Sex Segregation and Porn Stars: A Two-Part Blog

My blog this week is a two-parter: the first is about sex segregation, and the second is about an interview on Oprah I saw this week.

Part One:
“The basic premise is that boys and girls learn in different ways. Separating classes by sex provides an environment in which boys and girls can be taught in the way which best suits their gender.” I found this statement in the opinion section of The Daily Reveille on Monday, November 23rd, and found so many things disturbing about the article entitled “Is sex segregation actually progress for our schools?” The article explains that the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against the Vermillion Parish School Board. Apparently, the parish has deemed that the segregation of sexes in the classroom is actually a good thing, and that it encourages this practice amongst its students, despite the fact that the students have the option of choosing to be segregated based on their sex. When did public schools go backward in their teaching methods? I can remember being in middle school and wanting to do better than everyone, no matter their gender, but I certainly didn’t want to be separated from the boys to advance myself.

From what I can gather from the Reveille article, the argument in favor of sex segregation is thus: because boys and girls learn differently, separating them based on their sex, not their educational merit, will help them to learn better and at their own pace. I fear that this argument only encourages the “boys versus girls” mentality that we’ve all been engaged in since preschool, and which we’ve striven to eliminate for years. Isn’t it mentally healthy for male and female students to learn in the same environments, as each gender can gain something from the other? I can’t seem to understand why a public school system would actually want to separate the genders in the classroom. The cynical part of me would say that the school board believes that boys learn faster than girls, and separating the two genders allows for the boys classes to be taught at a faster pace, leaving the girls in the dust and thinking that they are actually less-than competitive in a man’s world. I am not consoled by the article’s statement that the advocation for sex segregation is “based on a set of stereotypes of what an average boy or girl is interested in and how he or she should best be taught.” Can Vermillion Parish please go back and look at the immense progress women have made in being taught the same subjects as men?

Part Two:
I was watching Oprah this week and her guest was ex-porn star Jenna Jameson. Oprah had Jenna on the show to talk about her career in the adult entertainment industry and how she is now retired, and living as a wife and mother. Jameson’s articulate answers to Oprah’s questions gave me a new light on which to look at her. Jameson explained that while she was in the industry, she wanted to beautify the content and make it more real for the viewer, giving them a more visceral experience. When asked how many partners she’d been with, Jenna explained that she never wanted to be intimate with more than 5 men in her entire career, and I found that absolutely shocking considering the amount of films that she had made. She’s the world’s most recognizable “porn star,” and she stated, very matter-of-factly, that her partner in the majority of her films was her husband.

Now that Jenna is retired, she is a mother to two boys, both of a younger than toddler age. Oprah addressed the fact that one day Jenna will have to answer her boys’ questions regarding their mommy’s old job as a sex symbol. Teary-eyed, Jameson stated that she only wants her boys to look at her as a loving mother who made a career for herself, being very in-control of her status. She doesn’t want her boys to think of her as a slut or a whore, but rather as an unconventional businesswoman. I found this to be completely admirable. For a woman to be in such a position of power in the adult industry, Jameson was, and is, certainly at the top of her game.

Cheers,
Patsy

Rape Warfare and "Ruined"

I have studied the issues surrounding warfare in the Democratic Republic of Congo for some time now. Going into the reading of Nottage’s play, Ruined, I was not unaware of the concept of “ruined women” and “genetically mutilated” women. I dare say that many of us in the class are aware, or have heard of this phenomenon that is sweeping war-stricken Africa, and I also will venture to say that those of who are aware of this assault against women have something to say about it. My questions of late are these: when did women’s bodies become the battlegrounds on which men fight their wars? How many women will these monstrous assailants attack and mutilate until they are satisfied?

“Rape as an instrument of warfare.” These are scary words for anyone to hear, and it’s even scarier for those women who are directly affected by it; the raped women, the ruined women. In combination with my fear for these women and for their future, I am also deeply saddened. I am overcome with sadness and despair, despite the notion that Nottage’s Ruined gave me something to smile about; the final scene gives hope. (While I was reading the play, I couldn’t help but remember the portions of Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues which deal with female mutilation and rape warfare. However, Ensler’s input comes mainly from what she calls a “Vagina Fact,” a segment in The Vagina Monologues giving facts about genital mutilation. ) However, the entire play leading up to the final scene is full of sadness, which lets you know that it’s real. This stuff is really happening, and we only remember it when we read about it or when it’s in the news. How is this not a concept that is forever in our minds as women? Do we even know if mutilation and “female circumcision” is a phenomenon occurring in America right now? I, for one, have no clue if its happening in our own backyard, and I’m worried. Frankly, I think that our minimal fund of knowledge about these women in Africa, or lack of publicizing it at the very least, is a bit irresponsible. There are those around me who say that publicizing these acts would only be representative of Americans trying to put our nose into everything anyone else is doing (similar to other situations into which we have gotten ourselves), and that we should just stay out of it and focus on what’s at hand. These are women who are telling me to keep quiet and to mind my own business! Excuse me, but no!

It’s a scary thought to carry around with someone. To think that there are current generations of women and girls waiting to be raped and then to be used, abused, and then thrown away to die is horrifying. The idea of spreading information about these crimes against women is not lost on me, nor is it put to the side by other women who have come before me. Plays like Ruined need to be produced en masse for further education, in my opinion. It’s not the only way that this education can be spread, but it’s a damn good start. The ones most likely to take action are those who are actively pursuing attending artistic functions, like the theatre, and these activists are the ones who get things done. I thoroughly hope and believe that there will be a point in my life where the “ruined” women will be safe once again, and not have to worry about when her next predator is going to walk through the door.

Cheers,
Patsy

Histories and Herstories

I was particularly nervous about writing my history piece; mostly because I had no idea where to begin the story. My first drafts were about my family, and while they serve their purposes in regards to my history, they weren’t the ones living it, and so I had to rewrite the entire piece to be about myself. This is where the hard thinking came in. How do I write about my past, when I can’t remember some of it, or it wasn’t that significant to perform, and how, then, do I incorporate elements of gender and sexuality? The answer came to me as I was walking through CVS. In thinking about how I have varied my views on gender and sexuality, I remembered our class talking about stereotypes, and it hit me like a ton of bricks. Softball has to be the most sexually-stereotyped sport for females, followed only by basketball. I’ve played both, often during the same year but in each other’s off season, and I am quite familiar with the stereotypes associated with each. Softball seemed to hold more weight for me, though.

So I began thinking during our presentations what it must have been like for each of us to define our own sexuality and gender. Watching Alex give his presentation was interesting, as he had to come up with his own view without any assistance growing up. It struck a chord with me. I was fortunate enough to grow up with a mom and a sister telling me how to act like a lady, but I also had a dad to teach me how to be different with it; how to be a different kind of woman. Nichole’s slide show had a different tune to it, though. When she began with the slides of pinup women in “womanly” professions, I was a little put-off, thinking that it really used to be like this. Women really did have to submit to being either a teacher, a housewife, or a secretary and be at the whim of the man in control. I think that the choice to “teach” us that her own theatre teacher was different was a good segue. I don’t remember having many male teachers growing up, and that influenced me a little into thinking that teaching was, in fact, a woman’s profession. How, then, was it to change, and who was to do so? Nichole’s teacher obviously proved to her that teachers come of any gender, and that we, ourselves can be teachers, even without a classroom.

Returning to theatre, though, makes me think of Rebecca’s reading of her diary to us. Frankly, keeping a diary has always been a personal interest of mine, and listening to Rebecca read aloud from hers was a delight. I particularly enjoyed watching her tell her story of how theatre got her through one of the worst times in her life, and to have that written down is even more extraordinary. What stands out to me, though, is the fact that she played Lady Macbeth, a notoriously bitchy role, and it was fun to think of her playing that character. I wonder what that meant to her and her own definition of gender. Did playing “Lady Macbitch” aide her in re-defining her concept of the powerful woman and how that woman can get through her own particular tragedy? And then there’s Rosa; Rosa with her wooden statues marking her progression through her dance years. At first, I was a little scared by the statues. Listening to her defense of them however, made more sense than them just being creepy wooden dolls. She became the woman that she is through her dance training, and that, to me is significant. She played the dancing girl role well, and I was the ball player, which brought me to the conclusion that we are all products of our environment, as we are all rather aware, and it is that which shapes us into the people we are today.

Cheers,
Patsy

My Mom is Obsessed

I want to talk about my mother and the fact that she has become completely obsessed with her body image. First, in order to fully explain this phenomenon, I have to give a little backstory: My parents have been married for 23 years, albeit sometimes unhappily, and my mother had three kids. In that time span, she has constantly had a struggle with her weight, and countless doctors have told her to lose the extra poundage she’d gained.

This past March, my father had hip surgery, and my mother’s nervous system went into shock. Constantly fretting over dear ole dad, she didn’t eat, drank as much Raspberry Ice-flavored Crystal Light as she could get her hands on, and was running up and down two flights of stairs tending to my dad dozens of times a day. Now, how do you think this kind of activity affects a 55 year-old woman’s body? Exactly; she dropped her extra weight like it was no big deal. First it was a few pounds here and there, then she couldn’t fit into her old jeans anymore, and then, the best part of this story, is that her diabetes even started to show signs of backing off. She called me about a week ago to tell me that she now fits into a size 6 in Old Navy skinny jeans. Skinny Jeans on a 55 year-old mother of three!! How does this happen?

My father has since recovered quite nicely from his hip surgery, but mom has finally learned how to dramatically change her lifestyle in order to keep up with dad, who began to change the status of his health many years ago, about when he hit 50. Mom and dad then showed me that they achieved the impossible: they went on a two-week trip for their anniversary-didn’t want to kill each other- and managed to not take two naps in one day. Because they changed their health patterns, they were able to see and do more during the day.

I have a point, I promise, and it is this: Instead of surgically altering her body, my mother has managed to look youthful just by having the day-to-day stress of taking care of my father after surgery. Most people would say that the stress would cause her to look more haggard and aged, but somehow, the woman has, once again, defied convention and improved her appearance. She managed to achieve a youthful appearance without Botox injections, pilates, or extreme fasting. I commend her on her improvement in physical appearance and inner feelings on life now, as she seems happy with herself, to say nothing of the fact that she’s proud of accomplishing that which has burdened her for years.

How, then, can we learn from my mother? I really don’t think it would be wise to allow ourselves to get to the extreme that my mother was, then have a significant other go under the knife and stress us out, no. Rather, let’s start taking care of ourselves now while we still have the wherewithal to do so. Let’s fight Breast Cancer, obesity, heart disease, and diabetes-all conditions that so readily affect women more often than men. Let’s prevent our bones from depleting and dissolving away. Let’s obsess about our body image, not from the outside, but from within. The outside appearance will come in time, but we have to work from the inside out first. We have to know and be aware of what’s happening inside us in order to fully understand how the outside is going to change. From that, we can be like my mom: happy with who we are.

Cheers,
Patsy

Behind-The-Scenes Antigone

As the stage manager for Antigone, I was fortunate enough to see what happens behind the scenes. From the whole process, I feel as if I’ve managed to collect enough opinion, fact, and speculation to put together my own conjecture of the play from a purely textual context, as well as one from the hour and fifteen minute production itself. Michael Tick, our most esteemed director, put together the concept of placing Antigone in a punk world based upon the notion that the punk mentality could easily translate to any era where there is dissention and secession from those in authority. I believe that Tick has a point to be made here. Throughout the world, even today, we can see evidence of unjust punishment of individuals who stand up for what they believe in, despite laws set forth by the ruling party. It begs the question: what, then, is “just”? How do we define justice as it applies to an entire population, and how is it to be enforced?

In the case of Antigone, Creon punishes his own niece for burying her brother whom Creon said should be left unburied due to his traitorous acts. If we are to conjecture an answer to the question of what is just based on a punk mentality, the answer is that Antigone did exactly what a punk would do, which is, to defy authority, consequences be damned. Now the case of Creon as a punk creeps upon us. Tick felt, and justified, that in any society, specifically punk, there is a group of anti-establishment individuals. Within that group, however, is always a hierarchy and Creon represents that social standing within the stratification in our punk world. In my opinion, the choice to make Creon a punk is validated by the history within the play. Those familiar with Oedipus Rex know that Creon helped to save the city from destruction by discovering that Oedipus was the cause of the sweeping ailment. If we are to suppose that Thebes has always been punk, then it only makes sense that Creon would maintain his punk sense of style, in the very least, in his ascension to the throne as ruler. It is logical that his newly acquired status would have him change his mind about anarchy and dissention from the law. He understands that if he allows such behavior from his people, then his throne could be taken away the same way that Creon usurped Oedipus. From this knowledge, he then strives to ensure that his kingdom is under his thumb.

To what limits, then are we subjected when our own family defies our wishes? In Creon’s case, he not only had Antigone, his niece, marching to a different drum, but his own son, Haemon, was siding with Antigone. There have been many discussions, at least in rehearsal, about how Creon is to treat Haemon’s disloyalty towards his father and loyalty towards his fiancée. A ruler’s own flesh and blood, traditionally sides with his own, but for Creon to have to deal with his son, who isn’t as defiant at first, then becomes more outspoken and threatening, was a huge hurdle to jump. I believe that our production was successful in showing Haemon’s attempts at undermining Creon’s decree by siding with him at first, then switching sides. I think that it shows an interesting dynamic that parlays easily into the punk mentality. The audience sees an enraged son trying to maintain calm in the face of authority (especially since it’s his father), yet is waiting for the moment onstage where Haemon would reach his breaking point and we would finally see the inner anarchist emerge.

With the chorus’ help, I believe that Antigone in the punk world works and translates well. A disclaimer, however- for those who haven’t seen the production yet- is that it’s not punk rock, it’s just punk. There is a difference, in that the production isn’t about the music, which will become quite evident. Rather, it’s about the mentality of the punks itself, and the mentality is the masks that they wear to portray what’s happening. Audiences shouldn’t go into the show expecting it to be filled with 70’s/80’s punk music. Instead, they should go in armed with the mentality that this is a Greek tragedy, and sometimes it’s all about the masks.

Cheers,
Patsy

Will & Jack or Ellen & Rosie?

How does the media displace our attention in identifying who qualifies as “gay” or “lesbian?” My answer to this question lies in television shows like “Will & Grace” and “The Ellen DeGeneres Show.” We’ve all fallen victim, myself included, to the wonderfully crafted idea that characters like Will and Jack and people such as Ellen are the common, everyday gay man or lesbian, when we actually know that this is false. Thanks to sitcoms like “Will & Grace,” our common idea of what it means to be gay is presented by the two extremes of Will and Jack. Will, being the rather subdued extreme, almost conservative in his actions, and Jack holds the title of “flaming queen.” Here is the arc, gay men of the world; now conform to one of the two. I feel that this is what sitcom creators are trying to say to us that watch the show, and, frankly, it’s a little uncomfortable to watch these stereotypes played out on cable television. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the Jack’s jazz hands and Will’s perfect ironic timing as much as the next girl, but I also know for a fact that Jack and Will can’t possibly represent the be all and end all image of gay men in the world.

Now I’d like to move on to my favorite talk show host, Ellen DeGeneres. I love her. I love what she does and represents, I think that all of her philanthropic causes are just, and I even think that she’s better than Oprah in terms of her mass appeal. With Ellen, though, I find there to be some confusion about her presentation to the public. Let’s take a step back and compare her to another lesbian talk show host, Rosie O’Donnell. If Rosie were to represent a certain type of lesbian image, I’d say that she was more on the “butch” side. Ellen, in comparison, seems to be taking the same route in her personal imagery, mostly by the way she dresses. What I find confusing here, is that I don’t know exactly what Ellen is representing. Is she attempting to appeal to lesbians of the world by being the “everylesbian?” If this is, in fact, her ultimate goal, then all confusion, for me, has just been cleared. If, however, Ellen is going for a different kind of appeal, then I’m going to have to do some more watching (as if I don’t watch it enough-almost religiously) and figure her out more.

My point here is that those of us who identify as “straight” unfortunately have a lot of our ideas about gay men and lesbians shaped by the media; specifically, by television. I have fallen victim to this ploy of TV writers and have gone on the hunt for my “Will” or my “Ellen,” and have found that the gays and lesbians that I meet, love, and adore, fall nowhere under the umbrella that has been cast by ABC, NBC, or CBS. In fact, the “Wills” and “Ellens” in my life have turned out to be equal parts “Will” and Jack” or “Rosie” and “Ellen” (I understand that happy mediums can sometimes be detrimental, but my life is full of such happy mediums). Here is what I propose should be done to fix this situation: challenge what is and has always been done! It has occurred to me that TV writers are sticking to this molded idea of what qualifies as TV-appropriate gay men and lesbians, and thus the rest of us are shielded once more from what exists outside the world of the studio audience, unless we attempt to find our own version of what’s on TV, and find that there is more to know and love.

Cheers,
Patsy

Breast Cancer and Larry Kramer

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Okay, let’s talk about that and its relation to AIDS in Larry Kramer’s The Normal Heart. Breast Cancer is striking women and men constantly, and there’s so much media attention telling them to go get checked annually, do self breast exams at home, and always be aware of the symptoms of this horrifying condition. Thinking about this kind of attention that Breast Cancer is getting, I can’t help but wonder what America would be like if Breast Cancer got no more attention than AIDS did in the early years. What if women today were ignored and mistreated just because they had Breast Cancer? Imagine The Normal Heart but with Breast Cancer instead of AIDS. It’s a little hard for me to comprehend due to the fact that Breast Cancer has so much attention surrounding it. I like to think that if this were the case, that Breast Cancer got almost no attention and was ignored in the public eye, there would be uprisings and demonstrations and radical groups fighting the American Medical Association for more research to be done. The groups would be marching on Washington for federal funding to find a cure, or to at least find ways to prevent it from happening to innocent people.

While I was reading The Normal Heart, I couldn’t stop being outraged at the characters like the Mayor and Hiram, figures in power, that were doing next to nothing to help members of their community, whether or not they were gay themselves. On top of this surface anger, I was also astounded by Bruce’s character who, to me, wanted to pretend that if he ignored this disease affecting the men in his life, it would all go away. It’s absurd. I found Bruce to be arrogant and unappreciative of the work that Ned and the rest of the group were doing to try and help, potentially save, the men in their lives. I wonder how Kramer could stand it. It had to be painful to watch his closest friends not care as much as he did about getting attention.

Put Breast Cancer in the same situation, and think about the amount of public outcry there would have been if there wasn’t the funding, knowledge, and awareness that we have now. Breast Cancer seems almost less preventable than AIDS, yet there is more awareness and media attention than AIDS ever got. The general public is knowledgeable of Breast Cancer and its symptoms, whereas AIDS is trickier. Where Breast Cancer is easily detectable and curable, AIDS can lurk in the body for years before ever making an appearance if it goes unchecked by a physician. What if Breast Cancer worked the same way? Imagine Breast Cancer in its early days: women dying left and right due to some unknown and virtually undetectable disease, and by the time it is detected, the clock has already started ticking, and there isn’t much time left. How did Breast Cancer get the attention it has now, and AIDS had to go through so much trial and error? My speculation is that Breast Cancer seems to mostly affect women, despite their sexuality, and AIDS at its onset was mostly affecting gay men. Here’s my next question: how can the American Medical Association, the Center for Disease Control, and the Federal Government pick and choose which ailments to advocate for more when both AIDS and Breast Cancer affect men and women of any sexuality? This is where they went wrong. I’ve come to the conclusion that it shouldn’t have mattered what sexuality these patients leaned towards, but that both types of patients were dying at an alarming rate, and AIDS got the short end of the stick. Today we see hundreds of advertisements about Breast Cancer awareness, especially during October. During December, which is AIDS awareness month, however, I fail to see much advocacy. Somehow this needs to change, and awareness needs to be equal.

Cheers,
Patsy