gender

Who’s Your Daddy?

EEEWWWWWW!!!

It never occurred

to me 

that JD

could be

out-creeped

by any peep,

but alas,

the ginormous ass

Tucker,

that Mother

F-(rhymes with Tucker),

actually 

compared a family

dynamic

(that in the Menendez

home

became tragic)

to our national

politic.

“There has to be

a point at which

Dad comes home.”

“…you know what

he says? You’ve

been a bad little 

girl

and you’re getting

a vigorous spanking

right now.” 

He continued 

his tale

of the ultimate

male

behavior as

somehow

the savior

of the American

family

by punishing

THE BAD
GIRL,

who would be

the rest of the

country.

There’s much

to unpack

in this brand

spanking

new view

of the old

guard.

For many,

any 

insult

from the 

cult 

of MAGA

is the result

of a drama

between

masculine

and feminine,

in a particular

play

performed

a certain

way,

except 

if born

otherwise,

or seen

as a 

disguise

from

some ideal

gender

form.

The threats

seem to

be most

offensive

when a male

adopts

culturally

female

props

and dispositions,

with little

care

for the reverse,

other than

regarding 

as perverse,

in their

perverted

ethos.

So little girls

and child bearing 

age 

young women,

and women

post-menopause

are somehow

the cause

of the hell-scape

where

the only 

escape

is violent

punishment

or imprisonment?

Other than

the immigrant,

of course,

the (liberated) female

is the source

of problems.

No need

to make

room

for Daddy’s

protection

or direction.

This election

could be

an inflection

in our democracy.

Remember 

Puff Daddy

who became

P. Diddy,

then

DIddy,

now back to

Sean Combs,

now

awaiting trial

for sexual

assault?

Me too.

So few

women 

have proven

to actually

be

as problematic

compared to

the autocratic,

fascistic

tendency

in the patriarchy

that gives

the finger

to Lady Liberty.

I am not

worried

that Daddy’s 

coming home.

I think 

the chickens

will.

XYs: Ex-Wise

We are now in a moment of creating exes. Ex-media guys; ex-congressmen; ex- Hollywood guys; and soon to be many more exes across domains.

Why? (or Y you ask?)

The X factor has wizened up and spoken up! What should be apolitical—appropriate behavior and not making others uncomfortable (i.e. basic decency)—has become political as well as cultural. The tectonic shift that we feel is cultural. The fight (and the hanging on) feels political.

I think many men are confused and are asserting misunderstanding. The old “game” is played by different rules depending on the player. And many women (and girls and boys) were never playing the same game. They were parallel playing—smiling back and/or staying quiet not enjoying what was happening, just to get through it.

Many men are now astonished that there has always been so much sexual misconduct. There has always been sexual harassment (which became codified in the workplace in the 1980s), sexual abuse, sexual assault, and rape, which most people understand as aggressive behaviors and criminal. But a kiss? A pat on the tush? An “accidental” touch? A little flirtation?

Many (men) are actually confused. Well, a lot of women are not confused. Remember when the term “date rape” was coined? The definition of rape was not really changed; it was no longer contextualized to be limited to some sick/violent stranger. Women (and girls and boys) who had had sex forced upon them were finally being acknowledged as being victims of rape. And then we learned that such behavior was actually rather common. Such knowledge actually enabled us to be wiser.

Perhaps some of the confusion exists because men are thinking that sexual attention is always wanted. Well it isn’t. Not that kiss. Nor that pat on the tush. Nor that accidental brush up. And certainly not that exposure!

It is important to distinguish among the types of behaviors that fall under the sexual misconduct rubric, and it is important to delve seriously into serious accusations. False accusations have always occurred and will always occur . Bad behavior will always exist. But we are wiser and no longer tolerate what for many was barely tolerable.

So as the culture shifts toward a less limited understanding of sexual misconduct, and we wise up by standing up for decency, the politics will follow. I know it doesn’t feel like that at this moment that our culture is in flux, but all great social/civil rights movements began with cultural shifts that brought wisdom and political change. (Besides, power issues are often played out through sexual behavior.)

As for defending politicians who might have been icky rather than outrageously gross but “champions” of women’s rights or civil rights……I think it is wise to make them exes. It feels politically risky, but we see the costs of rationalizing indecent, irrational, insecure, stupid,  behavior. It has real political costs, and they are HUUUUUGE.

 

Dis Appearance

“I just don’t think she has a presidential look and you need a presidential look.”

 
One way or (and) another, Donald Trump dissed Hillary Clinton’s appearance. Of course he’s not the first or last to dis HRC’s appearance, but he used it as a disqualifier for the presidency of the United States.

Whether he was being sexist (he was), or just a jerk (he was), we often talk about looking presidential, as opposed to a presidential look. “Looking presidential” implies that a person exhibits certain qualities with a demeanor of distinction: authoritative (not authoritarian); intelligent (not ignorant); well informed (by reputable resources and critical thinking); diplomatic (not wheeling and dealing); cordial; articulate…

Other qualities such as charisma may be highly regarded, but ultimately seriousness is preferable for a job that demands gravitas and clear thinking. Strength is another quality that is difficult to define, but purposeful beyond self would be respected. Oh, and then there’s respectable…. I guess there are varying definitions of looking respectable, but presenting (not exclaiming) oneself as decent, reasonable, of substance…these seem to comprise an expression of respectability.

It’s amazing how much we disregard, disqualify, disrespect, distrust, dishonor, and even just dis people based on appearance. We assume a tremendous amount based on appearance. Even those who prefer to minimize an appearance of effort in their appearance, are conveying something through their appearance, namely: I’m not shallow; I’m interested in more than my appearance. Likewise, we often assume that those who have sartorial interests or accessorize are making a different sort of statement, and that those interested in presenting themselves more materially are therefore shallow and/or materialistic. Beware— sometimes appearances can be deceiving!

As we are all always concerned about looking good (whatever that may mean)—of a certain type or status—even if that means modest—we are always aware of when others look bad. Looking good or bad goes way beyond our physical appearance. It’s what we do and how we are. We use external appearances too often as assessments of character—that which really defines whether or not we look good.

And yet, everyone has a look. We can change our look through hair, clothing, glasses, etc., and we tend to think of this as expressing our selves and/or our position. Some of us, however, only know how to look one way. Our look hasn’t changed, but have we?

So what about that presidential look? What does that even mean? Looking presidential is more significant than a presidential look, although a presidential look should reflect the qualities that have one look presidential. A presidential look (or any look) is one’s superficial (external) appearance. Looking presidential is one’s demeanor.

Trump does not look presidential; nor does he have a presidential (modest and distinguished) look. Why would he dis appearance? Because it’s the lowest common denominator. It’s broad enough to include the most base of his base, who have difficulty with race and gender (as they are understood first by appearance). Because if anyone is shallow, it’s Trump. And those Trumpeters want simplistic, caustic, anti-, because they regard their blowhard as strong.

Why dis appearance? Because it immediately attracts the disgruntled.

To me, that doesn’t look very good.

Miss Spoke

It was a YUUUGE night in little New Hampshire, after a spectacularly crazy week of words heard everywhere.

Prior to the primary primary, Madeline Albright, campaigning for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, declared, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

Gloria Steinem, when asked why Hillary does so poorly among younger women said, “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’ ”

HUH??

That even trumps Trump’s repetition of one of his supporter’s sentiments that Ted Cruz “is a pussy”.  Trump considered the impact of those words before quoting his supporter. He knew he wasn’t supposed to say that! Eh….what the heck….

We hold Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem to a higher standard (and they are not contenders for POTUS).  I was cringing when I heard each of them. These are public figures who know the impact of words. They have forged not only careers, but changed the landscape through their words that inspired actions. They understand consequences–intended and unintended. They are seasoned. They have contended with difficulties and experienced breakthroughs and tremendous success. And they are merely insulting now.

I read an article about how we shouldn’t diminish Albright and Steinem based on this past week’s comments. Their long and distinguished lives and careers are testaments to their iconic statuses, and their work has been profoundly significant, not only as feminist leaders, but as principled, inclusive, democratic, encouraging women whose influence is (was) global and intergenerational.

Well, sorry….that all ended rather abruptly. Shaming women (or anyone) into voting for a particular candidate is shameful. And it is a losing strategy. Younger people are generally more attracted to idealism. In general, people want leaders who inspire. Even Bill is beginning to repeat the 2008 over-the-top attack dog bit that bit the Clintons in the behind. Hard to see how their being offensive while feeling defensive will win hearts or minds or votes.

The obvious reaction to Albright’s admonition is: REALLY??? Sarah Palin. Michelle Bachman. Carly Fiorina. Because they are women?

And Steinem….the ulitmate Feminist icon…sounding like Connie Francis: Where the Boys Are. My brain still hurts from trying to figure this out. It’s actually rather tragic. These two (3?) ladies seem so sadly out of touch with not just this generation of female voters, but with the last few decades.

And the response to the justified outrage and backlash? Steinem said that she misspoke.

No. Miss Spoke just didn’t consider that idealism is more interesting (especially to youger people) than pragmatism; that women and any other demographic group are not necessarily homogenous; and that thinking critically means evaluating beyond gender or race or generation or any other category.

Miss Spoke was not only insulting, but inaccurate. Trump’s appeal to many is that he is acutely aware of his rhetorical choices, and disregards accuracy or respect with the intention of garnering support by appealing to baser instincts and emotions.

There seems to be a different set of rules for the one who claims Miss Spoke (whichever one): we expect a different sort of discourse and program–one that appeals to our aspirations with critical thinking; our better angels and productivity. Miss Spoke needs to think and speak more broadly. And we know more than one Miss Spoke recently.

 

Name Calling

Call me Caitlyn. Call me Ishmael. Call me Irresponsible. Call me maybe. Don’t call me Shirley! But back to Caitlyn….

Jenner’s transformation is astonishing. The Vanity Fair cover is astonishing, as Jenner has been the physical representation of our cultural gender references for male and now, female. I couldn’t help but wonder if despite her phenomenal physicality and youthful appearance (and name), is Jenner showing her age by not showing her age in such an extraordinary manner?

First names go in and out of style (in America), with each generation. With cultural diversity, we have seen a dramatic shift in first names over the course of the last generation. Traditional anglo names are among a much broader array of names today. First names have traditionally been signifiers of gender, ethnicity, tradition, family, and sometimes era. Of course, we name others, except when we tweak our own name with a preferred nick-name.

Traditionally, a woman’s surname changed to her husband’s family name upon marriage. The surname identified the clan. The children would have the same surname as the father (and mother, until recently). This was always the assumption (until the1970s), with the exception of artists and performers. Even before the feminist movement of the 70s, women in show business kept their own last names. (Lucy Arnaz is the daughter of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. Lucille Ball was not known as Lucy Arnaz!) The 70s brought hyphens and choices about names that were previously not mainstream. And of course, we were introduced to Ms.  Women didn’t have to be identified by marital status anymore—just like the guys.

For women, choosing a name for themselves (or keeping their birth names) was (is) empowering. Names became choice and autonomy, even when the choice is to share the spouse’s surname. It is not automatic anymore, just as a woman’s identity is more than a relation to a spouse (or lack thereof).

Our shameful history of denying and degrading cultural roots through assigning new names to slaves and to immigrants is important. Names have stories and significance and are choices—sometimes assigned; sometimes self generated. It is only in the last generation that we have seen tolerance for names (and recognized our cultural intolerance to cultural differences).

But we still judge names. Names are our credit. We still have associations that we make upon hearing/seeing names. We may be more tolerant, but we still form opinions (consciously or not) and/or have associations almost instantaneously upon hearing/seeing a name.

And gender identification (and what that may imply) is still very much a part of our encounter with the world. We may not realize the extent to which we experience the rest of the world in terms of gender. You may read articles differently, based on the writer’s name. I intentionally use a gender neutral name—Lou. I prefer to explore ideas as gender neutrally as possible. Gender informs our lives, but seeing beyond gender and our cultural constructs allows us to expand—to see beyond ourselves.

Back to Caitlyn….Jenner’s extraordinary transformation as seen on the cover of Vanity Fair with the headline, “Call Me Caitlyn”, was striking beyond the gender change. She identifies with the most girlish aspects of being female, and the most culturally retro. I understand that this is her debut, and of course the culturally feminine signposts are going to be accentuated, but I wonder if this is also somewhat generational. As we become more expansive of our understanding of gender, and the much broader experiences of gender over time, name calling will surely change more dramatically in future generations.