Oh Woman

"I used to use my body and looks to manipulate men." I confessed to him.

"Oh God!" I could hear the contempt and resentment in his voice.

"I know. I know. It's a horrible way to be." quickly admitting my guilt in hopes to prove my rehabilitation.

Upon further examination, I realized it's more complicated than this.

Should wearing tight or revealing clothing be considered intentional manipulation? Women are told in almost every way, at seemingly every moment, that our womanhood is defined first and foremost by how attractive men find us. I'm not simply referring to the barrage of advertisements that tell us we must be beautiful and that their product is the way to get us there. It pervades into all areas: female politicians are rated on their "femininity" (think Janet Reno) as defined by their outfits, shoe choices, hair styles, while some even ask to be known for their "lipstick". Female athletes are similarly judged by their cute smiles, great legs, and tight little bodies. When was the last time Peyton Manning's smile was part of a conversation about his ability to bring his team to the Super Bowl?

The point is that we live in a culture fully obsessed with the appeal of the female body. Meanwhile, infuriatingly, many people fail to recognize the hypocrisy. Women are judged for their "manipulative" ways while simultaneously demanded to exhibit them. Being beautiful these days is often about changing our natural color, height, size, smell, etc. so that others find us attractive. Women make these changes not for the betterment of humanity but rather for the physical appeal, and the, often sexual, reaction it gets from men. Shouts of "be sexy! Be sexy! Be sexy!" are simultaneously heard with "stop trying to seduce us." We're damned if we do; damned if we don't. I'm not going to pretend that this Mary/Eve, virgin/whore dichotomy is anything new to the plight of women; I just felt that perhaps it wouldn't hurt to reiterate it. So now, I'll move on.

Imagine if all the hours and brain power devoted by women to their looks was instead put towards ideas and actions that actually WOULD benefit humanity. How much better off would we all be?

I am not trying to negate the joy of physical and sexual attraction. It's an enjoyable and even essential part of life. My issue lies with the obsession of sex: the astronomical increase in porn use, the decrease in the age kids are having sex, the exposure to sexual images and resulting desensitization. It seems as though we're forgetting that as women and men we all have more to offer each other than our sex.

The women's movements have waxed and waned throughout history, these days it is waning in a particularly tragic and severe way. Because there's a lot of money to be made in making people feel ugly and showing them what products can help them change that, men are now becoming victimized by the same forces that turn people into mere bodies. Both sexes are spending increasingly more time in front of mirrors and closets.

The "feminine" traits of compassion, nurturing, spirituality, connectedness with nature, nonviolence, and sincerity are being erased from association with women. Not that they were ever exclusive to women as their most famous manifestations came from men: Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr. But historically, women were thought to exhibit them more innately. The culprits that are stripping away these qualities from women are innumerable but some of my favorites include: reality TV shows, movies depicting only hot young women, and we can't forget the fabulous contributions of pop "music." (Have you heard the one that goes, "Hush, girl. Shut your lips. Do the Helen Keller, and talk with your hips"? The myriad of ways I'm hurt by those lyrics overwhelm me and are enough to fill a whole other blog entry, so I'll just leave it.)

The biggest problem is that while these "feminine" qualities are no longer being attributed to women, they're not being attributed to anyone else either; they're simply losing their value. And whether these were considered "feminine" traits because of nature or nurture is irrelevant; they’re traits of which the world desperately needs more, which both sexes should be proud to exhibit, and that reveal the deep beauty of humanity. More and more, organizations around the world are finding that educating and empowering women is the best way to bring communities out of starvation and depression. Women can be powerful forces for good and have a lot to offer the world if we let them. With the growing acceptability of obsessing over women's bodies before all else, we are degrading what women used to and can represent.

Many times Western culture looks at women in religious communities as oppressed by how much they're forced to cover themselves. But I don't exactly see Girls Gone Wild as an expression of women's liberation. Or headbands passing as skirts and tops--these clothes are not only often uncomfortable, impractical, and unattractive, but they make it nearly impossible for people to see women as anything else but bodies. Being more covered deemphasizes physiques, allowing who women are as people to come out.

This has nothing to do with shame of our bodies. Frankly, I'd prefer to just be naked (probably 'cause I live in Hawaii, where "cold" means wear something with sleeves); and if I thought that doing so wouldn't entirely distract others from the person that I am, I'd be all for it. Modesty is currently the most realistic option and a way in which dignity can be restored to womanhood. (Although, I do acknowledge that doing so is sometimes a difficult, deliberate resistance to the constant “be sexy” messages.)

So what does all this mean? It means I'm frustrated. I'm awaiting the next waxing of the women's movement—uh, that didn't sound right. It means this world is in trouble. There are immense imbalances everywhere causing starvation, drought, war, environmental destruction; and it is the “feminine” forces—compassion, mercy, and nonviolence—that can help to restore justice and peace. It means we must all revere and exhibit this internal beauty, and we must act fast before men get sucked too far in too. And lastly, it means I'm still conflicted: my bright red nails click on this keyboard, while my carefully plucked eyebrows face the monitor, and (sorta recently) shaved legs are crossed beneath the desk. Do I have to go the Janet Reno route in order to not feel as though I'm not distracting from my true femininity?

Click here for another view of the situation.

Talk until the cows come home

In my last post, I mentioned a lack of dialogue around the topic of solid waste management and elimination. Well, I have a new topic that I'm sure many of you have heard of, but one that also lacks discussion and understanding: Our relationship to our food. Now, if you've seen the film Food, Inc. that recently came out (I highly recommend that you do), you likely have a better concept of what I'm talking about. But in case you haven't, I will pose the simple question: do we really know where our food comes from and what's in it? Chances are, we don't. We don't know what processes our meats, veggies, snacks, and drinks go through before they touch our mouths and descend into our bodies.

However, there's a more specific piece of our relationship to food that I would like to highlight: livestock and greenhouse gases. Beyond meat being a major contributor to heart disease and obesity, it may be killing us and the planet in a more unexpected way. Below is a link to a very informative LA Times article written in 2007:

LA Times Article

It tells us that livestock (mainly cows) produce more greenhouse gases than all transportation combined (that's cars, planes, trucks--everything that goes vroom). Furthermore, global meat consumption will likely double in the next 40 years--so the already dangerous levels at which methane is released (a gas better at trapping heat than CO2) will double. So why are we talking so much about MPG's and carpooling when there's a bigger problem at hand? And it seems like it will only get worse... A LOT worse. Where's the discussion about our meat production??

Here's another article describing how the food industry can sue people if they disparage their products. The LA Times article talked a little about it, but maybe this explains why there's a lack of dialogue? Not that people fear losing the law suits but just dealing with them; because let's face it, we're not all Oprah and able to spend $1M defending our freedom of speech.

Veggie Libel Article
This can't be the only reason, though, right? This new message is not that claiming that beef is bad for us, just that cows poop and fart a lot, and we should find some way of dealing with it. McDonalds' lobby can't possibly be stronger than Exxon/Mobil's to prevent such discussion, can it? Fuel efficiency is being discussed, why not meat production? Maybe because switching cars is easier for the American people to swallow than changing what we, well, swallow? Either way, I'm utterly confused. This is a massive issue and there's a tragic lack of dialogue about it.

So now we (readers of this blog and these articles) have addressed the giant cow in the room. We are aware that we are indeed facing a huge problem... and have acknowledged that it could be a major pain in the ass to just talk about publicly. How can we fix this? Where do we go from here? Who starts the discussion? Who makes the world realize that maybe beef can't be what's for dinner? I know I personally don't have an extra million dollars laying around. So now what? Anyone? Buller?

The Obvious Truth

Upon reading an article about the Great Garbage Patch, a swirling vortex of garbage in the middle of the Pacific, I've become depressed. This plastic soup formed mostly in the last 50 years when plastics became prevalent. We've known about its existence for the past 20 years. It doesn't seem we've been doing a whole lot about it since then. Many scientists agree that the size, consistency, and risk to the living creatures within the vortex prevent clean-up. There are some who disagree and are researching what clean-up will realistically take; but the general consensus: the only thing we can do now is stop it from getting bigger.

So what are we doing in that vein? What major steps are manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and goverments doing? How much longer are we going to continue to just make more and more garbage? When will "disposable" become a curse word? When will we stop making things that will be with us for the next few hundreds or thousands of years?

We do not have the land or water resources to allocate to garbage. We simply have to stop making it. If a product cannot later be reused, recycled, or composted, why is it being made? Why has no one talked about the concept of solid waste elimination? Not reduction--elimination. I concede and understand that such a change could take up to four 4 generations to fully implement (Teldyn will be a great grandad). But why haven't I heard our leaders talking about how to get to that point?

I've heard that 70% of our landfills could be recycled or reused. I don't understand why we aren't doing it. What are we waiting for? Where do we think this crap is going? We know we have no where to put it. We know we're poisoning ourselves, and we keep doing it. I'm at a loss. I'm frustrated and confused. I feel helpless.

Today, on July 20, 2009, 40 years after we first walked on the moon, I wonder how we are dealing with the challenges we now face. Is preserving our planet and life as we know it not enough to inspire us into action? In 1969, scientists collaborated and succeeded in getting us to another world. We were racing towards a bright, new future. Now I fear we're stagnating in swirling garbage. Where is our bright future?

Why Not To Waste Food

Quick note: I'm feeling more like myself than I did when I wrote the "Whatever" post. Thank you to all who asked.

This short (6 min) film is a moving depiction of how the other side lives.

View this movie at cultureunplugged.com