When will real life actually hit me in the face and say “grow up?” I keep waiting for this burst of inspiration or mobility to come from somewhere deep within me and it never happens. Why can’t I just start packing my shit to move to Chicago? Why can’t I bring myself to learn what I’m supposed to be doing? Is it maybe because I’m still in a college mentality? I’m living in a college town-the epitome of one, actually- and I work on campus. I’m 20 years old, and I’ve been offered a real, salary paying job, but it hasn’t really sunk in yet. I haven’t even been to the campus where I’m about to be working, and everyone is expecting so much from me already. I only have a month, people. Please chill.
But then, real life doesn’t have a month. Real life barely has 24 hours to get shit done, and I’ve been gifted with a month, so why can’t I just utilize the time I have in the most efficient way possible? A lackadaisical attitude can carry over from undergrad to real life, and it’s poisonous. If what we need is more motivation, then its time for us to get it. We have less than a month.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Talks With The Moon
Hey Stranger
Mr. Man in that moon.
Long time no see
No, don't make me cry, moon.
It's both our fault.
But, look at my hands.
They're full of you again.
You and that light, sweet moon.
Remember filling my hands, my palms
with the light and love you
promised me?
It got there, you know.
That warm light stopped and settled
and filled my hands
with a matching set.
Ten fingers that fit so well there's
electricity.
Fire, heart, passion and
love, love, love.
That pool of moonlight I was once
reflected in touched my soul.
Saw my secrets and my
deeds for four years.
Forgive me my sins, moon.
May your moonbeams absolve me
of my wrongs from so much time
spent running through that field.
Dishonoring your gifts to me
Spreading myself too thin to be full.
I didn't want to be full.
Couldn't be loved
Didn't deserve to be loved.
And when I woke up in that field. That Field
four years deep of my mistakes
I found arms
around me.
Enveloped in love that could only
have been given by you.
Love by moonlight.
I found arms that held me.
Here are my hands, moon.
Fill my palms with the light
I once saw, that show me
the pathway to the life and love
I know now.
Let the moonlight guide me to my
next step.
Mr. Man I know you hear me.
Hear me now and take my hands,
my body, my soul
once more
to the reflecting pool.
Love grounds
but moonlight soars.
Mr. Man in that moon.
Long time no see
No, don't make me cry, moon.
It's both our fault.
But, look at my hands.
They're full of you again.
You and that light, sweet moon.
Remember filling my hands, my palms
with the light and love you
promised me?
It got there, you know.
That warm light stopped and settled
and filled my hands
with a matching set.
Ten fingers that fit so well there's
electricity.
Fire, heart, passion and
love, love, love.
That pool of moonlight I was once
reflected in touched my soul.
Saw my secrets and my
deeds for four years.
Forgive me my sins, moon.
May your moonbeams absolve me
of my wrongs from so much time
spent running through that field.
Dishonoring your gifts to me
Spreading myself too thin to be full.
I didn't want to be full.
Couldn't be loved
Didn't deserve to be loved.
And when I woke up in that field. That Field
four years deep of my mistakes
I found arms
around me.
Enveloped in love that could only
have been given by you.
Love by moonlight.
I found arms that held me.
Here are my hands, moon.
Fill my palms with the light
I once saw, that show me
the pathway to the life and love
I know now.
Let the moonlight guide me to my
next step.
Mr. Man I know you hear me.
Hear me now and take my hands,
my body, my soul
once more
to the reflecting pool.
Love grounds
but moonlight soars.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Designer Vaginas?! You've Got To Be Kidding, Right? Right!??
From: Designer Vaginas-Simone Weil Davis
“Labiaplasty [. . .] trimming away labial tissue and sometimes injecting fat from another part of the body into the labia that have been deemed excessively droopy” (287). When I first read this description of the procedure, my own vulva clenched up in fear. I can’t understand why women want to have this procedure done, though reasons have been given; women claiming that they want their labia to be prettier, more like the labia they see in pornography, and less ugly. Less like one’s personal anatomy and more like a mass-produced good readily available at your next doctor’s visit. How can a woman think her labia are “abnormal,” when they’re what she was born with? From my perspective, nip/tucking one’s labia is more akin to female genital cutting and female circumcision than making it more aesthetically pleasing. Who has the right to decide what is and isn’t “normal” in terms of a vulva’s appearance?
When Congress passed the criminalizing of circumcising a minor female in 1996 (290), the congressional leaders should also have taken into consideration the rise of the popularity of plastic surgery amongst females at that time. An insightful person could have suspected that labiaplasty would be the closest procedure to female genital cutting, but only slightly crossing the border from cosmetic surgery. The anti-FGO laws make mention of the “rituals” and customs of cutting African immigrant bodies and criminalize them (290), but cosmetic surgery in that specific area isn’t even approached. It’s still legal for a doctor to tell his female patient that her labia are droopy, unappealing, and above all, unsexy. This same doctor then goes on to advise his patient to get the wholly unnecessary procedure. I’m likening labiaplasty to FGOs in African countries because of the amount of pressure women feel to have this procedure done in order to please men. In America, some women believe that if they have their labia tightened up just a little, then men will be jumping into these women’s beds, enjoying their new physiques. However, in those still existing African countries where female circumcision is still okay, it’s encouraged, if not enforced by law. In both of these patriarchal societies, the ideal for feminine beauty now goes so far down below the waist; it has even struck women where they live. A woman’s vulva (all parts included) used to be her own, at least in America. In Africa it’s been such a tradition for women to be circumcised at a young age, that it’s actually abnormal if the procedure isn’t done. Why, then, are American women submitting to this tribal-like attitude men are projecting that women’s labia should be tight and pretty, and it’s a woman’s job to please the men in her life, so she must get labiaplasty? Though there, clearly, are women who claim that they are nip/tucking their way to a happier and more comfortable lifestyle, the question still remains where they got the information and idea about these surgeries in the first place. It’s more than likely that some male driven fantasy that needed to be executed planted the seed of idea. I’d like to conclude by agreeing with the following quote from Davis: “it is imperative that both consent issues and vaginal modifications themselves be considered on a continuum that is not determined along hemispheric, national, or racial lines” (293). Essentially, ladies, take a look at what’s really going on when thinking about having your pussy cut up and tightened, even just a little bit.
“Labiaplasty [. . .] trimming away labial tissue and sometimes injecting fat from another part of the body into the labia that have been deemed excessively droopy” (287). When I first read this description of the procedure, my own vulva clenched up in fear. I can’t understand why women want to have this procedure done, though reasons have been given; women claiming that they want their labia to be prettier, more like the labia they see in pornography, and less ugly. Less like one’s personal anatomy and more like a mass-produced good readily available at your next doctor’s visit. How can a woman think her labia are “abnormal,” when they’re what she was born with? From my perspective, nip/tucking one’s labia is more akin to female genital cutting and female circumcision than making it more aesthetically pleasing. Who has the right to decide what is and isn’t “normal” in terms of a vulva’s appearance?
When Congress passed the criminalizing of circumcising a minor female in 1996 (290), the congressional leaders should also have taken into consideration the rise of the popularity of plastic surgery amongst females at that time. An insightful person could have suspected that labiaplasty would be the closest procedure to female genital cutting, but only slightly crossing the border from cosmetic surgery. The anti-FGO laws make mention of the “rituals” and customs of cutting African immigrant bodies and criminalize them (290), but cosmetic surgery in that specific area isn’t even approached. It’s still legal for a doctor to tell his female patient that her labia are droopy, unappealing, and above all, unsexy. This same doctor then goes on to advise his patient to get the wholly unnecessary procedure. I’m likening labiaplasty to FGOs in African countries because of the amount of pressure women feel to have this procedure done in order to please men. In America, some women believe that if they have their labia tightened up just a little, then men will be jumping into these women’s beds, enjoying their new physiques. However, in those still existing African countries where female circumcision is still okay, it’s encouraged, if not enforced by law. In both of these patriarchal societies, the ideal for feminine beauty now goes so far down below the waist; it has even struck women where they live. A woman’s vulva (all parts included) used to be her own, at least in America. In Africa it’s been such a tradition for women to be circumcised at a young age, that it’s actually abnormal if the procedure isn’t done. Why, then, are American women submitting to this tribal-like attitude men are projecting that women’s labia should be tight and pretty, and it’s a woman’s job to please the men in her life, so she must get labiaplasty? Though there, clearly, are women who claim that they are nip/tucking their way to a happier and more comfortable lifestyle, the question still remains where they got the information and idea about these surgeries in the first place. It’s more than likely that some male driven fantasy that needed to be executed planted the seed of idea. I’d like to conclude by agreeing with the following quote from Davis: “it is imperative that both consent issues and vaginal modifications themselves be considered on a continuum that is not determined along hemispheric, national, or racial lines” (293). Essentially, ladies, take a look at what’s really going on when thinking about having your pussy cut up and tightened, even just a little bit.
Friday, February 12, 2010
"Prodigal Sons"- The Oprah Show
You've read my rantings about tv talk shows before. You've read my writings on what it means to do right by one's gender. Now, you get both:
Yesterday, as I was watching the end of the Ellen DeGeneres Show, I was caught mid-step by an advertisement for the Oprah show immediately following Ellen. The commercial promised viewers a look into the life of a transsexual/transgendered male to female. I was awestruck at the story being presented right there on national television, not out of offense, but out of the story’s content. Of course, I stopped right where I was and continued for an hour to watch Oprah dig into this person’s life. Here is Kimberly, nee Paul, on Oprah’s couch talking about her past life as a high school star quarterback, valedictorian, and all-around “golden boy.” In Paul’s mid-twenties, he had moved to San Francisco to pursue other sexual pursuits than were considered appropriate in his Montana home and he underwent sex reassignment surgery to become Kimberly. She showed clips of her documentary detailing the events of her life as a boy and now as a woman, which also included footage of her family, who held differing opinions amongst themselves about Kimberly’s current life.
Let’s take a look at Paul’s high school achievements: He was the quarterback on the football team, incredibly popular, and valedictorian; he was a leader, but never felt quite right in his own body. Was Paul simply “doing his gender” (as Lorber would put it) by participating in these activities and succeeding at them? Some would say that he was acting the way a straight, white, male should in a small town in Montana. How then, can his personal feminine feelings be incorporated to his “doing gender” as a male? There was no middle ground for him. Paul felt inherently female throughout his entire life, and it wasn’t until he had escaped his hometown that he could pursue his goals as a woman. Which gender was he supposed to perform as before his reassignment surgery? Though he was born biologically male, he had played that part already. In exploring his “feminine side,” he was now “doing” that gender and felt better about it. The question then arises to ask whether or not Kimberly was doing her gender, since she was not biologically born as a woman? How did she know how to act or perform in everyday life? Did this knowledge stem from whatever Paul had learned in his lifetime, and if so, does that mean that Paul wasn’t doing his gender properly since he felt female?
Lorber says “Every society classifies people as ‘girl and boy children,’ ‘girls and boys ready to be married,’ and ‘fully adult women and men’” (143). Kimberly doesn’t exactly fit into this stratification. Lorber continues to argue that between the two genders, there are certain roles and characteristics applied to each, and yet Kimberly defied such social norms and constructions when she underwent her surgery. While many theorists/scientists/educators emphasize these stratification separations as necessary components of daily life, there are those like Kimberly who defy such ideals. Anne Fausto-Sterling, in her essay “Two Sexes Are Not Enough” states that “if the state and legal system has an interest in maintaining only two sexes, our collective biological bodies do not” (140). I think Fausto-Sterling is absolutely correct in her statement, especially when it applies to trans-gendered/sexual people, because for a moment these individuals are, at a minimum, two genders at once. Which one should they do?
Yesterday, as I was watching the end of the Ellen DeGeneres Show, I was caught mid-step by an advertisement for the Oprah show immediately following Ellen. The commercial promised viewers a look into the life of a transsexual/transgendered male to female. I was awestruck at the story being presented right there on national television, not out of offense, but out of the story’s content. Of course, I stopped right where I was and continued for an hour to watch Oprah dig into this person’s life. Here is Kimberly, nee Paul, on Oprah’s couch talking about her past life as a high school star quarterback, valedictorian, and all-around “golden boy.” In Paul’s mid-twenties, he had moved to San Francisco to pursue other sexual pursuits than were considered appropriate in his Montana home and he underwent sex reassignment surgery to become Kimberly. She showed clips of her documentary detailing the events of her life as a boy and now as a woman, which also included footage of her family, who held differing opinions amongst themselves about Kimberly’s current life.
Let’s take a look at Paul’s high school achievements: He was the quarterback on the football team, incredibly popular, and valedictorian; he was a leader, but never felt quite right in his own body. Was Paul simply “doing his gender” (as Lorber would put it) by participating in these activities and succeeding at them? Some would say that he was acting the way a straight, white, male should in a small town in Montana. How then, can his personal feminine feelings be incorporated to his “doing gender” as a male? There was no middle ground for him. Paul felt inherently female throughout his entire life, and it wasn’t until he had escaped his hometown that he could pursue his goals as a woman. Which gender was he supposed to perform as before his reassignment surgery? Though he was born biologically male, he had played that part already. In exploring his “feminine side,” he was now “doing” that gender and felt better about it. The question then arises to ask whether or not Kimberly was doing her gender, since she was not biologically born as a woman? How did she know how to act or perform in everyday life? Did this knowledge stem from whatever Paul had learned in his lifetime, and if so, does that mean that Paul wasn’t doing his gender properly since he felt female?
Lorber says “Every society classifies people as ‘girl and boy children,’ ‘girls and boys ready to be married,’ and ‘fully adult women and men’” (143). Kimberly doesn’t exactly fit into this stratification. Lorber continues to argue that between the two genders, there are certain roles and characteristics applied to each, and yet Kimberly defied such social norms and constructions when she underwent her surgery. While many theorists/scientists/educators emphasize these stratification separations as necessary components of daily life, there are those like Kimberly who defy such ideals. Anne Fausto-Sterling, in her essay “Two Sexes Are Not Enough” states that “if the state and legal system has an interest in maintaining only two sexes, our collective biological bodies do not” (140). I think Fausto-Sterling is absolutely correct in her statement, especially when it applies to trans-gendered/sexual people, because for a moment these individuals are, at a minimum, two genders at once. Which one should they do?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Mazel Tov!
Talking to my sister yesterday, I came upon the idea of what I want to do for my birthday... in 6 months.
Bat Mitzvah-style 21st birthday. Now, granted, a bat mitzvah usually occurs earlier in a girl's life, around the time when her family considers her officially a woman, but seeing as how I'm not inherently Jewish, I'm throwing myself a bat mitzvah anyway at whatever age I choose. I jokingly have always told everyone that I believe there is a 40-year-old Jewish woman who lives inside of me- named Ester- and I think she'd like this. My plan, then, is the following:
1. Rent a synogogue. I call it "rent-a-gogue."
2. Theme colors are blue and white.
3. Bring on the Manishevitz! I like wine and I like to party, so why not combine the two and celebrate my birthday!
4. Subtract the Torah, I just want the party that would inevitably come afterward.
Now, I know it's sick, twisted, and completely disrespectful to those who adhere to the Hebrew faith, but I want everyone to yell Mazel Tov when it's my birthday, dammit! Your thoughts and contributions are greatly appreciated. Get planning, people.
Cheers,
Ennui
Bat Mitzvah-style 21st birthday. Now, granted, a bat mitzvah usually occurs earlier in a girl's life, around the time when her family considers her officially a woman, but seeing as how I'm not inherently Jewish, I'm throwing myself a bat mitzvah anyway at whatever age I choose. I jokingly have always told everyone that I believe there is a 40-year-old Jewish woman who lives inside of me- named Ester- and I think she'd like this. My plan, then, is the following:
1. Rent a synogogue. I call it "rent-a-gogue."
2. Theme colors are blue and white.
3. Bring on the Manishevitz! I like wine and I like to party, so why not combine the two and celebrate my birthday!
4. Subtract the Torah, I just want the party that would inevitably come afterward.
Now, I know it's sick, twisted, and completely disrespectful to those who adhere to the Hebrew faith, but I want everyone to yell Mazel Tov when it's my birthday, dammit! Your thoughts and contributions are greatly appreciated. Get planning, people.
Cheers,
Ennui
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Women and Theatre
Here are the Holidays. These days we are constantly being reminded to be thankful for what we have and for our close friends and families, and to be aware and thoughtful of those less fortunate than us. Well, I’d like to use this, my last blog posting for the semester, to discuss what I’m thankful for in terms of women and theatre. The course of this semester has brought me to a greater understanding of how women in the business of show (that is, theatre) act and react to one another. I have read and thought about arguments between women theatre artists, playwrights, actresses, and historians, and have come to a rather simple conclusion: we’re all in theatre to say something. My final question of all that I’ve raised this semester is this: what are we trying to say?
I really think that what women in the theatre are trying to say that we count, too. Whether the woman in question is a playwright, theorist, or standard spectator, we’ve had a lot of firsts already, and it’s high time that we be included in the masses. Of course, I’m not advocating for complete submergence into the theatre culture to where we become mere atoms in the theatre universe. Rather, being counted means to be accepted as equals, just as in the rest of the world. As women, we are fully capable of holding arguments with one another that don’t necessarily result in bitchy catfights (an example of an exception would be the lovely words exchanged between Sue-Ellen Case and Holly Hughes) and unnoticed work. The women who have come before us have demonstrated their enormous talent, but it, for some reason, has to have its validity questioned by the men of the canon in order to be considered good, even mediocre. It’s unnecessary proverbial red tape that is blocking women from being counted, and should be discarded.
I’m thankful for the fact that I get to be among this changing of the guard in terms of theatre. I am seeing further advances being made, as well as learning the pasts of the women who have come before me. I am extraordinarily grateful that I am more aware of women writers, because I know that there is something to be said for them, and that is this: despite what the established canon thinks, these women, to me, have a kind of creative genius in them that millennia of men have only been able to dream of and it scares them. These women know themselves and their peers; they probably write men better than men can. An unidentifiable number of men have been trying to write women for at least as long as there have been cave drawings, and they can barely get it right, bless their hearts. I’m thankful that I have a place in the theatre, and that today I am accepted based upon my merit and only a little bit by my gender. To the women whom we have studied this semester: Thank you for helping me to understand that I, too, can be counted among theatre artists. Thank you for writing and performing; for debating over what is right, universal, and canonical; for not giving a damn about what your male peers will say and writing for and about women; for being an agent of change; and for teaching me that I do not belong to the hegemonic ideal of theatre. I’m a woman, I’m different, and sometimes everyone around me should really just accept that, and maybe listen to what I have to say; because what I have to say is damn important.
Cheers,
Patsy
I really think that what women in the theatre are trying to say that we count, too. Whether the woman in question is a playwright, theorist, or standard spectator, we’ve had a lot of firsts already, and it’s high time that we be included in the masses. Of course, I’m not advocating for complete submergence into the theatre culture to where we become mere atoms in the theatre universe. Rather, being counted means to be accepted as equals, just as in the rest of the world. As women, we are fully capable of holding arguments with one another that don’t necessarily result in bitchy catfights (an example of an exception would be the lovely words exchanged between Sue-Ellen Case and Holly Hughes) and unnoticed work. The women who have come before us have demonstrated their enormous talent, but it, for some reason, has to have its validity questioned by the men of the canon in order to be considered good, even mediocre. It’s unnecessary proverbial red tape that is blocking women from being counted, and should be discarded.
I’m thankful for the fact that I get to be among this changing of the guard in terms of theatre. I am seeing further advances being made, as well as learning the pasts of the women who have come before me. I am extraordinarily grateful that I am more aware of women writers, because I know that there is something to be said for them, and that is this: despite what the established canon thinks, these women, to me, have a kind of creative genius in them that millennia of men have only been able to dream of and it scares them. These women know themselves and their peers; they probably write men better than men can. An unidentifiable number of men have been trying to write women for at least as long as there have been cave drawings, and they can barely get it right, bless their hearts. I’m thankful that I have a place in the theatre, and that today I am accepted based upon my merit and only a little bit by my gender. To the women whom we have studied this semester: Thank you for helping me to understand that I, too, can be counted among theatre artists. Thank you for writing and performing; for debating over what is right, universal, and canonical; for not giving a damn about what your male peers will say and writing for and about women; for being an agent of change; and for teaching me that I do not belong to the hegemonic ideal of theatre. I’m a woman, I’m different, and sometimes everyone around me should really just accept that, and maybe listen to what I have to say; because what I have to say is damn important.
Cheers,
Patsy
Thursday, November 26, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)