"Goddess Spirituality Teaches Social Justice" ... wait. What?

Any time I hear an absolutism it makes me cringe.

Nothing is absolute; all things in moderation.
The irony of those statements, I think, proves them.

So the headline "Goddess Spirituality Teaches Social Justice" really hurt my reflexes. I avoided reading it for two days hours minutes while it sat there at the top of my blog feed, taunting me with its ridiculousness. Then I succumbed.

I started the first paragraph prepared for some sort of explanation of the silly headline - and had to step back and skim the whole article. The author starts the article with the word "so."

As in, "so here's a bunch of examples of this idea I haven't explained, but obviously since I have these awesome examples (*ahem* anecdotes) that obviously indicate how right I am about this unelaborated idea, you have to agree with me. Because examples."

No, that's not an actual quote. I made it up. That's just how the article  made its first impression in my head.

Seemed a little pretentious, in my haughty opinion.

It all went downhill from there. The author rails against the patriarchy, claiming the world would be so much better if women were in power and the world focused on a female deity instead of a male deity (as if the WHOLE WORLD follows Abrahamic religions... ugh, don't even get me started), and if we just put women in power over men then everybody would be equal. Because that's logical.

It made me wonder where genderqueer and transgender folks exist in her world.

Don't get me wrong: I'm no anti-feminist. I think the post-modern feminist movement is doing great things. I also think putting men below women - as this author does - isn't equality. That's just flipping the power binary, without even acknowledging that almost nothing in human sociality is actually binary, and power structures are not an exception to that.

At some point, I realized that the article seems to be an excerpt - or rather, a collection of excerpts - from a book. I came to this realization because the image heading the article looks very much like a book cover. There's no text confirming this, but it's probably a fairly safe assumption. I'd rather think these paragraphs were taken out of context than believe the author really intended to begin, "So...," or that the author really thinks no explanation of the title is necessary. Because the explanation never comes in the article. I looked. Twice. And it was painful.

Bad writing is nearly as painful as bad logic. This was very, very painful.

I'm going to skip over all the really insulting crap - like the implication that if you're a woman who doesn't like having menses, you only feel that way because the patriarchy forces you to - and skip straight to the author's summary of their point. Mostly because it was the most coherent paragraph I found.

"In conclusion, I’ve touched briefly on but a few ideas showing how Sacred Feminine herstory, metaphor and  mythology might be reclaimed and reinterpreted to provide a roadmap toward a more sustainable future.  We have in the feminine images of divinity deities, archetypes and ideals to show us the way.  It is up to us if we want to move away from or temper the “authoritarian father” idealogy that shapes our religions and culture and instead heed the advice of the Great She and her Sacred Feminine liberation thealogy as our role model."

Right, because all our religions are masculine-monotheistic, and feminine-monotheistic is the only possible solution!

Ugh.
I'm so done.

Incidentally, I've enjoyed most of the posts I've found on pagansquare.com.
This one just happens to be irresponsible.

Seriously. Children could be reading this crap! This is modelling very bad writing! And logical fallacies being presented as truisms! That should be sacrilegious.


And to make it worse, I never even got to talk about whether or not Goddess-centric spiritualities could possibly teach social justice any more or less than any other religion, because the article had nothing coherent to discuss! So annoying.

I'm watching you, pagansquare. 

Damn, I got so irritated I forgot to include the link. Sorry about that. Here it is:

http://www.witchesandpagans.com/sagewoman-blogs/her-sacred-roar/goddess-spirituality-teaches-social-justice.html

sex and gender with bodies

In this course, we have been carefully considering the concept of gender, how it is culturally situated, and how it is created through public acts of performing selves, themselves informed by cultural ideologies of gender. Now, for your final post, reflect on what you have learned about the relationship of gender and language—what knowledge have you gained thus far?

After your reflection, consider the relationship of the body to gender by reflecting on Laqueur’s idea that sex and gender are both “staged” according to cultural understandings of them:

• How does a discussion of the body complicate or enhance a discussion of gender?
• How does the film Is it a Boy or a Girl enhance our understanding of this relationship? Be sure and bring in examples. 
• Where would you put the body in a theoretical understanding of gender and language?

The inclusion of biology in the discussion of gender necessarily complicates and enhances the context. Research efforts such as those we see in “Is it a boy or a girl” and Laqueur’s works illustrate, increasingly, the nature of sex, gender and sexuality as interconnected spectrums rather than dualities. So few things in nature are dualistic; it should be no surprise that there is little about humans that is dualistic. If forced to guess, I would hypothesize that the body is the platform for these three things. In one sense the body might be the necessary and hugely influential structural framework for gender and sexuality. Simultaneously, the body might be justthe platform, from which any picture might emerge, depending on the other components.

With as much time as I have spent in the genderqueer, transgender, and intersex communities – either because of my identity or through my work – it seems that the body must be an active component of gender and sex (and sexuality). However, it’s equally apparent that the body does not play the role it is assumed to play by our dominant cultural gender ideologies. The role of the body is not cut-and-dry, nor is it dualistic in any sense. Even intersex might not be best described as ‘part boy, part girl,’ as sometimes happens in conversations. Rather, it could possibly be said that we are nearly allintersex to some degree, because nearly all of us fall short of the hegemonic gender ideals – there are no real Barbies and Kens, in other words.

Is it a boy or a girlhighlighted the very interesting position that doctors are placed in when a child is born which is visually intersex (not all intersex individuals have external indications of being so – some are not discovered until the autopsy). At 3:52 of part 3 (as viewed on youtube – links below), the narrator begins a discussion of two people’s effort to instigate legislation against sex-assignment surgeries done during infancy. At 4:12, the narrator begins a somewhat-paraphrased quote of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ official position on the practice: in full, that quote is, “research on children with ambiguous genitalia has shown that a person’s sexual body image is largely a function of socialization, and children whose genetic sexes are not clearly reflected in external genitalia can be raised successfully as members of either sexes if the process begins before 2 1/2 years.” The sentiment behind that quote seemed somewhat dated (after all, “Doctor” Money’s work has long been known to be a travesty of false pretenses at best). Some snooping around on the AAP website revealed that they have actually updated their official position on the evaluation and management of intersex ‘disorders.’ Their new policy does reflect the more recent findings concerning the biological basis of gender, and subsequently they no longer support the erroneous claim that “a person’s sexual body image is largely a function of socialization.” (Links to the articles relevant to my findings are listed below.) I was mollified by their updated policy statements; it seems they are moving more toward an evidenced-based approach and away from the previous hegemonic ideology-based approach.

Is it a boy or a girl?– youtube version:

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ITuuxmlfqs

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQESPaEj8dk

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQJmPbHSdM

Intersex Society of North America – 1996 stance of American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): http://www.isna.org/books/chrysalis/aap

-          “Research on children with ambiguous genitalia has shown that a person’s sexual body image is largely a function of socialization, and children whose genetic sexes are not clearly reflected in external genitalia can be raised successfully as members of either sexes if the process begins before 2 1/2 years.”

-          At this time, the AAP made the potential fertility of the infant their primary decisive factor in determining the gender of the infant; surgery was performed to “correct” any aspect of the infant’s sex which might cause them to appear other than the sex which was most likely, in that individual, to prove fertile.

AAP revised policy (2000) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/2/e488

-          Still based on potential fertility; removes direct language concerning malleability of gender to social constructs, but indirect language remains and no counter statements are offered (this revision seems more political than functional).

AAP revised policy (2006) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/2/e488.full.pdf

-          Acknowledges limitations sociocultural as well as genetic influences on gender development of intersex people; seems to be a functional step forward.

This is the book referred to as the work of Laqueur: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Sex-Gender-Greeks-Freud/dp/0674543556/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372916642&sr=1-1 

Also, for more information on John Money’s experiments with gender, this is a decent starting point (after wikipedia): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01541983?LI=true

the makings of men: yes, I'm doing my homework again

The conversation transcribed below is scripted, and is from a TV show called Six Feet Under. The clip (which is available for your viewing pleasure at the bottom of this post - you're welcome) is from the first season, which aired in 2001. The section which has been transcribed is a conversation between a father and son who run, with their family, a mortuary and funeral home. It so happens that the father in this scene has passed away, and is speaking to the son as a sort of ghost. Later in the clip, it is implied cinematically that the conversation happened as part of a dream. Despite the unlikely circumstances of the conversation, and despite the fact that the conversation is scripted rather than natural, it is well-scripted, in that it could very plausibly be a conversation between any father and son who have been unexpectedly reunited. The two men sit across from each other, and share a cigarette as they talk.

1 D:     So I’m walkin a/long one day

2          and this asshole `stops me

3          and /asks me if I’m `alright?

4          He says I got a /look.

5          He’d seen a /man.

6          with that /same look once.

7          a:nd had ignored it.

8          And that man had `jumped out a nine story window.

9          ((high-pitched laugh))

10        .hhhh

11        Do you know the reconstruction `involved

12        in a death like that?

13        hhh-

14        This business gets under your skin.

15        It’s like a fuckin virus.

16        You can even /see it on your /face.

17        `Smell it on you.

18 S:    What the /hell is this place – this music?

19        Since when do you listen to (.) the classics four?

20        What the `hell did you /do here?

21        Who the `hell /are you?

22 D:   So many questions –

23        why didn’t ya ask them when I was still aLIVE?

24        (.2) It’s ok, I couldn’t’ve answered most of them anyway.

25        Unlike now, /now I’m a /fucking prophet.

26 S:    Right.

27 D:   You think I’m kidding buddy-boy?

28        ((Leans back))

29        That’s one of the `perks of being /dead.

30        you know what `happens after you /die?

31        `and (.) you know the meaning of life.

32        ((smiles, quiet laugh))

33 S:    /That seems fairly /useless.

34 D:   Yeah I know.

35        Life is `wasted on the /living.

36        ((puffs cigarette))

37 S:    Ya `coulda told me you were /proud of me.

38 D:   You were never /around for /me to tell.

39        Which was `exactly what I was `proud of you /for.

40        ((short laugh)) therein lies your catch-22 ((laughs more))

TRANSCRIPTION KEY:

D: Dad as speaker

S: Son as speaker

` heavy accent

/ light accent

? rising intonation

. falling intonation

(.) brief pause

(.n) measurable pause

CAPS increased volume

*Transcription begins at 3:26 in the clip, which is from Six Feet Under, season 1.

Of the three characteristics of hegemonic masculinity described by Bird – emotional detachment, competitiveness, and objectification of women – two are evidenced in this scene: emotional detachment and competitiveness (1996, pg. 121). Although Bird first defines emotional detachment as the detachment of a young man from his mother in his process of masculinization (pg 121), there seems to be a certain degree of emotional detachment from other men which is integral in the hegemonic identification of masculinity. Indeed, Bird discusses this aspect of emotional detachment as an identifier of masculinity on the very next page, and we see evidence of this behavior in the conversation transcribed above. Bird describes this emotional detachment as “withholding expressions of intimacy” (pg 122). We can gather from the conversation that the son in particular is aware of an emotional distance between him and his father. In lines 18 through 21, the son expresses his frustration with this distance. His frustration is made more evident by the suddenness of his statements, which are contextually unconnected to the last statement made by his father. This emotional disconnection is verified by the father’s reply, in lines 22 and 23: “So many questions – why didn't you ask them when I was still alive?” From this, we know that these two men didn’t discuss such emotional matters under normal circumstances. Further, in line 37, the son expresses frustration that his father hadn’t expressed any pride in the son. This is another indication of the two men having been emotionally at arm’s length from each other.

The father’s response, on lines 38 and 39, brings us to another point; Bird discussed this in terms of competitiveness, and Willott and Griffindiscussed it in terms of successful masculinities: the son wasn't home enough for the father to have a chance to express his pride in his son, which was the source of the father’s pride. Not hanging around at home could be an indication of the son’s independence, which is also an indicator of emotional detachment as a characteristic of masculinity (Bird, pg.125), but it’s just as true that the son’s absence from the family home provides a valuable measure of masculinity in and of itself. As Willott and Griffin found, the ability of a man to spend time away from home is, in some ways, and indicator of his success as a man. Even without the pub as a destination – since this TV show is set in USA, not England, and rounds at the pub are less dominant in American culture than in British – a man still must leave the home (in terms of the hegemonic masculine ideology) in order to be a successful provider. Thus, being away from home is a symbol of success as a man, because being a good provider is a tenet of masculinity in the hegemonic ideal (Willott and Griffin, pg. 117). The son’s success might also be considered a measure of the father’s success; the father is proud of his son because his son has succeeded in displaying himself as a capable provider (by not being home), and the success of one’s progeny can be considered a reflection of the parent’s success in their role. Therefore, the competitive aspects of the father’s statement of pride (lines 38 and 39) are relevant to and evidence of the masculine successes of both father and son.

This conversation as a whole might be viewed as edging over the boundaries established by the same emotional detachment it gives evidence of, but the two men maintain a certain distance even as the content of their speech becomes intimate. Their retained distance is visible in their physical distance – they remain on opposite sides of a sitting area, across a small table from each other – and their emotional controls do not escape them beyond a slight raise in volume by the father (line 23), which is quickly contained. Furthermore, the potentially engaging emotions are laughed at – exactly as Bird found in her studies (pg. 126), when participants told her that “feelings are ‘something for us all to joke about.’” The fact that the single moment of raised volume is acted out by the father, as opposed to the son, is also notable. Bird describes how a man’s relationship to the hegemonic masculinity ideals might change over his lifetime, and specifically mentions that one man, at least, cared less about fitting into that ideal as he grew older.

Overall, this conversation gives us an inverse sense of the ‘Father knows best’ ideology discussed by Ochs and Taylor (1996), in that we’re made to understand that the son knows very little of the father’s life. So, despite the role of the father as the protagonist (in that he is the subject of the story he narrates in lines 1 through 17, and in that the son’s contributions to the conversation are almost entirely questions concerning the father’s past behavior) in this particular conversation, the viewers understand that this has not normally been the case. The son is frustrated by how little he knows about his father, and it seems that perhaps he has never even realized, before, how shallow his understanding of his father is. Thus it’s clear that, while we don’t know whether or not the father was a recipient in previous family conversations, he certainly wasn't the protagonist. This finding is consistent with what Ochs and Taylor discovered about fathers, which is that fathers are typically not protagonists (pg. 102). Even within their families, fathers – as the primary masculine identity in a typical nuclear family – maintain the emotional detachment evidenced in Bird’s research.

References

Bird, S. R. (1996). Welcome to the men's club: Homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society, 10(2), 120-132.

Ochs, E. & Taylor, C. (1996). ‘The father knows best' dynamic in family dinner narratives. Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self. ed. by K. Hall. Routledge. pp.97-121.

Six Feet Under, The Room - YouTube. (n.d.). YouTube. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29SIKOFJnAA

Willott, S., & Griffin, C. (1997). `Wham Bam, Am I A Man?': Unemployed Men Talk About Masculinities. Feminism & Psychology, 7(1), 107-128.

The Madonna, the whore, and the BMW (a short academic offering)

If the art of a culture is a reflection of its values, advertisements should be considered no differently than a sculpture or a painting. Advertisements, too, reflect what we value. In terms of gender ideologies, our advertisements show us to be a culture rooted still in the Madonna/whore dichotomy of womanhood and the accompanying ideas of how men should react to feminine gender performances. In this paper I will focus on how this plays out in one particular commercial. 

For my analysis, I’ve chosen a commercial from the car company BMW, promoting a line of convertibles (BMW commercial – youtube). In this commercial, we see a rakish man driving, presumably, away from a liaison with an attractive woman who tosses her scarf down as he drives away. The setting appears Italianesque and affluent. As he drives, he neatly avoids the steady stream of increasingly intimate apparel being tossed down to him by attractive women on balconies. Finally, he gets to his destination, which seems to be his own wedding. His bride waits on the steps of a cathedral, waiting for the groom and surrounded by the men of her family. The groom hands the bride handkerchief so that she can dab the pending tears from her eyes. This move gains the groom the renewed approval of the bride’s family members. The scene cuts away to show text: “The new 3 Series Convertible/It could just save your life”. We come back to the cathedral scene and all seems well, until the bride unfolds the handkerchief and discovers that it’s actually a pair of lacy white women’s panties.

Certain things should be noted about the scene which plays out in this advertisement. First, there are two opposing feminine ideologies portrayed: the seductresses, throwing their underwear at the groom (who seems to be late to his wedding after a dalliance with one of them), and the bride who is virtuously waiting for her roguish fiancé. This dichotomy of feminine ideologies is representative of the commonly referred to “Madonna/whore” ideology (Tishkoff 2005), in which women fit into one of two roles – the virtuous Madonna, or the disreputable whore. Second, all of the women in this commercial seem to be in places of power by their positioning, specifically by their relative elevations to the men in the commercial. These two things – the dichotomous female roles and the placement of the women – work together with the many details of the scene to create tacit approval and even encouragement of certain Western gender ideologies.

Let’s begin by examining the representation of the two feminine ideologies in this commercial. The women throwing their lingerie at the groom from their balconies are the “whores” in the Madonna/whore dichotomy. They are presented as alluring, seductive, and quite likely to get the man into trouble. There’s a ‘naughty’ element to their behavior which creates the idea that the groom is making his way through a gauntlet of temptation in order to make it to his bride’s side. However, he is pleased by the attention, as evidenced by his smiling demeanor, and he takes on the masculine role of a playboy. In that role, he is characterized as suave, debonair, and because of that, prestigious. The luxurious setting and expensive-looking car add to the aura of prestige surrounding the groom. That the groom’s prestige is wrapped up with his intimate connection to several women, indicated by them tossing their lingerie at him, reinforces our cultural ideology that connects male virility with male prestige. Female virility, however, is not so celebrated. The groom dodges the intimate clothing being offered, showing clear preference for the virtuous bride waiting at the cathedral. The bride’s virtuousness – her prestige – is reinforced by the groom’s avoidance of the balcony women in his efforts to get to her. Hollandand Eisenhart discuss this application of prestige in romance to great length in chapter seven of their book, Educated in romance (1990). There are subtle indications, though, that while the prestigious groom prefers the faithfully waiting bride, it’s merely humorous is the groom is caught being, or appears to be, less than faithful. The end of the scene, in which the bride unfolds the scrap of cloth to discover that her groom has handed her another woman’s panties, is intended to be funny. It’s a lighter note to end the commercial on, leaving the audience laughing. On the other hand, the audience is also subtly encouraged to contrast the freedom enjoyed by the women in the balconies with the danger of walking into a marriage because the bride will expect her faithfulness to be returned, and there will be dire consequences if it is not.

At first glance, the relative elevations and sizes of the men and women in this commercial would seem to – literally – raise women up in status. All of the women stand above the groom; even the bride is higher up on the stairs than he is. When the groom offers the bride his ‘handkerchief,’ he has to reach up to hand it to her. Additionally, in frames which show only one face, the women’s faces are shown higher in the frame than all the men’s faces are, and larger than the groom’s face is. The women are indeed portrayed as the protagonists in this commercial. The groom must evade the women on the balconies, not confront them. Then he must face his bride from a lower position, and use a peace offering to appease her when she is upset. The bride’s family members are not placed at a lower elevation than the bride, but they are still in a subordinate position, reacting as they do to the bride’s temper (which is another indication of the pitfalls awaiting the groom, should he proceed with the wedding).

The ramifications of commercials such as this one become painfully clear when viewed alongside Holland and Eisenhart’s work (1990) concerning the priorities of young women. If the virtuous woman is the one who waits faithfully at the cathedral rather than the one who independently pursues the man while eschewing committed relationships, then it’s no wonder so many young women reprioritize their romantic lives upon entering adulthood. Who wants to be called a whore? However, I do not think it fair to say that this advertisement and ones like it have the potential to change a person’s gender performance. Instead, I would hypothesize that these commercials merely encourage an already-indoctrinated gender ideology to continue. Thus, while not harmless, the role played by this commercial and its like is that of a mirror – they only reflect what is already there, providing validation for those people who already are invested in the gender ideologies these commercials show. 

Advertisements are, in general, reflective of the cultures which produce them. The advertisement I’ve analyzed is no different, and what it says about us isn’t pretty. The difficulty in finding an advertisement that uses gender ideologies to sell its product isn’t in searching out a suitable subject, but in narrowing down the field. We are inundated with stereotypes that paint men and women into oppositional corners, because in our culture, men and women are oppositional. The commercial described above merely illustrates that.

References

BMW commercial - YouTube. (n.d.). YouTube. Retrieved June 25, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snVZhCgy37Y

Goffman, E. (1976). Gender commercials. Gender advertisements (pp. 24-45). Washington: Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication.

Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Why study women's responses to schooling?. Educated in romance: women, achievement, and college culture (pp. 3-9). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Gender relations culturally construed: Romance and attractiveness. Educated in romance: women, achievement, and college culture(pp. 93-107). Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Tishkoff, D. (2006). Madonna/whore: the myth of the two Marys. Bloomington, Ind.: AuthorHouse.

a conversation with myself

"The mysterious call of the Goddess doesn't come from the mental-thought realm. It comes from the body, pouring forth from your bones and your blood. Your cellular memory nudges you to remember there is more to life than what you experience in the outer world. The inner world is the domain of the Divine Feminine. She nutures and encourages you to explore your inner sanctuary."
- from Properous Priestess Handbook by Lisa Michaels

"Do I even have an inner sanctuary?" I pondered this; momentarily bitter and reflecting on the ravaged landscape of my inner self. The answer came from within: Yes. "But I don't know where it is." - Sadly, feeling knowing and confused. Yes I do - it's underneath, it's the core within the core, the life within the rot. It's what stays my hand when all feels worthless.

"If my inner world is the domain of the Goddess, then mine must be a real bitch. It's a war zone in here, and I'm not winning. Not much of a sanctuary."

But the battlefield isn't in the place of a sanctuary. The battlefield stands between me and my inner sanctuary. If I'm war-torn, then maybe it's because I've spent my life fighting the concept of housing anything Feminine in my body.

-Full stop-
-Epiphany-

Oh... wow. Yeah, could be. Could be.
Hela help me.

unbreaking

Our relationship was broken - it wasn't working, for either of us.
I wonder if talking about these things will ever get easier? Practice doesn't seem to be making our communication perfect. It's better, though. I'll give us that.

Last week, my therapist left me with this question, to ponder til the next time: "What does it mean, to you, to be feminine?"

I had no idea. Not really. I knew it wasn't the uncomfortable, fragile and nebulous thing I felt it was, but what else could it be? Women who are powerful are somewhat masculine, at least, right? Well no. Obviously that's wrong. I couldn't find the middle of the spectrum, the place where a woman could be womanly and still be strong, or competent, or assertive, but I knew it existed. I'd seen it in other women, just never in myself, and I couldn't imagine it myself either.

I've noted before - even discussed it as a guest speaker for gender education at the local college - that my gender expression tends to be about balance. I feel more masculine when I'm surrounded by feminine people; I feel more feminine when I'm surrounded by masculine people. Archer, in particular, tends to make me feel uber girly. There's more to this balancing act than just that, but that's the important part. I thought it was the only important part. Even though I'd noticed that I tend to dress more 'covered' - which typically meant more masculine - when I'm more depressed, I had only just begun to fit that into my larger puzzle.

One of the larger missing pieces was this: when I felt vulnerable, I put on more clothes. I put on baggy clothes, which happened to be sold in the men's section of the stores, because they made me feel safely hidden. Thus my expression of my masculine side wasn't that at all. Instead, I was using that mode of dress to hide the very lonely, frightened girl inside me. I was dressing like a guy, but I wasn't feeling masculine at all. I was feeling depressed, and I was expressing it in a way that had escaped my attention.

So here I was, hiding my female body and feeling at the same time that it was pointless to try to "dress up" because - and here's another important piece to the puzzle - Archer seemed so uninterested. He had been under so much stress, and had been so distracted by work and other life issues recently, that I felt as though I were waiting on the outskirts of his life, waiting for him to notice me again. And in the meantime, being 'pretty' seemed unimportant.

And at the first mention of his honest appraisal of his waning attraction to me, I was indignant. How dare he be so shallow! And lead me on so cruelly! And-!

'But Bones, I'm a straight man. I'm attracted to women, not guys, and you don't do the little things women do to take care of themselves anymore, things that are attractive to me because of their role in women's lives. It's like you've given up on your feminine side. And I'm sorry, but as much as I love you, I can't force myself to be attracted to someone who seems to be signaling that they're a dude.'

Yeah, that's not verbatim because I was crying and thus distracted when he said that. But that's the gist. He was right. I hadn't been taking care of myself properly, regardless of what gender I might be expressing.

Comprehension blossomed. With his words, I understood that I'd been hiding, and that I didn't really know how to be feminine while feeling not-frightened. Suddenly I wanted to. I wanted to be a strong woman, regardless of Archer's or anyone's attraction. If he'd left me right then, I felt, I would have been miserable for missing him, but I wouldn't have been broken. I would have been strong. Or stronger, anyway.

I needn't have worried. We found the resolution we needed, in order to repair our relationship. I need, for myself, to take care of me. That includes learning what the feminine side of me needs, and acting on it. On a impetuous whim, I went shopping for clothing that was strong yet distinctly female. It was the most genuinely empowering thing I might ever have done for myself (though my bank account might disagree later this month). While I do this for myself, I do it also to see the lust in his eyes that sparks as soon as he sees me in my brand-new, subtly sexy and totally womanly outfit. And that makes me happy.

something boi-ish

My birthday is coming up. And Doc's boyfriend is throwing/hosting a slumber party for me. Because he's awesome. The theme? Gender-bending. It's my  party, after all.

Doc's my girlfriend, btw. I'll call her boyfriend FM - the Fireman.

And together, they're Bendy! (You have to say that in a superhero-announcer voice. Out loud.)
[Nope, not explaining the joint nickname.]

So FM's throwing me a party because he's awesome, and dressing up as the House Mom for the event. Doc's going to be a soccer-girl. Honestly, I'm not sure what that means, yet, but it's cool. I'll see at the party. There's a high likelihood I'm over-thinking things.

I was just discussing the party with FM, and mentioned I wasn't sure yet what I would wear. "Probably something boi-ish," I said.

Oh yes, I'm opening that  can of worms.
(Ready for some gender introspection on my part?)

Last month, I spent all my time hiking around a savanna and some rainforests with seven other girls, all of whom seemed pretty comfortable in their girl-ness. Most of them weren't aware there were other possibilities. Something about that environment, or that situation, made me feel pretty comfortable with myself, too. Maybe it was the competence I felt; camping and hiking are things I'm used to, comfortable with, and certain of; I won't claim to be great at them (whatever that means), but they're familiar activities. Either way, my more masculine side was evident. Archer could see it in the pictures of me. I could feel it in my movements, my mannerisms, and my short temper.

It didn't dissipate as soon as I got back. It lingered, faded and receded but there, even in Archer's presence. And it felt ok. I didn't feel out of balance. I felt more  balanced. It's likely that feeling more balanced in general, is due to several things, not just this one. But I feel like this is a factor in that balance.

The key concept is that I felt ok with feeling masculine around Archer.
Usually, his presence makes me feel uber-feminine. In fact, I think I've posted about this before - the balancing effect. I tend to 'balance' with the people surrounding me, or with the situation I'm in. Archer is uber-masculine; he makes me feel uber-feminine. He still does. But for a couple days there, I felt both. I felt very feminine, but also felt that masculine side of me, still there, still present.

I want to explore that.
So, something boi-ish.