Shine On You Crazy Diamond

A few years ago, at the start of a new school year, one of my roommates asked me what my greatest pet peeve was, regarding roommates. I immediately told her, "Passive-aggressive notes." I explained that I've had roommates who, rather than discussing their issues openly or privately with other roommates, would detail their annoyances on the whiteboard for everyone to see. Usually, these notes would contain positive and friendly words and phrases, while conveying massive irritation at the same time. One example went something like this:

Someone keeps turning up the thermostat. This costs us lots of money! So that we all can benefit and save money, please keep it down to 65 degrees. Thanks! :)

That "someone" was me. For all I know, though, there could have been more roommates turning up the thermostat. Anyway, to solve the problem, I offered to pay more than my share of the utilities so that it wouldn't cost extra for my roommates, and I would still be comfortable with the temperature in the apartment. Win-Win, right? Well, the next thing I knew, there was duct tape covering the knob on the thermostat (which, of course, was set at 65). I didn't see a smiley face this time, though.

These notes were especially irritating to me if they resulted in a series of written responses on the whiteboard, which played out to be some kind of bizarre fight without any physical interaction. You'd have to see it to believe how ridiculous it was.

I've often wondered how this behavior of passive-aggressive notes and whiteboard fights became appropriate. After some time, I think I get it. I think the problem with passive-aggressiveness is that many of the people we know, especially women, try too hard to be nice. They try to be nice, even when they are fuming with rage. Couple that with a disinclination to ever seem contentious and an inexperience with confrontation, and you get bottled up anger, that blows up pretty bizarrely. So, what's the solution?

Don't be so nice!

Several months ago, I read a book called Only When I Laugh, by Elouise Bell. Elouise is a former BYU professor of English. I purchased her book after seeing her give a speech in Salt Lake after being honored with an award (for being an awesome Mormon Feminist...or something like that). I was impressed by her wisdom, optimism, and attitude, and felt that she would be a great role model for how I wish my feminism to fuel my faith. Heck, I even named one of my hens after her :)

Back to her book, though. I particularly liked her chapter, "When Nice Ain't So Nice." I'll be quoting it a lot. In it, she begins by saying that niceness can mask the truth, and can even be dangerous. Often times, con artists, child molesters, and wife beaters appear nice and friendly to their neighbors and community, even so much that people rush to their defense, despite the testimonies of their victims. The fact is, niceness is commonly mistaken for virtuousness.

She relates that while C.S. Lewis believed courage to be the one virtue that protects all other virtues, she believed niceness to corrupt all other virtues. She claims, "Niceness edits the truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles Justice, short-circuits Honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion, and Love." She further states, " Nice flies under false colors, wants the reputation of the gentle dove without the wisdom of the wise serpent. It is the Great Imposter, having none of the power of Virtue but seeking the influence thereof. Nice is neither kind nor compassionate, neither good nor full of good cheer, neither hot nor cold. But being puffed up in its own vanity, it is considerably more dangerous than luke-warmth."

Considering the damage niceness can do to our virtues, we might imagine that where it is encouraged and given over-emphasis, there will be negative results. In discussing a dominatly authoritative parenting style, where children are expected to be obedient and submissive without question, Elouise Bell explains what psychologist Alice Miller terms the "poisonous pedagogy." "The 'poisonous pedagogy' teaches children, in other words, to be 'nice.' It demands that children not resist the status quo, not take any direct action against whatever injustices are going down. Thus, it indirectly but inevitably encourages covert action, manipulation, passive-aggression, duplicity, and denial."

Likewise, Bell believes that niceness can do damage to our very souls, if we let it replace our authentic virtues and sense of Self. She compares the journey of self-discovery we each go through and the impending threat of niceness this way:

Imagine a mother, a Queen if you like, who awakens from the sleep that follows childbirth to discover that her child has been abducted, carried away. At first there are some signs of the child - a cry down a long corridor, a blanket woven for the baby and discovered on the lawn, perhaps a scent of baby's breath on the night air. These eventually stop. Time passes. The mother searches night and day. And every now and then she hears from the child - a lisping voice over the telephone line, garbled with static; torn parts of a hand-written note; sometimes even a little gift, sent with love. And the mother continues to hunt for the child, to follow clues, and to send the child, by whatever means - on the phone in the fleeting moments permitted, by thought transference, by prayer - all the love and support she can muster, as the search continues. 

Now imagine that, in the midst of these labors, the mother is repeatedly beset by concerned people - most prominently the Queen Mother and her consort - who urge her to break off her search, who try to press a different child on her, insisting that this one is much "nicer" than her own, scolding her, saying she is selfish, willful, possibly even crazy to go on with her search. If the opposition is persistent, the Queen may eventually come to believe she is crazy, to doubt that there ever was such a child, to cease following the clues, to grow deaf to the voice on the other end of the phone. To give up the search. Devotees of the cult of niceness abandon the True Self and promote the False Self, the self that psychologist John Bradshaw describes this way: "You pretend a lot. You gauge your behavior by how it looks - by the image you believe you're making, You wear a mask, play a rigid role, and hide your emotions. You say you're fine when you're hurt or sad. You say you're not angry when you are." 

I've come to a lot of hard realizations lately in my journey to uncover who I really am, and what I want, independent of the world around me. Some of these realizations have come as a surprise. Through all of it, I know that the worst thing I can do with my life is to hide my reality, or dismiss it as being insignificant, or crazy. In many ways, I'm becoming more comfortable to show myself to the world. It may be a cliche' to say, "This above all: to thine own self be true," but Shakespeare nailed it!  


It's difficult to be advised that, as a woman, I should always seek to be nice, soft, and feminine. For the most part, I don't feel that that is who I am (or who I want to be). Personally, I've always felt much more compelled by Friedrich Nietzche's call to reject niceness and "become hard": 

"Why so hard?" the kitchen coal once said to the diamond. "After all, are we not close kin?"
Why so soft? O my brothers, thus I ask you: are you not after all my brothers?
Why so soft, so pliant and yielding? Why is there so much denial, self-denial, in your hearts? So little destiny in your eyes?
And if you do not want to be destinies and inexorable ones, how can you one day triumph with me?
And if your hardness does not wish to flash and cut through, how can you one day create with me?
For all creators are hard. And it must seem blessedness to you to impress your hand on millennia as on wax.
Blessedness to write on the will of millennia as on bronze -- harder than bronze, nobler than bronze. Only the noblest is altogether hard.
This new tablet, O my brothers, I place over you: Become hard!

Sexist Jokes

Back when I was a freshman in college, I had two good friends (males) that found it funny to say, "Make me a sandwich, wench!" I knew that they were my friends, and didn't think I was a wench. And I knew they didn't expect me to make them a sandwich, so I never really said anything back. I just assumed they were goofing off, and, well, whatever. Then one day, my roommate was with me when they called me "wench," and she forcefully responded, "Don't you dare call her that!" It wasn't until that moment that I truly realized that despite the fact that they weren't serious, it was definitely rude and disrespectful behavior, and it hurt my feelings. I was certainly glad that my roommate wouldn't stand for it. And I wish that I hadn't allowed it either.

Fast forward. Just recently, a friend of mine shared a photo with me that his friend had posted on facebook. He then asked me whether I was offended by it, or if I found it humorous somehow. What do you think?

Let's just say, I found it offensive. I'm sure that the manufacturers simply felt this was funny, and so did the person who posted it. But I have to wonder not only why people feel comfortable making jokes at women's expense, but why any respectable company would be bold enough to publicly do so. I remarked that there would never be a racist joke about who picked the cotton for the clothing, because of course, no one would find that funny. It would be blatantly offensive! So why does society so readily allow sexist jokes to go unchallenged?

This laundry tag reminded me of a speech that Hillary Clinton gave in which she was heckled by a man who shouted, "Iron my shirt!"

I'm so glad that she didn't just ignore the comment. It's not okay to marginalize women, or to play the part of the chauvinist for laughs. Not only should we resist participating in these jokes and comments, we should stand up against them. I'm discovering that developing more courage through the beginnings of my feminist journey isn't easy. Even in my adulthood, with all I've learned, it's still hard to stand up to the bullies I encounter. A couple months ago, I stood up for a friend of mine at a get-together, and found myself crying after being made fun of and questioned as to why I was upset. I wish I were stronger. I wish that I could stand up for others with more power and authority, and without tears. For now, it only matters to me that I have the courage to do it at all, in whatever capacity I have. It's a step in the direction I know I need to go.  

The 30% Solution

Last week, I listened to a guest speaker from Rwanda talk about the history of women's social and political influence on the country over the years. Today, it is the leading country in the world for female representation in government. Interestingly, before the 1980s, however, Rwandan women could not even go out in public. Nor could they even speak in the presence of men. The transformation of women's social standing in Rwanda is simply astounding! But how did it happen?

Unfortunately, the answer to this question largely has a tragic history. In 1994, a massive genocide occurred in Rwanda against the Tutsi people. This genocide was, in fact, orchestrated by the government. Military leaders were ordered to publicly rape and murder women. Even children were murdered. Citizens were ordered to kill their own neighbors. Within a few months, 1/5 of the nation had been wiped out.

The violence that occurred throughout the genocide was largely sexual in nature, in that it was rare for any female survivors to not have been raped. It was not unusual for someone to see a woman raped several times in one day, and do nothing about it. It is also not a surprise that most of the women who survived the killings were infected with HIV.

Due to this tragedy, Rwanda has gained a much greater sensitivity for oppression due to ethnicity and gender. The politics of Rwanda has also undergone serious reform. In 2003, Rwanda instituted a provision that at least 30% of their parliament needed to be women. This decision was rooted in the deliberations of the UN Conference held in Beijing in 1995. The deliberation for women's rights went beyond addressing personal liberties, it focused on the need to involve women in worldwide democracy and economic development. Speakers did not focus on the discrimination that women faced, or how to reconcile past injustices. The focus was on the strength that women could offer to make the world better.

In her book, Women Lead the Way, Linda Tarr-Whelan describes women as the number one untapped resource in the world. I believe that to be an appropriate description, considering that proposal after proposal for reforms are made in politics and business, but utilizing the unique strengths of women is rarely offered as a solution. In Beijing, the UN offered what is commonly referred to as The 30% Solution. In essence, to experience chance that represents and values the perspective of women, we need women in the highest positions of leadership. Women need to make decisions too. They determined that the critical amount of representation of women required to create a catalyst for change was 30%.

The impact of the Beijing Conference has been tremendous, and nations around the globe began adopting The 30% Solution. Today, at least 23 countries meet or exceed the 30% goal, and 101 others have created reforms in their constitutions and laws to enable progress towards it. As I stated earlier, Rwanda is the leader in female representation, with 56% women in parliament, and 1/3 women in the cabinet. Other leading nations for female representation are Sweden, Cuba, Finland, Argentina, the Netherlands, Denmark, Angola, Costa Rica, Spain, and Norway. In addition, the following countries have elected a female president or prime minister: the Philippines, New Zealand, Senegal, Finland, Indonesia, Peru, Mozambique, Germany, Ukraine, Chile, Switzerland, Liberia, South Korea, Jamaica, Argentina, Iceland, Panama, and Latvia.

How does the United States compare? Well, in 1996, the US ranked forty-second in female representation. Since then, we are falling further and further behind. Even more shocking to me, was the fact that Afghanistan ranks twenty-eighth, and Iraq ranks thirty-fifth. Tarr-Whelan reveals, "The U.S. government under President George W. Bush also promoted change by adopting hard targets for women in office--but only outside U.S. borders." It's strange that the U.S. would require Afghanistan and Iraq to create quotas for women in office, and yet ignore adopting such polices at home. It is pretty shocking to me that the United States of America, founded on liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is so far behind.  And they are complacent about it! I hear statistics rattle off all the time about how much the U.S. is falling behind in the education "race," and believe me, there is plenty of shame for it. But there is practically no recognition or shame for the ways we are failing to further women's rights to participate in making decisions for our country.

Several decades have passed since Eleanor Roosevelt made this observation: "Too often the great decisions are originated and given form in bodies made up wholly of men or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression." Today, it hasn't changed much:

I hope it doesn't take a massive genocide like it did in Rwanda for people to realize that without female representation in our government, women will have no voice and no influence on the destiny of our country and our world.

The Man-Hater Stereotype and an Inclusive Look at Feminism

Many people are turned off and even antagonistic towards feminism because of the conception that feminists are man-haters. Well, maybe some of them are, but most of them are not. Historically, however, men have been painted as villains throughout feminist theory. I'll share a little bit of that (referencing bell hooks from her work, Feminist Theory From Margin to Center), but realize that the feminism that encouraged viewing men as the enemy was, and where it persists, is significantly shortsighted. I wish to share a different conception of feminism with you than the one you may imagine when you think of feminism, one which is fully inclusive of men as well as women, and one in which a positive goal is in store for all.

First, some history. One popular book from the era of second wave feminism in the 60s that you may have heard of, The Feminine Mystique, created a huge response among feminist-thinkers. It was written to address what the author, Betty Friedan, termed, "the problem that has no name" among American women. The problem, of course, being the discrimination, exploitation, and oppression that women faced in our society. In essence, she gave a name to the fear, repressed anger, depression, and anxiety that women knew, but could not confidently pinpoint.

Her solution was for women to, essentially, be like men. She advised women to seize the same opportunities that allow men their freedom and happiness in the world by having a career, and investing themselves outside of the home. The goal, as seen by Friedan, and many feminist theorists, was simply for women to become socially and politically equal with men.

However, critical analysis of The Feminine Mystique reveals that the audience it addressed was clearly very selective. Specifically, it was written for white, middle-class, dissatisfied, married women . It suited their situation well, and provided a much-needed discourse and movement for these women. However, it excluded many women, and men, from the feminist ideology of equity. For instance, consider the middle-class, white homemakers who decided to find a career and purpose outside of the home that would bring them a greater sense of satisfaction. Now what about the women who would take over their tasks of caregiver and housekeeper once they began focusing on their careers?

The oppression and exploitation that faced other women on the grounds of their class and race was ignored, and even, at times, sacrificed for the good of the feminist middle-class. bell hooks remarks, "They were ultimately more concerned with obtaining an equal share in class privilege than with the struggle to eliminate sexism and sexual oppression." Today, feminism has come a long way in addressing the viewpoints and needs of women across the globe regarding issues that go far beyond gender. But at this time the feminist movement gained strength focusing simply on the problem of gender inequity between middle-class men and women. These women wanted the same opportunities and rewards offered to men. The best way to achieve that seemed to be for women to compete with men for the same positions, success, and respect.

However, fostering competition with men in the search for freedom from male domination, understandably, did not lead to a harmonious revolutionary movement. Ironically, in many ways, the very movement for women's liberation is the subject of enormous oppression. Competitive attitudes have fostered an endless battle of the sexes, where women's gain is somehow perceived by some as men's loss. Unfortunately, in competing with men and dealing with male oppression, feminists designated all men "the enemy." As a result, another viewpoint that obviously went ignored by feminists was the oppressed male. "They were not eager to call attention to the fact that men do not share a common social status, that patriarchy does not negate the existence of class and race privilege or exploitation, that all men do not benefit equally from sexism." Men who suffered due to discrimination  and oppression based on class and race struggled too, and could hardly imagine themselves as having male privilege. Furthermore, the women who knew and sympathized with these men could not see them as "the enemy" that feminism portrayed all men to be.

Addressing these shortcomings by feminists, bell hooks says, "They were ultimately more concerned with obtaining an equal share in class privilege than with the struggle to eliminate sexism and sexist oppression." She further remarks,

The insistence on a concentrated focus on individualism, on the primary of self, deemed 'liberatory' by women's liberationists, was not a visionary, radical concept of freedom. It did provide individual solutions for women, however. It was the same idea of independence perpetuated by the imperalist patriarchal state which equates independence with narcissism, and lack of concern with triumph over others. In this way, women active in feminist movement were simply inverting the dominant ideology of the culture--they were not attacking it. 

 With that in mind, it's no wonder that feminists were often competitive, aggressive, and demanding. They were mirroring the way that men achieve economic independence and social success, because they wanted to be an equal part of what is largely a world forged by men in power. As a result, women have opportunities that are open to them through education and employment that were simply unheard of before the feminist movement. All criticism aside, this has been an amazing and awe-inspiring goal and achievement (with still many more steps ahead!). The potential for feminist achievement is extraordinary. Though today I feel it helpful to explore some critical aspects of feminism to understand the resistance and persecution it faces, I feel discouraged that the influence of criticism holds us back from exploring and advocating worthwhile causes.

Perhaps one problem in finding a focus on the cause, and not the criticism, is that as feminism has been explored from various perspectives, the goals and definitions of feminism seem to shift and refocus. It is difficult to know exactly what feminism stands for, and what it takes to be a feminist. Understanding the need to introduce a simple and inclusive view of feminism, bell hooks suggests that a good definition for feminism, rather than the movement for women to achieve equality with men, would be the movement to eradicate sexual exploitation and oppression. The former encourages viewing men and women separately, if not antagonistically. It also assumes that women must do the work alone, and that men do not struggle to achieve equity as well. The latter definition focuses on what the problem is, and how to fix it, and not on the identity of a victim and oppressor. It opens the way for harmonious discourse and solutions to be reached by everyone in the name of feminism. It creates the impression of a positive political movement for the globe (as it should be), rather than the personal pursuit of dealing with women's issues with men, in which it is often perceived and marginalized to be.

Feminists who hate men, in reality, are few and far between. However, as is understandable in considering oppression and exploitation, it should be expected that many men are at fault. There are going to be negative responses addressed at men for this behavior. But it is not all men. Men can be oppressed too. Women can be the oppressors. Men will oppress other men, as well as women. Women will oppress other women, as well as men. Gender is not the only or primary cause of oppression, but in many ways, it is the most pervasive. It doesn't require overtly hurtful or abusive actions to oppress others. Many times, we are not even conscious of the way we oppress others, as much of our actions are socialized behaviors. But socialization does not dismiss the responsibility we have to examine and change the hurtful things we think, say, and do. If you have been hesitant to fully support feminism, or if you support it but want to expand your focus and commitment, I urge you to look at feminism in this light, and see what the end of all oppression has to offer you and the rest of the world.

Is Aggie Pride for Men's Team Only?

Yesterday, my Women in Leadership class attended a panel discussion about women and athletics in honor of Title IX Day. Prior to this discussion, I had never actually heard of Title IX. It is a law that states

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 

Though this law applies to all education programs and activities, it has probably most significantly affected young women's participation in sports. Though not a huge sports fan myself, I can see how the participation in sports has probably given a lot of girls and women confidence, team-building skills, physical fitness, health awareness, competitive drive, and a distinct sense of achievement. And if you are a woman who has enjoyed playing sports, you are probably a feminist.

Anyway, the panel member who I got the most from was the women's basketball coach for USU. She is young enough that she has always been able to benefit from Title IX, though she still sees some clear inequality between men and women in basketball. For instance, men always coach male basketball teams, but men also primarily coach female basketball teams. There are practically no female referees, not even for high school basketball. Plus, of course, women's basketball is less popular with the public. In fact, it made me sad to consider the fact that she told us that USU has among the lowest turnout of students at games compared to other schools the team visits. Looking at this in contrast to USU men's basketball team, where the aggressively loyal and huge number of fans is almost overwhelming, I wonder why USU has so few students that attend the women's games in comparison with other schools.

 Going to this panel has inspired me a little bit to bring up women's sports and basketball more often, especially to Aggie Basketball fans. If you've never been to a women's game, please go some time. Especially if you are a USU student, and can get in for free. Invite others to come with you. I know that the team and coach will appreciate seeing the numbers of people in attendance climb.

Bald and Free: My story of being Miss Representation

I have something important I want to share. It is something about myself that only my family and a few of my close friends know. Even now, I feel a little bit of hesitation in deciding to post it openly. It is a fact that has caused me a lot of internal shame, and has affected my self image in ways that has made me feel abnormal, antisocial, and at times, really ugly. I have Trichotillomania. I even hate to write that word sometimes, because having a condition with the suffix "mania" can make me feel a little crazy.

I share this because I honestly feel that in life you have to give something to get something. In order to internalize the struggles of others and understand them, I need to share my own. I can only expect the trust and intimacy that comes with truly learning who others are by trusting them as well. I need to open that possibility through my willingness to be vulnerable. I believe that there is more power that comes through suffering than I know, and I want to learn how to harness it. There is no value, for me, in perpetually looking beyond the negative, and looking at the lighter side of life. I'm sure that this view is more important than I realize as well, but not at the expense of rejecting and ignoring the purpose of pain. That purpose should be explored. I'm sure there's some Buddist wisdom that would explain this idea better, but I have yet to learn it.

The hardest part of my Trich is that it has driven me to hiding. At first, it was my mother's shame that motivated me to hide my head. She bought a wig for me to wear in middle school. In high school I refused to wear it, and at her bidding, I shaved my head. It wasn't until college that I really started letting my hair grow out, but perhaps that was just a result of the fact that I never wanted to go to a hair salon. I never wanted to go swimming either, or be outside while it was windy or raining. I didn't even want to physically get too close to anyone that didn't already know what was "wrong." I couldn't put my head on someone's shoulder, or let someone brush or stroke my hair. Obviously, this sort of mental restriction held me back from getting close to guys and dating. I've been described as stand-offish before. There was even a time when I was afraid to be a part of baptisms for the dead at the temple, for fear that it would expose my secret, and lead to questions and negative views about me. I'm pretty ashamed for letting it get to me in that way.

I was pretty good at hiding my bald spots most of the time. A comb-over isn't just for balding guys, it is a vital practice for most Trichsters. I have a shoe box full of barrettes, bandannas, and head bands. I've even used hair powders and scalp creams to hide my spots. Last spring, my pulling was getting so bad that the hair powder no longer could conceal the damage, and I began wearing bandannas everyday, even if I was alone in my apartment, and many times even to bed.

There were many times when I wanted to get away from that shame, and that harmful desire to hide. I kept commenting to my husband, "I should just shave my head." And he'd answer, "If you want, I'll do it for you." It was always kind of a half joke. One day, this past November, I said, "Okay John, I want you to shave my head tonight." It was actually a bizzare bonding experience, and I felt good about it most of the time my hair was falling down around me. I do remember shedding a tear or two, though. This time, shaving my head was not about hiding like it was when I was younger. It was about openly being willing to show my ugliness, and my realness to everyone, and it was about the desire for a new beginning.

I knew that shaving my head would nessisitate telling others about my condition. A girl can't just shave her head without questions, and this time I wasn't going to lie. That's largely what made it so difficult. But, I felt it was the right thing to do. I sent an email telling all of my in-laws about it, and got some very supportive responses. However, it just so happened that the next time I would see them all, it was Thanksgiving. So, practically all of them were there to see my "new look." I had a reaction I would never have anticipated. Shortly after I saw them all for the first time with my shaved head, I broke down crying, and crying, and crying. I couldn't stop. I actually had such a hard time dealing with my emotions, that I decided I would feel better going home. My husband, amazing in his support, came with me, despite not being able to see his family for very long for the holiday.

I'm not sure how to reflect back on Thanksgiving night, and my emotions. I think there is just a certain extreme shock that can result if you suddenly allow yourself to be completely vulnerable to people whose love, opinions, and judgements you value, and you fear somehow changing. Despite this extreme reaction, I've found that sharing this experience has been helpful and positive for my development, and my relationships with others.

After shaving my head, yes, even right down to the skin, the damage to my hair could still be seen. It is taking its sweet time growing back, and I am hopeful that all of it will. I still often wear hats now while it is growing back and looks funky, but I don't feel like I need to. And I often don't "need to" at all.

Last night I watched the awesome film, Miss Representation. I highly, highly recommend it. Here is a detailed description of it in case you are interested. It is about how the media has marginalized the value and potential of women, and created an obsession with youth, beauty and sexiness. Women are underrepresented and misrepresented all around us, and the effects are devastating. I know that without the constant and specific influence that beauty has had on our society, my Trichotillomania would not have been such a negative and difficult force in my life. It's interesting to consider that if baldness were considered beautiful, I would never have felt ashamed of my condition, or felt ashamed to live life with the confidence I deserved. I'd like to think that I am above internalizing the shallow pettiness of society and the media, and sometimes I certainly can be, but rising above it isn't the best answer. It needs to be stopped. I believe that the silence of good people that know the truth will perpetuate the lies we see and hear more than the liars will. I don't want to be silent anymore.

My friend Heidi was told by some of her photography professors that most of her models look too perfect. I've noticed that she likes her photos as polished as possible, and goes to great lengths to hire an awesome make-up artist, and edit her images to look just the way she likes them. I've gotten photos with her before where I've enjoyed going to her make-up artist, and having Heidi curl my hair. My pictures turned out great. More recently, after shaving my head, I offered to be the kind of model that did not represent perfection. We had a weird, but fun photo shoot. Here are my radically different pictures:





       



 









I don't want to critically evaluate and compare the kind of beauty I see in each photo. Beauty is not the point. It is the opposite of the point. I do, however, want to be able to post both photos side by side and proudly say, "This is me!" Well, this is me!

Iron Jawed Angels

Last night, my dear friend Heidi and I watched Iron Jawed Angels. What a great opportunity it was to learn more about the Suffrage Movement. It's pretty strange to think that most of the women in the United States did not have the right to vote just 100 years ago! I admire the women that had the courage to stand up and demand the right to be heard and to take part in the decisions that affect our country.

There were a few particular scenes in the film that especially impressed me. First, I loved the parade that was organized to create awareness about Women's Suffrage. I found the iconic warrior-woman with angel's wings on horseback a beautiful image and representation of feminist ideology. Here's a true photo of her:

Somehow, I find it symbolic that she is riding on a white horse. We've heard the classic telling of fairy tales where the gallant knight rides in on a white horse and saves the poor damsel in distress. Here, this woman asserts that she is able to work to create a better life for herself, herself. She has that right, and that ability.

Anyway, it was pretty shocking to me in the film when the citizens watching the parade began harassing the women participants, throwing things at them, and finally breaking out into complete violence, sending about 100 women to the hospital. It was particularly intense because I could tell that things were just going to get worse.

I also liked the scenes where the women were picketing for women's right to vote. Apparently, this was the first time anyone has had the balls ovaries to protest right outside the White House. I was particularly moved by the character Alice Paul, played by Hilary Swank, as she read aloud the various statements about democracy and liberty that President Wilson had delivered , and then threw them into a fire. She was publicly declaring the President of the United States a hypocrite. Gutsy girl.

Well, as you can imagine, all of these women protesters get arrested...for the outrageous charge of "obstructing traffic." When the women are taken to jail and claim that they have done nothing wrong and are political prisoners and would like their clothes back and some paper and pens to write their legislators, they are instead chained to walls. Driven from the streets, and provided no practical means to further their cause, the women go on a hunger strike. The scenes where Alice Paul has a tube shoved down her throat as she is force-fed raw eggs make me want to puke a little, honestly.

Later a psychiatrist takes her aside and is trying to assess whether or not she is crazy. When he asked her to tell him about her cause and to "explain herself," I loved her answer: "I just wonder what needs to be explained..." and continued further saying that she values the same rights to seek professions, and be autonomous as he does. It just seemed so simple and obvious to her that women should be men's equals, and have the same rights, and it clearly created pain that others did not seem to agree or understand. Earlier on in the movie she says she doesn't understand why she has to be a part of a fight that shouldn't be a fight. That's a powerful way to put it.

Heidi and I both liked how after the interrogation, the psychiatrist defends Alice against those questioning her mental state. He claimed that she is no more insane than the hero Patrick Henry, who declared, "Give me liberty or give me death!" He also offered his opinion that often times "courage in a woman is mistaken for insanity."

That actually reminds of a story that a guest speaker for my Women in Leadership class mentioned about his grandmother and grandfather. His grandmother had found out that her husband was cheating on her, and out of her rage and frustration, she threw down a big mirror in their home and broke it. He had her declared insane, and she was given electric shock therapy, and a lobotomy (the trauma from which, later killed her). Perhaps to a much, much smaller degree, I believe that women's justifiable emotional reactions can still be misconstrued as irrational.

As for the movie, all ends well, and Alice and the other women are released from prison, and women are given the right to vote. Huzza! I almost want to order a Suffragette's flag and string it up on my the flag pole outside my new house. It would certainly be more respectful than the fun pirate flag I wanted to slyly replace the American flag with...haha, oh boy.

What woman (from your life, history, or fiction) do you admire for her courage and example?