes and people prejudice against gay people.

Seriously, though, people have completely taken their fear of homosexuals a bit too far with this tofu bit. Gimme a break!

Packing Away My Life

Okay, so I haven't quite started packing for the big move next year (which probably will take place in May), though I have packed a couple boxes of books so our office didn't look like a cramped library and we could get rid of one of our poorly made bookcases. I tried to lighten the boxes of books by splitting them with clothes, but as my husband will tell you, I don't think it helped much.

I have, however, started packing for Africa, which my husband lightly jibes me for because if it were him, he'd be packing the weekend before the trip, if that! Sigh, I'm destined to be an obsessive over-planner, and hence my packing has begun, as have decisions such as should I get a mosquito net? Should I go with the 30% Deet or 40% Deet bug spray? What's "conservative" dress? Frick, I just realized I didn't think to put PJs on my list, what sort of PJs? I have enough trouble packing as it is for any sort of trip (just ask my husband who has to lug around my weighed down luggage), but for Africa, I mean really, even with lists galore, how can you really be prepared for the completely different world? And plus, we're strongly advised to pack light since we'll be carrying our bags around a lot... yeah, I'm screwed.

Another huge question I had was whether I should bring my camcorder or not. At first I'd thought it'd be a great idea, what a great way to remember all of the events and to relive the experience, especially since it's been a long term desire of mine to write a novel on the child soldiers of Uganda. A video would be an amazing way to document my experience in Uganda that I could use as reference later when I start my novel. However, obviously my first goal and priority is to the people of Uganda and I've since learned that taking pictures and recording video is often seen as rude, depending on the situation, so of course the camcorder is out.

But truly, as I've began my preparations for Africa, I've realized that there's far more to consider than I originally thought. Considerations on how to interact with the Ugandans without being condescending or colonial towards them. I absolutely do not presume to know better how to fix all of their problems then they do and truly I hope to learn from them as much as they learn from me. But then that brings up the question, what the heck do I have to offer them? I'm knowledgeable on the issues in their country right now and have helped raise money for the child victims of the war, but what could they truly learn from me? But maybe they don't aim to learn from me, but only to educate me so that I can come back to the states and educate the people here, and hopefully start a movement that can make an impact - which I hope to do. I'm very curious on what the Ugandans who are participating in this summit aim to get out of this.

There are currently many arguments against short term volunteer visits in developing countries, arguments I was not aware of until I was accepted and started doing some research to prepare for my trip. These arguments make it clear that volunteers can do very little good painting schools, etc. in such a short term visit and that it'd actually be more beneficial to just donate the money that would have gone to travel expenses directly to the people. When you think of it, why would the locals want some people paying thousands of dollars just to travel to their country to paint a school building when they could have hired local help to do it, not only giving one of their countryman a job, but also saving tons of money to be used elsewhere where there's a need. They state that these short term trips are mostly beneficial for the volunteers as a unique experience and a new perspective on life outside of their's, and often all these trips do is make the volunteers appreciate their own lives more. However, most articles do validate the usefulness of volunteers who take what they learned and apply it once they're back home to help the people in the country they were visiting. I'm very thankful that the group I'm going with seems very open and up front about these perceptions and that one of the main focuses for being accepted into the program was what you intended to do with the knowledge learned on the trip after getting home. Also, while the trip is costly, we're attending a summit and not taking a job away from the locals. The aim of the summit is to learn from the Ugandans and discuss at a "round table" (kimeeza) solutions for rebuilding and healing Uganda. We are to come as equals, not as superiors who assume we know more than the Ugandans about their own country's problems. The efforts of this summit is to build relationships that will last beyond the trip and develop into positive relationships overseas in which a mutual goal of helping Uganda rebuild and heal is worked on.

I hope that the youth we visit in Uganda get as much out of this summit as I know I will. I know that this trip and the fact that many view short term volunteer trips to countries in need as a trip more for the volunteer than those in need will inspire and push me to take this trip and make something out of it. I'm don't want to disappoint the people whom I will go on this trip with (who sound like an Awesome group of gals... yes, no boys were brave enough the venture out with us) or the people I meet in Uganda. It is a responsibility that I will carry with me even more so than I already do.

I am excited and nervous about this trip. The last thing I'd ever want to do is offend anybody while I'm over there and I have shed the assumption that people there will be thrilled to have me over there. Ultimately I would feel honored to be a part of the country's rebuilding and healing process, if they'll have me.

What do you guys think about volunteer work in other countries and their benefits or lack thereof? If you think they're not beneficial, what are better alternatives? As a soon to be graduate student of Social Work, I'm truly intrigued by this topic.

For a good summary and up-to-date issues with this conflict, check out this article.

Bias Towards My Own Style?

I just finished a book in which the style of writing felt awkward to me. It took me out of the story and used words in ways I wouldn't even think of doing because it just seems like a horrible idea to me. Not that I didn't enjoy the book. Would I ever read it again? Probably not. Was it a good plot, characters and storyline? Most definitely. Afterwards, I picked up a book by an author I love, whose previous book Cold Mountain I had raced through without taking a breath until the final word (which of course I was sobbing through by that time). Frazier's new book, Thirteen Moons, was like a breath of fresh air for me from the first sentence. I went from feeling like I was a foreigner in the previous book (in which the language and writing had been praised highly in some reviews I'd read) to feeling like I was at home and I could relax into the story without having to be distracted by the writing style, unless there was an extremely good sentence of course. In which case I'd reread the sentence over and over until it just rolled off of my tongue like candy and I'd mark the page so I could revisit the sentence when I felt the need for something beautiful and powerful. However, I am aware that many have criticized Frazier's writing style as dense and perhaps too descriptive. He's been known to go into excruciating detail when describing the surroundings and environment of his novels. He's often wordy. As I've read the criticisms the thought has crossed my mind, hey, that's what people have said about my writing before!

Okay, so I'm not at all comparing my writing at all to Frazier's, that would be, quite frankly, idiotic. He's hands down amazing, and I, well, I'm still unpublished. So there it is. Nonetheless, the fact that I lean towards having a similar style to Frazier does make me think of my favorite authors. As I list them in my head (Isabel Allende, Barbara Kingsolver, Maya Angelou) I recognize that all are very descriptive writers, not at all like the more blunt and awkward style of the book I'd just finished and hadn't connected with. Actually, often I emulate those authors, I read their books desperately trying to find out their tricks and secrets. I steal sentence structures from them, and whatever else I can safely steal from them.

This observation has brought up the question in me: Do we like writers who write like we do? And if so, why is that? Can we not appreciate different styles? Perhaps we just have a preference, like some like chocolate and others like vanilla better. I wouldn't say that I can only read books written in my preferred style, but I will say that I enjoy books much more when it is. It's often difficult for me to get into books that are written in a different style or written badly. I have refused to finish some books that were written badly, but I've always finished books that were written well but in a style that I perhaps wasn't too keen on. So I think I can appreciate different styles of writing, but I won't connect with the story as much as I would a story written in a style that I enjoy more.

In general, the whole idea of "writing styles" sounds awfully vague to me, as if there were clear cut categories that writers are divided on upon their style of writing. Of course it isn't so clear, and there are mixed styles and unique styles, etc. But I do feel that I definitely lean towards a certain style over others, whatever vague category that is. I tried even now to just think of a style "category" for my style of writing and I come up blank and stuttering. It's too complicated to some up in one word, but the closest I could come up with is descriptive. But then there are a lot of different ways of being descriptive, so even that ends up being vague and useless. Unless it's a very extreme and unique style of writing, such as Kerouac's "Beat" writing style, then I don't think people can be categorized so easily.

Do you feel like you prefer one style of writing over another? Does it match your own style?

Manners, Celebs and Parenting

Thanks to a friend, I came upon this article: The manners revolution starts here: Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and their ilk have made it cool to be rude. At first I thought she was trying to tell me something, but then I realized that she's just about as blunt as I am, so if she thought I was a rude, entitled, spoiled brat, she would have already said so to my face!

The article discusses how in general our society has stopped perceiving manners as something they wish to obtain. According to Dave White, back in his youth the celebrities were classy and acted "well breed" and their fans would aspire for this. If nothing else, even if they'd never be rich or famous, they could act with class and dignity (which, ironically, I've also just encountered this scene in The Remains of the Day, when Stevens encounters the people from the small town of Moscombe who believe that they can have dignity as well, and not just the rich, influential people. They aspire towards this "dignity" because they respect it in the "gentlemen" that they've seen.) However, White has seen a decline in this, starting with the celebrities.

Celebrities reign in the art of rudeness
Lindsay Lohan is as good a place to start as any, really, so why not? Now that her formerly behind-the-scenes misbehavior has come to light ‚— and I‚Â’m not talking about rampant partying, either. She's 20, for crying out loud. It's her job to party. I'm talking about professional disregard for others on sets and reports of her treating nightclub employees badly ‚— in the form of an open letter from the producers of her latest film, we can use her as a lesson in what we've all become.

While I'm no expert in this matter and have not put much research into the case against celebrities to fully agree with him, I have had a distaste in my mouth for celebrities, Hollywood and that whole world that our society is seemingly obsessed with for a while now. I care about a very few select celebs whose art I respect and whom I like to follow (such as Natalie Portman, Our Lady Peace, Ben Rothelisberger), but do I care if they're married, dating so-and-so, etc.? My overall answer is no, ultimately I do not. I respect these people for their art, their skills, and what they provide me in entertainment and emotionally with their work. Am I interested in whom they marry, what they do, etc.? I can't lie, yes. Was I disappointed when I saw a photo of Natalie Portman smoking? Sure was, though I don't judge her, but as a person I'd respected highly for her work as well as her intelligence and the manner in which she carries herself publicly, it was disappointing to see her smoke, but it didn't affect my admiration for her whatsoever as a person or an artist. Of course I was devastated by Ben's accident and rejoiced when Raine Maida's (lead singer for Our Lady Peace) babies were born. But that's the extent of it, I don't notice much what they're wearing, do not base how I act or what I say by how they act or what they say. My interest in them primarily centers around their art and skill.

However, I know people who read celebrity blogs, such as Bricks and Stones, and at their urging, I've glanced at them, but I can't seem to get myself to care about the fact that Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie aren't friends anymore. I don't respect their work (if they even truly have any work to show for), I don't respect their lifestyles or how they present themselves, and therefore I literally could care less about what they're doing. And talking to celebrity obsessed people, they don't necessarily respect these people either, so why the obsession? Why the emulation? You could say that so-and-so person's insecure and that's why she is obsessed with emulating the celebs, but this is too wide-spread to pin it on one person's insecurities. There's something making our nation insecure and unsure of itself, something making us forget our morals, discipline, manners and dignity. Something pushing us towards materialism and selfishness. The now now now attitude is prevalent everywhere you go, I find it in myself even though I don't buy into the whole celebrity crap. I'm impatient and have very high expectations for everything and everyone. If something doesn't blow me out of the water then I find it a waste of my time, I have to work to appreciate the smaller things in life, the subtle beauties in our world.

I've also noticed a related change in the approach to parenting. When was it the new idea in parenting that you were supposed to be your child's friend?!?! Are we that insecure and desperate for acceptance that we are at the mercy of our children's acceptance? You're not supposed to bring a child into the world or your life to have a new friend or to obtain acceptance from the poor kid, you're supposed to raise this little person to be a responsible, polite, capable, well-adjusted adult. Instead, I see (on TV or in public with random children, mind you, I've been fortunate enough that the few people I know with children are responsible parents) parents spoiling their kids rotten, going into debt to buy them all the little toys and designer clothes they want. Not saying "No!" and letting them run the house. When did this become acceptable parenting? I feel strongly that this is a form of neglect on the parents' part, do they not see that their children will be miserable and insatiable as adults? What is Going On with this country? Now, as a disclaimer, I don't have children, so of course I don't know how it is to be a parent, blah blah blah. And to some degree, I do respect that and hold my judgment on many matters when it comes to parenting, but in the same instance, should we not judge a dictator of a small country who murders mass amounts of his people because of their race? Sure, we've never been a leader of a country, but there are some things that are so over the line that it's even obvious to us that it's ridiculously wrong. That's how I feel with this new "parenting style", it's so obviously and overtly wrong and horrible for not only the children but our country in general (can you imagine an America filled with only spoiled brats? I think we'd self-implode).

These are just my disorganized rantings and thoughts, but I do feel strongly about this subject and it worries me greatly. I'm fortunate that my husband values discipline and family as much as I do (we've had plenty of practice on our three dogs and two cats). We've discussed being parents often and in detail, and are pretty much on the same page. Our marriage will always come first because with no marriage there's no family, and it's good to teach your children that they're not Always first. We've already accepted that our children will hate us at times, think we're losers and totally lame, lie to us, go behind our backs and rebel. These are normal, healthy growing pains that every child is entitled to, who am I to take that away from them?

Update: This was too ironic not to mention... for those who read the article I linked to in this post, the author, Dave White, mentions this incident he had with a driver of a Hummer. Now I also can't stand Hummers and also feel that the owning of a Hummer is pretentious and ridiculous. However, the day after my post, I stopped McDonald'slds for a Happy Meal because I was in a bad mood (see On The Verge Of Blocking Text Messaging FOREVER post), and how can a cheeseburger and free toy Not cheer you up? I chose to get a boy toy because I was feeling rather aggressive and edgy (again, see On The Verge Of Blocking Text Messaging FOREVER post) and what do I get? A toy Hummer. Oh Lordy, this is what we're teaching our little boys they want when they grow up. I almost threw it out the window, but first, that'd be littering which is a huge No No for me, but also, it was just too ironic and funny so I still have it on the floor of my Mazda 3 Hatchback, a much better car in my humble opinion... well at least more affordable in any case!

For Self Esteem Purposes Only...

... Okay, and it's really fun to play with, too!

Check out how magazines photoshop pictures of models. It's surprising, and yet not. I think the breasts are the hugest touch-up, so to speak (they're at least double the size!), but they're all pretty big differences. Wow, these "perfect" women are actually just Normal Women! Shocking.

Browse the rest of the website and they'll show you un-photoshopped pictures of celebs. Here's a sneak peek of Cameron Diaz (who I like, so I'm not trying to put her down or anything, but I think it's a great thing to see these "stars" who are up on pedestals in real life looking like normal people):

In the site's "About" section, the site creator, Niva Kedem has this message:

This website was created to show the world the truth behind the models and movie stars glamour Images.

I dedicate the website to all the women that look at the mirror and think that the girl in the poster is much nicer; I also dedicated the website to all the men that believe Pamela Anderson is more beautiful than their own wife or girl friend, or the girl next door.

There is a beauty in every woman; you just need the right make up artist/photographer/graphic designer to show it better :-)

Cool website, to say the least.

Oh My

News Gone Wild is right. Check out these opening paragraphs from an article on Joe Francis by reporter Claire Hoffman:

Joe Francis, the founder of the "Girls Gone Wild"” empire, is humiliating me. He has my face pressed against the hood of a car, my arms twisted hard behind my back. He'’s pushing himself against me, shouting: "This is what they did to me in Panama City!"

It'’s after 3 a.m. and we'’re in a parking lot on the outskirts of Chicago. Electronic music is buzzing from the nightclub across the street, mixing easily with the laughter of the guys who are watching this, this me-pinned-and-helpless thing.

He has turned on me, and I don'’t know why. He'’s going on and on about Panama City Beach, the spring break spot in northern Florida where Bay County sheriff'’s deputies arrested him three years ago on charges of racketeering, drug trafficking and promoting the sexual performance of a child. As he yells, I wonder if this is a flashback, or if he'’s punishing me for being the only blond in sight who'’s not wearing a thong. This much is certain: He'’s got at least 80 pounds on me and I'’m thinking he'’s about to break my left arm. My eyes start to stream tears.

There has been much discussion in blogosphere of the horidness of Francis' actions outlined in this article but also of the objectivity of Hoffman's article and whether or not it was right to publish it. It is obvious that a victim of an attack cannot stay objective to the attacker, and that is where the controversy over her article is coming from. This article probably would have been better classified as an editorial or a personal piece rather than a "news" article, but I wouldn't have had it written by another reporter as the Morning News article suggested. I do respect the integrity of journalism, but at the same time I wouldn't want to lose the impact or the power of the article.

Nonetheless, I don't think anyone will disagree that Francis is creepy and gross. 'Cuz he is... ewwwww.

Is Technology Killing Our People Skills?

This article discusses whether cyber romance replaces the passions of the past, but I extend this to all people interactions. I've noticed slowly the transition both romantically, but also in friendships and professionally, shifting into less personal interactions in lieu of electronic interactions. It did start in the romantic department for me, in high school I was asked out a couple of times over IM (Instant Messaging for the two of you out there who don't know!) and of course was creepily hit on by total strangers until I figured out how to keep people from searching for me (I wonder what it was in my profile they were searching for that brought me up? Under the age of 18? Icky!), I started romantic relationships over IM, flirting, even if it was in person that I asked the boy out or was asked out (yes, it was more normal for me to ask the boy out, including with my husband! What can I say, I'm a woman who knows what she wants.) Once I even broke up with a boyfriend over IM. But when it came to friendships, the easier of the relationships back then, I opted for the old fashioned phone. I'd talk on the phone with my friends for hours rather than IM with them. Did I pursue my romantic relationships online because it was easier than in person? No, not originally. In fact, it was usually the boy who started it online, I still preferred the phone or in person than online at the time, but perhaps it made them feel more comfortable. They always had the comfort of asking me out online and if I said no, as I did once, they could always retract it, claiming it was a joke, as the boy did, without betraying any real emotion of rejection or disappointment. And the truth was, of the boys who asked me out online, the ones I said yes to were always awkward in person and the relationship never worked. I think this says something about this method.

In college everyone IMed. You'd IM each other about dinner plans, Friday night plans, classes. I'd even IM my freshman roommate while she was in the room sitting at her desk!! Frankly, it was easier than yelling at her to take off her headphones so I could ask one simple question. Note the word "easier" prop up again. Hmm.

After college I was surprised with how much of the job search actually took place over email. I believe I was actually informed that I was hired for my job in an email! I kept calling because I was trying to decide between two jobs and couldn't get a hold of the HR director for a decision, but instead of calling me back she emailed me. I was happy to have gotten the job but a little surprised at the informality of an email rather than the phone call. Already I was feeling like an alien for calling her rather than just emailing her.

And finally, the text messaging era was a complete shock to my system. When text messaging first came out, I didn't pay any attention to it. I really didn't think it'd take off. How cumbersome and time consuming to type out a message on your phone? Who would do that? Then slowly it started creeping into my interactions with my friends. Friends would text me for plans or just to say "I love you" (which was really sweet). Or if they were having a bad day, they'd text me "Grr, bad day. Call me." Okay, I was getting into it a little, responding to their texts, but not really initiating with a new text message. Then slowly some of my friends would Only make plans through text messages. I couldn't get a hold of them for anything, but only minutes after I called them and left a voice mail, I'd get a text message in response! The height of my despair came when people started canceling on me through text messages rather than calling, as if calling was just too much work. I couldn't believe it, I was mad at a couple of friends for canceling on me in this way, but should I be? Is it acceptable to cancel on a person in a text message now? I found it rude and impersonal, but they didn't seem to think anything of it and they never followed it up with a call, just a "did you get my text?" the next time they saw me. So then I felt silly for being mad, because apparently it's completely acceptable. Sure it makes sense, texting while at work so you don't have to make your party plans with your co-worker's hearing you ask "So are you going to hoe out or go just a little slutty tonight?" And it's nice when you're busy and you know you'll end up talking with your girlfriend for over an hour if you call without even meaning to (which always seems to happen!) And I've noticed I'm texting my friends more, often in response to their original text, but on my own too. It's just easier. Plus, people don't seem to answer their phones anymore, maybe they're busy, maybe they just don't feel like taking the time to actually talk on the phone.

Is this sad? Is it a backward or a forward step for humans socially? Sure, communication is quicker, more efficient, but is this better? I do find myself slightly uncomfortable now interacting on the phone versus electronically. I can always convince myself I'm too busy to call, but am I really or is it just too much trouble and less predictable, so therefore, more uncomfortable? We've all had the uncomfortable feeling of trying to end a phone call when the other person doesn't get our hints and keeps talking. Are we trying to avoid this or avoid the confrontation or guilt trip a friend may give you if you call to cancel plans?

I can't tell you if this is a positive or harmful movement in our society because truly it's a little bit of both. I think it's fine as long as we remember to call each other every once in a while, just to chat, rather than email. If we pop over to our co-worker's cube or office to chat rather than just do it over IM. Yes, actual human interaction is unscripted, you can't delete what you're going to say before you hit send or use yellow faces to display your emotions instead of actually expressing them through words or your own body language. But it's that unscripted nature that makes it special and unique. The way a person scratches his head as he's thinking deeply about something, or how your friend shifts back and forth on her feet when she really wants to say something but doesn't want to interrupt you. These are things that make us who we are and you can't get these things through any electronic communication. After a while, I just have to call a friend just because I miss the sound of her laughter. I don't think I could ever give that up.

Totally Unrelated Side Note: I found this humorous so I thought I'd share.

Last week a former employee brought her children to work to visit and I asked her if she was going to lunch with us. She declined, saying that the only way she could get her 3-year-old son to get out of the house and behave was by promising to buy him a Happy Meal at McDonald's.

Fast forward to last night. We desperately needed to go grocery shopping (the bane of my existence, that and cooking). Tired and whining, I tried to get out of it. After trying many different methods to try to get me to go and behave myself, finally my hubby got me to go by promising to get me a Happy Meal at McDonald's if I went with him. After I heartily agreed, on the drive to the grocery store I remembered my former co-worker from last week and felt slightly embarrassed. But hey, I got a sweet-ass pirate skull that tells you your fate (like an eight ball, but only it's a pirate skull). Rather than the dull eight ball "No" and "Yes" answers, it's answers consist of "Nay, scallywag", "The seas look rough", "Aye, Captain", and my favorite, "No way. Arrrgh!" (I just like saying that one out loud in my pirate voice).

What is Art?

To follow up my blog, What is Feminism, now the discussion of What is Art? Man, I should start a "What is..." series!

This lively discussion was started on Flash Flood, sparked its way to Killer Year, has made a pit stop at Thinking With My Skin and is now lighting up my blog. Though I won't perhaps post as much as I could since I've made some lengthy comments on Killer Year (so if you feel like you're wanting more after reading this post, visit Killer Year and check out Sandra Ruttan's thought provoking post and then read the comments, which were very interesting as well).

One comment in particular in response to Sandra's post sparked something in me, posted by "Flood" whom I can only assume is the blogger from Flash Flood, where this conversation was started. Flood wrote: Art is supposed to move people and nowhere in the rules does it say that it’s supposed to make anyone feel good. Okay, I can buy that (except where are these "rules"? Can I get a copy?), but I think there's a big difference between making your readers feel "good" and not making them feel complete despair or to negatively and incorrectly impact the way they perceive a horrific crime, such as child sexual abuse. Maybe it's just me, but if a story implies or explicitly states that children enjoy being abused, then I personally would like to puke on the story (excuse the visual image). Perhaps I have very strong feelings about this issue since I've done Tons of research on the subject matter and know how devastating such abuse is to a child, but how do we feel about someone reading a story saying that that doesn't know any better? Then they might actually believe that shit.

I don't advocate that a story or art in general has to make people feel good, rather I don't know if I agree with ending a story in utter despair with no hope whatsoever. I don't intend to say that a story has to end with a pretty red bow and everyone skipping into the rainbow, but maybe the protagonist doesn't jump off the bridge. Is she still in a miserable marriage or life? Sure, but something made her value life when she was on the verge of losing it... and that's just enough hope to let a reader close the covers of the book or lit mag and feel like they can survive because the character could. I definitely don't agree with art that propagandas inaccurate and damaging perceptions of a victim (such as child abuse or rape victims) that either blames the victim or takes away from the truth of their horrifying experience. Saying that a child enjoys the sexual abuse (while it Is normal for a child to be sexually aroused because their physical bodies Can't Help It!) is one of the hugest inaccuracies I've ever heard.

Anyways, every artist has their own personal perception on what art IS,what constitutes art to them and what art they would like to create, and they are all entitled to their opinion. I know for me I will Never support anything that supports violence or abuse of others without being honest and showing the pain it causes. Abuse hurts, end of story. People don't Enjoy it. Perhaps they crave it to punish themselves or because they hate themselves, but that's not Enjoying it. That's a dysfunctional yearning probably born in abuse in the first place. As for what art I create, my stories can be dark, I'll be the first to admit. I've had friends look at me in shock after reading one of my stories, knowing only my bubbly, social side. How did that come out of You?! they ask me, showing me how well I've hidden the deep pool of darkness and pain that lives inside of me, grown from my own dysfunctional childhood. But I know that there is hope and strength in life because I've lived it, and I choose to create art that conveys this hope and strength. The message that life can go on and that it'll never be perfect, but it goes on. What was so special of Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings if not the strength and hope Angelou shows out of horrific abuse? Had she not picked herself back up, the book would have lost its impact and perhaps would have discouraged those trying to pick themselves back up after such abuse. Angelou wasn't completely at peace with herself at the end of the novel, but she was trying and she wasn't giving up hope, which is what made the book so meaningful to the millions of people who have read it.

Regardless of how we view art or how we choose to create it, artists and writers cannot be naive to the fact that their art does carry a message whether or not they mean it to. As artists, we just have to decide what we want that message to be, and can we live with it if someone takes it to heart and acts on it? Obviously one story can not make a perfectly happy person want to commit suicide, but for that person who is deciding whether to live or not, a story about how hopeless life is and how there's nothing to live for could legitimately push the person over the edge, it could be their catalyst.

That's just my feelings on the topic, and yes, folks, I do have a strong opinion on this one! As should any artist since it affects the very essence of their work and how they conduct their work. It is only because this topic is so close to the artist's heart and being that it has sparked such passionate comments and posts in blogosphere, and it is for that reason we must discuss until we're lying on the floor panting from exhaustion!

Thanks everyone on Flash Flood, Killer Year and Thinking With My Skin for their posts and comments that has inspired me to write a much longer post then I intended and for challenging and stimulating my beliefs and thoughts on this matter.

Update: Check out this post on Wog Girl Meets World. Her story is the story that sparked much of this discussion and she has some great comments on the whole experience!

What is Feminism?

I've been only one of the many sparked by the review on Slate.com of Linda Hirshman's Get to Work. I'm not enraged by her message, nor judgmental of stay-at-home moms. I guess I'm just wondering, once again as I did through out my days in college where I took many Women's Studies courses, what is feminism? Feminism is often referred to as the "F-word," portraying it as something ugly and shameful. People still often think of feminists as the unshaven angry women screaming and hating men. While I do think the shaving thing is a bummer (enough so to have done the research to find out that it was a freaking clothes designer in conjunction with Gillette marketing that has enslaved us women to shaving are legs and pits. I also wrote a poem entitled "Hairy Legs" once, you can probably figure out how that went. Something like, shaving... DIE!), I definitely am not angry nor do I hate men. The landscape of feminism has definitely changed and now I feel that feminism is divided. There are the "choice" feminists that Hirshman criticizes in her book. I most identify with the "choice" feminists, but I also understand Hirshman's point of view. It's hard enough for women to obtain and maintain equal status in the work place, and for the women who are fighting hard for this equality, it can feel like abandonment when some of the qualified, intelligent working women "opt out" of the working world.

But I ask this, is feminism to make us as much like men as possible (or what men's roles typically have been in our society)? Should we become work-a-holics, putting our maternal urges to the way side in order to climb the corporate ladder and be "successful"? Or is it less feminist to mold ourselves to the patriarchal roles in our society? Shouldn't we Redefine the roles in our work place? The only reason women right now can't have both, family and career, is because our society is not structured in a manner that supports women. I read an article in Time last year titled "Why Women are Opting Out of the Rat Race" (or something very much like that). In it, stay-at-home moms were interviewed and a common theme was that if corporate businesses offered part-time work for mothers who had formally been lawyers, accountants, or in other such business related positions job, they would love to go back to work. But to deny their maternal instinct completely wasn't worth it to them for their careers. I think true feminism is respecting women and our nature, not trying to adjust our nature to fit men's nature. It's okay and wonderful to have maternal instincts and instead of Changing Ourselves to fit in the man's world, we need to change the way our society and the business world is structured. Obviously this is no easy task, but criticizing women who choose to stay at home with their children is not a step in the right direction. In my opinion and feminist perspective, women should not be judged for their choices whatever it may be or whether or not you agree with it... unless they choose to murder someone or wear low rise pants that shows off their thong and ass crack.

But then again, I'd judge any man under the same criteria.

Female Chauvinist Pigs

I found an interesting interview with Ariel Levy, the author of Female Chauvinist Pigs, in which she defines "female chauvinist pigs" as "women who make sex objects of other women and of ourselves." This includes "women's apparent willingness not just to accept this culture, but actively to participate in it: taking up pole dancing as a hobby, for instance, or visiting strip clubs, leering and beering along with the male audience." Levy gives examples of a woman who worked on The Man Show as an executive producer. I also remember watching an Oprah about women objectifying other women. There was a young, attractive woman on the show who worked for the Girls Gone Wild tapes. Her sole job was to convince drunk, vulnerable college girls to flash the camera by saying, "Come on, I've done it. It's no big deal. This is your moment of fame." This "recruiter" in fact had not flashed any cameras and was basically pretending to be the drunk girl's friend. I can definitely see where this term "female chauvinist pig" can be applied. The article continues:

Levy isn't a prude or a scold, arguing for women to be less sexual - in fact, quite the opposite. Her point is that the single form of sexuality on offer to women - "this spring-break variety of thongs-and-implants exhibitionism" - is largely unfulfilling. And that buying into this, either by stripping yourself, or by ogling strippers, is a way of currying male approval and propping up male culture and power. (The obvious problem being that, by doing so, you undermine women, and, implicitly, yourself.)

"When it comes to raunch culture, a lot of people say: 'Well, we're living in a post-feminist age, women have won the [sex] war, and so it's OK for all this to happen. It doesn't actually threaten women's social position.' But when did we win the war? We don't have equal pay for equal work, we don't have equal representation in government ... so when exactly did we win?"

It's a controversial article, but rings true for me. Seeing men and women glamourize the porn industry and strippers (the pole dancing) is so ridiculous to me. Most of the people who get into the porn industry, stripping and prostitution do so because they have little options offered to them. Often they have been badly abused (usually sexually) and have low self esteem and a very damaged and skewed view of themselves sexually. The majority of the time porn films are shot, all of the actors and actresses in the film are either high or drunk or both. Same with prostitution and stripping. If it was so sexy and hot then why do these people (whom our culture is starting the emulate and hold up as our sexual role models) have to be high or drunk in order to have "hot" sex?

The fact of the matter is this, if you feel sexy and enjoy pole dancing for your sex partner then go for it! But don't do it because you saw it on Oprah and you've seen your man go to a strip club and ogle at the strippers on poles and so you feel like you're not sexy unless you're pole dancing. Do what is authentically sexy to yourself, if it's just wearing fitted sweaters or if it's showing some cleavage that makes you feel sexy, or even dancing by yourself in front of your mirror. Who said someone else had to be apart of your sense of sexiness and your sexuality? Why do we need others to validate our sexiness? Whatever it is, don't model yourself after people who aren't even authentically portraying sex as they are literally acting (people who think that porn stars, strippers and prostitutes actually get off and are turned on during the shooting are completely lying to themselves).

Whew, 'kay, I'll get off of my soap box now. Peace.