Uhoh, I think I'm a housewife

For now, at least.

I mean, I'm unemployed, I'm not in school, and I'm not currently studying for anything...

So am I a housewife?  If so, I'm a pretty sucky one.  All I've done in two weeks of being married is cook some dinners, clean the bathtub, and clean the roomba a few times.

But to be fair, if I'm a housewife, JD's a househusband.

The hardest part about us both being unemployed is the utter lack of schedule-- there's not need to wake up or go to sleep at any given time, and while there are deadlines (hello new bar application, taxes, and finding a new apartment!) there is no set schedule to follow during the day.  Hmm.

Maybe tomorrow I should make a recipe from one of my new cookbooks.  I'm definitely doing laundry, if nothing else!

We got married!

We're married!!!

I don't really even know what to say.  I can gush and get all gooey, but really, this blog isn't hard core MY PERSONAL LIFE AND FEELINGS, but I am so super happy.

JD was so handsome.  I looked like a pretty pretty princess.  Everyone thought our priest was pretty much the best ever, and that he gave the best homily ever.  A lot of people liked the excerpt from Goodridge.  People loved the party and the food (I think), and the first dance was just fantastic.  For me at least.  Everyone else just got to stare at us stare at each other :-)

I know I wanted a smaller wedding, but actually, I did have a lot of fun.  and while people do say something goes wrong at every wedding, the only things that went "wrong" at ours were very small-- the flowers were lovely but not at all what I ordered, and the bar at the venue decided that cherry heering and maraschino liquor would work totally the same in a cocktail, which... they are both cherry, sure, but have VERY different flavor profiles, and different colors, which meant that their attempt at our cocktail was too sweet and not green.  But as things go?  No big deal!  No one noticed, and no one cared!  (well, JD and I cared about the cocktail.  But whatever, people seemed to enjoy chartreuse and tonics instead)

And the ceremony itself was so, so, so perfect.  So perfect.  I cried, but I was able to stop and keep it under control and say my vows without desperate sobbing.  

So yeah.  I'm married!!!  Which is awesome!  And tonight, we're back at home, both still exhausted from our whirlwind of days and love and excitement and friends (seeing everyone from so many stages of life together was... intense.  So, so, cool).

I've got nothing political or ideological here to say, just-- I'm in love, and I'm thrilled, and I have the best husband in the world :-)

How to have a perfect evening

Relax on the couch in a clean apartment.

Edith Piaf pandora station on.

Lights on the medium side of the dimmer.

Quite, soothing hum of the dishwasher in the background.

Wonderful fiance sitting at his desk.

Fresh mug of tea, fresh glass of ice water.

fantastic maroon/brown nail polish.

2 good books to read.

2 gorgeous, friendly kittens gamboling around.

plans to cook breakfast for dinner of bacon, homefries, and asparagus.

On changing my name when I get married.

Say my name, say my name...

Or don't.

Because what is is now, is not what it'll be in two weeks.

I wasn't planning to change my name when JD and i went to the town hall to file for our marriage license, but I wasn't planning to keep it, either.  I'd thought a medium amount about the concept of changing my name, and had started multiple blog posts dissecting the many good and bad reasons to change my name, and the many good and bad reasons to keep my name-- because there are a lot of both, for each-- but I hadn't actually come to a decision yet,  I wanted my decision to be well thought out, in line with all my beliefs and desires, and consistent with all my other political and personal opinions.

In the end?  It turns out in my town, when you register for marriage, each spouse has to put down what hir post-marriage name will be on the form.

And I did not know that until I was there, filling out the form.

And I didn't have time to think.

And I ended up putting down JD's last name.

Would I have done so if I had thought about it?  I don't know.  Would I have done it if we hadn't argued about something small the night before?  Would I have done so if it had been a different time of day, and I was more awake?  Again, I really don't know.

So I made the decision, and I made it on the moment instead of in a reasoned manner.

Honestly?  I think it's good that I didn't consider it too much.  Whatever I had decided, I'd have questioned it-- because there are good and bad points to both decisions, and I could see them both, and i find it a very close decision.  I know Jessica Valenti, in her (not very well done) book about double binds goes off on women who change their name... but why is it so much worse than heels or makeup or short skits, all of which I (and Valenti!) do too?  I am a feminist, my politics are feminist, but I live in a world that is not fully feminist, and I want to have the same last name as my husband-- and JD, I knew,was and  is not about to change his name.

So, as it turns out, having the same last name is more important to me than keeping my name.

So, in two weeks time I'll be Amanda Y instead of Amanda X.  And you know what?  I'll still be me.

I love love, of course I love Valentine's Day.

Forget the roses and chocolates and stupid ideas about it's culturally expected to express love an affection to a romantic partner.  At it's core, Valentine's Day is supposed to be about love, not about things or the exchange of things.  (Yes, I did get JD a present-- he got some organic beef jerky, bison jerky, and little... beef... sticks?  like  slim jims, but real meat. And yes, he already got them, so that he could nom on them during the Duke game.)  But I'm a total sap for love-- I think we should all tell the people we love that we love them more often, whether they're out romantic loves, family members, or just friends.  Just... don't get hung up on the stupid commercialization of the holiday, which is so steeped in outdated gender roles and material things.  Instead, get in touch with love!  Kiss your pets, your partner, send a letter to your best friend from college, or your old roommate, or just post a cheery message to your sibling or cousin's facebook!  Reach out and emote in a positive way!

Also, last year I wrote a couple of posts on Valentine's Day.  I link to them below!
Valentine's Day
Ghosts of Valentine's Past

On Being Groped By a Stranger, or My First TSA Pat-Down

As I write this, I'm sitting in Boston Logan airport, past security, and at my gate.  I think Logan is a really good airport, actually, in terms of efficiency, ease of access, and generally friendly staff.  So I want you to know this is not a complaint about the airport, but about the procedure itself.

When I travel, I usually travel with JD.  This is the first time I've traveled without him in years, actually.  We like being together, and we don't really have any reasons to travel alone, currently.  We'd discussed the backscatter vs the patdown before, and I'd come to the conclusion that, as much as I didn't like the idea of being groped, it was better than being exposed to unknown radiation risk, especially since both of my parents have had cancer, with my dad's skin cancer reappearing multiple times.  In our ideal scenario, i would request to be patted down in a private room with JD present.  But JD wasn't there today, and I was nervous and so, I got the pat down in public.

My terminal wasn't very full-- only a few people behind me to watch the patdown-- but it was still unnerving to be patted down in full view of others, because it really does involve groping.  The woman administering it was very professional, and told me everything she was doing in advance, but it was still unnerving to have someone touching areas that I generally don't let people who are not JD touch.  And in public.  I didn't get the breast cup and lift some people described, but the crotch cupping and but and breast contouring were quite unnerving as it was.

It wasn't as bad as I expected it to be, but for some reason, I still feel dirty and embarrassed.    Not dirty like I did anything bad, but dirty like skin-crawling.  It WAS embarrassing though, and it was strange and I did not like it.  I will still pick it over the backscatter, but now that it isn't just a hypothetical, my "whatever, I'll choose the sexual assault option" grumbling is less hypothetical.  I wasn't harmed in anyway, but... in a culture that does value bodily privacy and autonomy, it isn't pleasant to be touched in ways you don't approve of , in public, by a stranger.

Also: I forgot to take my liquids bag out of my purse.  They didn't notice that, though.

Happy birthday to me-- on turning 26

Today is my birthday!  And I'm 26.  And I'm of the opinion that this is awesome because, well, I think I'm fairly nifty, and I think birthdays are great.  I spent the first part of the day in bed reading with JD and our kittens, then I went to the gym, and then we went out to Eastern Standard, where I had an utterly delicious dinner, and now he's watching the Duke-BC game while I read.  This is pretty much my ideal day.

Today has been all about simple pleasures for me.  I think a lot of us don't take enough time to really relish the small things, like a good book or tasty beverage or the feel of warm fluffy kitten fur.  But I think we should take the time to do those things, because they make everything else we do so much fuller.

25 was a pretty good year.  It had some disappointments (I am le unemployed), but on the whole, I'm happy.  I have a wonderful little family here, with JD and out cats, and my family in the rest of the country is wonderful, and i like who I am, and I have so many good friends.  I may not have many tangible accomplishments, but I have something that is more valuable to me-- self-knowledge, happiness, love, and wonderful human connections.

Another take on sex objects

Another take on sex objects is to look at things from an object-actor viewpoint, a passive-active standpoint.  I know I've read about this elsewhere, but I can't find the essay, so a lot of this may be simply my brain regurgitating someone else's thoughts months later.  I hope I'm adding something to what I've read, though!

Anyway, in my other post about sex objects, I talked about a sex object as a literal object, a person who becomes a non-person in someone else's mind.

And then for some reason I remembered grammar, and subjects and objects; hence, thoughts on sex objects and sex subjects.  In grammar, the subject is the one who does, who acts, and the object is the thing or person who is acted on.  Sally hits Suzy.  Jim kisses Jack.  Sally and Jim are the subjects, the actors, and Suzy and Jack are the objects-- the passive ones.  But what about Jane and Sam shake hands?  Jane and Sam are both actors-- acting on each other at the same time.

In a lot of discourse about sexuality, things are framed with an active partner and a passive partner-- A leads all the interactions, with B following and passively accepting.  Sometimes, the actor switches back and forth, with first A, then B, then A, then B acting, and the other accepting passively.

But human interactions can also be very much like the handshake-- two people acting on each other at the same time.  And I think that, often, it takes that dual action for people to get really comfortable with each other.  If you are a sex object in this sense-- always the passive partner, who follows the lead and desires of the active partner-- then you're not meeting on the same level, and possibly not getting your own wants taken care of (even though in some situations, like oral sex, the one doing the acting is generally doing it primarily for the other's pleasure).

The main thing that it's getting me thinking about now, is that if people do tend to go through the same sexual scripts all the time with one partner as actor, and another as passive recipient, it could be worthwhile for both of them to think about their sex life (as well as their interactions outside of sex) and whether mixing things up in a different way-- or at least talking about why one tends to be active and one passive-- might be a good thing.

How should a crime that kills a wanted fetus be classified?

I recently (possibly today?  Possibly a few days ago?  Everything runs together when you realize you have to finish planning a wedding and fill out a Bar application in less than two months!) read an article on Jezebel-- and then the initial news article-- on laws affecting crimes against pregnant women, specifically ones that cause them to miscarry.

I tried to refind the articles, but I can't.  Which annoys me, because context is always helpful.  But at any rate, the issue is how do you deal with an attack that causes a miscarriage?  Is it simply ignored, with the crime against the woman considered, whether it's murder or just assault?  Is it an additional homicide in cases where the parent(s) were intending to bring it to term?  Is it an unlawful abortion?  Is it a form of theft?

The way it's dealt with matters, because in both the law and society, words have meaning-- and application of laws can create precedent.  We dealt with this situation some back in 1L Criminal law.  I don't remember how most of the people in the class felt, but I do remember that the cases dealt with scenarios where the woman wanted a child, and some of them were pretty horrifying, in part because of our societal views that pregnant women are to be protected, and in part just because of the brutality of the attack (I still remember reading about one man who said he was going to "stomp the baby" out of a woman).

I do think it should be taken seriously-- and I don't think that that in any way is in conflict with my being pro-choice.  It's pro-choice. Which means I respect the choices that women make for their bodies and reproductive futures, and I don't think abortions or miscarriages should be forced any more than I think they should be prohibited.  But the killing of a wanted fetus that the mother is planning to bring to term still should not count as a homicide-- because a fetus is not a person.  When it dies, a person is not dying-- a potential person is, even though a couple who wants a child may have already named it, and may already be emotionally thinking of it as a person.  But it isn't a person.

Still, because of their hopes and dream and effort put into it, and lifestyle changes, and potential dangers of just being pregnant, people invest a lot into a wanted pregnancy.  And there should be some kind of extra charge.  I guess the best that I can come up with would be a new charge, based on the idea of theft, but even that doesn't quite convey the right tone.  It's a trespass against someone's body in a way that a normal physical assault isn't, and it steals their past efforts and their hope of having that fetus be a child.  So I don't think it should be ignored, and I don't think it should be treated as murder, but I do think there should be some additional charge, and I also think that that is completely in low with a pro-choice viewpoint.

What does sexual objectification mean?

A lot of people online talk about objectification-- specifically, sexual objectification  qnd treating women as sex objects-- but a lot of people  also don't really seem to quite understand what objectification and sex object actually mean.  It doesn't mean looking at a woman, and thinking she's sexy.  It doesn't mean noticing her breasts, or hips.  Hell, it doesn't even mean fantasizing about sex with her.

It means treating her as if she is not a full person, and as if her primary purpose is for sex, to give men sexual pleasure.  It means treating her as an object for sex-- the way a vibrator or lube is a sex object, the way a game controller is a gaming object, the way a cane is a mobility object.  It means treating her or seeing her as an object that exists for sex.

That isn't the same as seeing her as an awesome-- or awful-- person that you might want to have sex with.  It isn't the same at all.  And understanding the difference can help people understand why it is that feminists object to women being treated-- by people or the media-- as sex objects.  Because honestly, people can look at each other and evaluate each other as potential sex partners all day long without seeing them as sex objects-- as long as they also stay cognizant of the fact that that person has their own inner life and mind, and that they have qualities that go beyond what sort of sexual experience they'd give, or what sort of sexual thoughts their image evokes.

Ads turn women into sex objects when they pose women sexily to sell things-- because her sexual appeal is the only thing about her that matters.  Some men do this too, when they think the only reason to talk to women is as a preliminary to getting her into bed.  But thinking about sex-- in conjunction with thinking about her intellect, or musical abilities, or even just personality-- is not the same thing.

I've seen on some blogs men who misunderstand this, and angrily defend their rights to fantasize about sex with women they meet.  Well, fine.  Fantasize.  Some people (myself included) find the thought of strangers or even friends fantasizing about them to be creepy and unwanted.  But it doesn't necessarily have to dehumanize them, as long as they still think of her as a real, full human being.  Modern feminism is not trying to take away anyone's ability to fantasize.  We're just saying that, in the way you think, in the way you interact, int he way you fantasize, in the way you have sex-- remember that women are people, not things, and that they have the same emotional depth and potential that you do.  It's not much to ask, really-- but man, does it get a lot of resentment from some people.

What I think about guns

Since I just wrote a post about someone shooting someone, I thought I would clarify my views on guns.

I do not like guns.  I do not dislike guns.  I think hunting is the most ethically responsible way to obtain meat, since you have to actually face the animal, take it’s life, and put effort into killing, skinning, and preparing it.  I think it puts you a touch closer to nature.

I have shot a gun once—well, several times, but one occasion.  When JD and I move, I will likely shoot a gun a whole lot more, because I’ve told him that my one rule for having a gun in the house is that I know how to use it.

I think people who treat guns like toys are reprehensible.  I think you should be able to shoot to kill in self defense or defense of others.

I do not think that learning to shoot, or owning a gun, or getting a concealed carry permit are feminist acts, or non-feminist acts, or anti-feminist acts.

I don’t know enough about gun control to have a strong opinion on how it works in this country.

I think bringing a gun along when you go hiking in deep wilderness is a good idea, and a second reason I will learn how to shoot.  I think that if you have guns in the house, you should teach your children that they are not toys, are to be respected—and that they should be locked up, and the kids should not know where the key is.

So, a pick up artist has allegedly shot a woman in the face

So, a man called Gunwitch, who is internet famous for running a pick-up artist site has allegedly shot a woman in the face.*  My first reaction to reading about this was to be… horrified, but not extremely surprised.  Which is so, so cynical—but if you ever stop by pick-up or “game” blogs, you quickly realize that most of the guys who are well known in those circles project seriously hateful, dismissive, and entitled attitudes towards women, and that a lot of the attitude that gets spoken about is a mindset where women’s only worth is found in their fuckability—women are discussed as objects to gain access to, whose feelings, desires, and humanity are nothing compared to a guy’s desire to get laid.  It’s disturbing.

I have to think that most guys who read those sites are probably not that messed up though, because otherwise, it’s just sad.  A lot of the men who read pick-up sites are probably just insecure and bad with women—and if all the sites taught men was how to be their best selves, I wouldn’t have a problem with them.  But they don’t, and the men who spend a lot of time on those sites come off as terrible human beings.  Their tactics seem aimed at focusing on women with low self esteem or reducing a woman’s self esteem, on lying about themself, on projecting threat, and on physically getting her away from her friends.  Gunwitch’s pickup strategies seem to be focused on threat—escalating physical contact, projecting animal sexuality (which—what does that even mean?  It seems to mean, treat her like an object you own), and ignoring any body cues or language that a normal human being would interpret to mean stop.  His catchphrase seems to be “make the ho say no”—an idea that a man shouldn’t leave a woman alone until she flat out directly refuses him.  In American culture, at least, women are taught from the time we’re girls that we’re supposed to be “nice”, that we shouldn’t flatly turn guys down because it will hurt their fragile egos, and that we need to sort of finagle are way out of being hit on.  Problem is, if you’re stuck in a corner while some guy keeps putting his hands on you, and you’re trying to get out while saying “I really don’t think this is a good idea” or trying to put him off with a phone number so that you can politely ignore him later without the direct esteem blow—well, this guy’s advice is for men to ignore all that and just touch her more.  Until she either actually says not, or just stops trying to escape.

I can totally see a woman stopping her escape attempts in this situation, not because she’s been seduced, but because the man is acting so outside of the normal bounds of human behavior that she’s afraid he’ll become violent if she doesn’t just shut up.  And sure, that might not lead to sex, but it’s going to lead to her dealing with a lot more touching than her comfort zone is ok with.  Plus, we all know that not all guys interpret no to mean no—I remember running around a club one night in college, trying to avoid a man who kept groping me, even after I’d told him thatn o, I did not want him touching me and no, I had no interest in him whatsoever.

So with all that—I find Gunwitch’s methods to be horribly creepy and morally deficient. But the phrase “make the ho say no” has another problem—ho.

It seems that a lot of men in the pick-up (and men’s rights) community view all women as—or at least, all American women—as morally devoid sluts… who still need to be seduced to get them into bed. (There is a blog post somewhere on the ridiculousness of this doublebind.  I thought it was on Figleaf’s blog, but can’t find it.  You should check out his blog anyway.)

I know, the two concepts don’t make much sense together.  The amount of cognitive dissonance going on in some people’s heads must be staggering.  And it will seem really odd if, like me, the men you know in real life are all good human beings who treat women like people and yet who still manage to have self respect and earn the respect of others.  But the truth remains—there are women who go out to bars or other locations, who live relatively chaste lives, and who are not going to go home with some random PUA no matter what his “game” is like.  There are also women who go out to bars looking for someone to go home with—and who might go home with a PUA, not because he has good “game”, but because he happened to be there and interested, and not too bad looking at the right time.  Pick-up treats women as if we’re all the same creature though, and as if we’re all able to be manipulated in the same easy X number of steps.

But a lot of guys will admit that pick-up is really just mostly a numbers game.  Which means that the pick up itself, for most people, is probably not what’s getting them laid—the fact that they asked ten women, and found one of two or three in the bar who was already looking to get laid is.  (Sidenote: I think it’s interesting how many guys in pickup talk about the “number close”, where they get a woman’s phone number.  When I was single, giving the phone number was usually a good way to get a guy to leave me alone when he wouldn’t listen to me telling him I wasn’t interested.  Then when you get a chance, change his name in your phone to “Do Not Answer”.  You’ve already told him you aren’t interested, and since he’s begged for your phone number “in case you change your mind”, he’ll be able to tell that you…. Haven’t changed your mind)

So yes,  I’m horrified, and honestly surprised that a pick-up artist actually (allegedly) shot a woman, even though my first instinct was to not be surprised.  But in a way, it makes a sick kind of sense—if you’re part of a culture that views women as only good for sex, and you are in fact someone who teaches others how to dehumanize women, then it makes sense that eventually you might internalize it to the extant that you end up shooting a woman.  I don’t know that the shooting was intentional, of course—other’s have pointed out that in his most recent videos, Gunwitch seemed mentally unstable, and managed to shoot a bullet into his wall with a gun he thought was unloaded.  Even if he was just trying to be cool and do an idiotic form of show and tell, he’s still responsible for shooting her in the face.  I’m just saying that, at this point, shooting a woman in the face is a disturbing, but slightly logical, extension of some of the thought in pickup blogs that treats women as interchangeable and less than human.

*Because I’m not a court of law, or even a lawyer, I’m going to say that I think he’s very likely to be guilty.  Because, contrary to some people’s understandings, innocent until proven guilty doesn’t mean that individuals can’t have their own opinion as to someone’s guilt or innocence.  So no, I don’t know that he shot her in the face.  But I think, given what’s been reported, that he probably did.

Our invitations are here!

Guess who's going to be doing a lot of envelope addressing in the next few days....

It's getting more and more real :-) :-)

I can't wait to be married to JD!

family

As I fly through the air at highspeed, far above the clouds, I'm realizing that I've been pretty quietly lately, and yet I have a LOT to say.  Ironically, I've pretty much lost my voice.  The first thing I want to talk about is family.

JD and I have spent the last week in Ohio, at my parents house, and were joined by my older brother and his wife for a few days over Christmas.  I love my family, and every time I see them, I don't want to leave.  My father has four children, and my brother and I are also my mother's children, and all four of us kids live in different states-- none of us in Ohio.  So, my parents have four kids, four grandkids, and one great grandchild.  In a few years, my brother and his wife may start having kids, and in five to seven years, JD and I plan to start thinking about kids.  We're continuing our family, even as we spread out-- though my parents, aunts and uncles, and grandparents all stayed in the same region of Ohio the rest of us are moving on-- and while I grew up with family close and present, my future children will likely not have all their relatives close at hand (though since we are moving to JD's hometown, we may be near his family at least).

It always always surprises me how much I don't want to leave, how much I wish I could stay near my parents, and how much my parents age between each visit.  They both still look younger than their 65 years, and generally act younger too, but their age is starting to show in their joints and their health-- they've both had cancer, and my father had to go into the emergency room yesterday, the day after Christmas.  As I write this, they've likely completed surgery to remove his gallbladder-- a relatively minor ordeal compared to other health issues, but still more than I'd like for him to have to experience.

I know I am incredibly lucky to have such wonderful parents, and I wish I could do more to show them appreciation and to help ease their lives, but I just don't know what to do, except to keep moving and living my life, which becomes more adult with every day.

I do think that the family we grow up with does a lot to shape us-- I'm of the view that nature makes the kind of clay, and nurture shapes it, so to speak, so I do think our families have a lot of influence--- and I do fel extremely lucky to have the family I do, with wonderful parents and a great older brother, and half sisters who ahve always been there if I needed them even though they're twenty years older than me.  It's a good antidote to all the people in life that suck.  and in a few months, I'll be married, and JD and I will be our own new branch of family, inspired and influenced by both my parents and his parents, and the lessons we've learned.

Basically, I guess what I'm trying to say is that family is important , and if your family has been good to you, you should appreciate that.

Guess what I'm not going to be buying? Truvia!

JD and I are watching TV.  And we just saw a commercial. That I thought was going to be for some delicious jello type snack.  But!  No.  It was a commercial for Truvia*, which is apparently an artificial sweetener.  But all I really got from the commercial is that if you're using real sugar in your recipes, you should hate food and your body and eating!

Well, yay.  Because it isn't like women  aren't already hung up on food, and eating, and healthy ingredients.  So now, we need things to convince us that sugar, in and of itself, is going to make us fat-- not even a focus on health here, it's one that's completely on appearance.  You know what?  I'm going to stick with cooking with sugar, and eating a healthy, balanced diet, and continue to not buy products which are targeted at making money off of women's insecurities, especially when the product is not even necessarily related to those issues.  Because you know what, Truvia?  Sugar isn't making "my butt fat" or driving me insane, or ripping away my self control.  I've... got a pretty good handle on those things, actually, even with using sugar in recipes!  So, truvia, you and your add campaign designed to make women doubt themselves and stop eating real food?  You are something I will not be purchasing, and that I will encourage my friends not to purchase.  Granted, I don't purchase artificial sweeteners anyway, but I have friends and family that do, and I'll be doing my best to encourage them to patronize other companies.

I'm just-- furious that an add like that would be accepted for TV.


* Transcript of the commercial: I loved you sweetness, but you're not sweet, you made my butt fat.  You drove me insane, self-control down the drain. We're over I'm so done with that.  I found a new love, a natural true love that comes from a little green leaf.  Zero calorie guilt free no artificiality, my skinny jeans zipped in relief it's name is truvia i had no idea no more sprinkling my coffee with grief.  Truvia: Honestly Sweet.