Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Not Even Issue 05
excerpts from Not Even #5 < for an original copy send $2 to this address.
po box 18119
Washington DC 20036-8119
Ok, I've just started work on ne5, and I've gotta say that it's going to
be a lot more dense than the last (full) issue. I'm totally happy about
that, but the kids are just going to have to deal with it and maybe even
learn to read this time. I've included two fat articles this time... and
one interview. It's with this woman Ros Weisman, who taught a self-defense
class that I took last year through my school. I have a lot of respect
for this woman, and so I wanted to talk to her on tape for a while and
see what I could make of it. I think it turned out great, and so I think
that marks an end of an era for band interviews in _not even_. But of
course it's all about transient rules, so we'll just have to see. I now
live/go to school in new york city but for now send all mail to the po
box in dc. This issue has taken a ridiculously long time coming out
because I am fully swamped with school work and stuff, plus keeping up
with my busy social schedule (haha), but I did my best. I'm doing my
best to keep on top of mail, but it's a losing battle so please bear
with me.
A friend in dc and I have a project in the works called Mean
Kids distro, that is on it's way to being a full-scale zine distro
project. What we want to do different from other similar services is
work on getting in contact with small/independent stores all over the
country (world) to sell zines in bulk quantities. I/we feel that zines
are probably the most under-distributed and under-appreciated things in
our scene, taking a definite back seat to records, and we want to try to
help reverse that in whatever way we can. Send a
selfaddressedstampedenvelope for a recent catalog to the po box c/o
"mean kids," if you or someone you know would be interested in getting a
copy. Also send in address of local or not-so-local stores that you know
of who you think may be interested in a catalog.
Distro rates for this zine are $6 for ten copies, $10 for 20, and any
quantities upward 50 cents per zine.
______________________________
on being homopositive 101
ok, so it's a universally acknowledged fact that homosexuality is the
totally new "flavor of the month." fine. if we're all so, as we like to
think, homopositive, then why does every fucking article begin with the
deadly 4 words: "I'm not gay, but.." Whatever. Probably the most
important step in beginning to understand gay/lesbian/bisexual issues is
deconstructing the whole idea of "us" and "them." I would go so far as
saying that for almost everybody sexuality is (a scary and) confusing
subject to deal with on both a personal and a political level. I don't
necessarily think it's true that all people have, at some time
experienced queer desire, or that everyone is at least in some way,
bisexual. I really don't think that this is true for many people I know,
and it really hasn't significantly proved itself to be a reality in
mine. Regardless, the whole idea that one group has a certain specific
set of desires while another group feels completely differently,
exclusively, is ridiculous.
I don't understand why we are all so quick to stand on the side of
"I'll never be like that, but it's still ok." That's bullshit. The
ability to be supportive of gay rights issues must involve a certain
acceptance of both of the naturalness of sexuality, and an ability to
see all types of sexual expression as "legitimate." (Whatever the hell
legitimate may mean.) We must be able to move beyond the restraints of
the concept of "gay" and "straight" and be able to see all sexuality as
part of a whole, natural and morally valueless experience of life.
At first glance, to see so many pro-gay articles in hardcore/sxe or at
least ones delving into the subject wholeheartedly, is reassuring.
"We're making some progress," we say, as our minds see the
long-established macho, homophobic undercurrents of our scene crumble
and fall. But this freedom just cannot be the case as long as there is
such clear dependence on the concept of discussing the issue from the
outside, that you are not "one of them." The basic message of these
articles can neither be identified as that of accepting or promoting
universal rights for everyone, nor as the idea that all
expressions/variations of love are beautiful. It is the same old story
of "they're ok as long as they don't touch me." And that, my friends, is
no progress at all.
___________________________
So I get this totally hip new "college" magazine in my mailbox a few
weeks ago and the front cover has a nice, white, het couple having a
nice, white, intimate moment with a big caption that says, "Fear and
latex on campus: the serious business of sex in the nineties." The
article inside talks at length about how much it sucks that sex has
become such a big hassle and that getting an AIDS test has become a
standard occurence in the lives of college students, and how scary and
bad, and annoying this whole process (sex) has become.
What the article fails to mention is that no, sex has never been the
"uncomplicated" experience that the article hails it as. That for women
all across the country and world, sex has always meant a chance (however
small) of pregnancy, that there are very few pre-menopausal women who
feel able to really sit back and not worry about whether or not they are
going to get pregnant. And if, as the article implies, men have never
been aware of or concerned with what women have to think about each and
every time they have sex, and it is only in this new age of AIDS and
"fear" that they are actually beginning to be careful with sex, then
that is pretty fucking pathetic.
Because it means that college age people are just becoming aware and
just being careful because of the chance that they might get hurt.
Because of the possibility that the woman that they are sleeping with
might have the AIDS virus, that they might contract it, and that they
might very well die. But this emphasis on total self-preservation and
selfishness is not as uncommon as we may think. That women are
ultimately and primarily the ones who must be responsible for always
providing and "enforcing" protection against pregnancy is one reality,
and that - as the article says - men are becoming resigned to the fact
that they must wear condoms only when it is the only way that they can
stay alive. fuck that. Sexual responsibility must reach far beyond the
question of whether or not you "have" to wear a condom and how long you
"have" to wait before you can stop using them - it must be a
responsibility to be shared equally between both partners, not just to
ensure that both of you won't die, and not just as selfish resignation
to self-preservation, but as a means to protect both partners against
STDs, and to prevent pregnancy.
_____________________
* EVERY 15 SECONDS A HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND VIOLENTLY
ASSAULTS A WOMAN.
* IN AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OF HOMES IN WHICH WOMEN
ARE BEING ABUSED, THE CHILDREN ARE ALSO BEING ABUSED.
* ONLY ABOUT ONE IN EVERY 270 INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ARE REPORTED.
* ONE FORTH OF ALL WOMEN IN THE UNITED STATES WILL
BE ABUSED BY EITHER THEIR CURRENT OR FORMER PARTNER.
* IN 54% OF VIOLENT MARRIAGES, RAPE IS USED AS A
SIGNIFICANT FORM OF ABUSE.
* AT LEAST ONE THIRD OF ALL WOMEN MURDERED WERE KILLED
BY CURRENT OR FORMER BOYFRIENDS, AND MOST OF THESE
ATTACKS HAPPEN ONLY A MATTER OF HOURS AFTER THE
WOMAN HAS MADE A MOVE AWAY FROM THE SITUATION, SUCH
AS LEAVING HOME OR FILING FOR DIVORCE.
* MORE BABIES ARE LIKELY TO BE BORN WITH BIRTH DEFECTS
DUE TO PRE-NATAL BEATINGS, THAN FROM A COMBINATION OF
ALL DISEASES AND ILLNESSES THAT USUALLY AFFECT
NEWBORNS.
One of the most common misconceptions in discussion of domestic violence
is portraying the woman/victim as stupid, passive, and often
masochistic. Another common delusion about domestic violence pegs the
abuser as a hopeless psychopath in an attempt to disassociate this kind
of violence from the normalcy of "every day" existence. Despite this
effort to separate domestic violence from most of "our" lives, violence
within the home/family is one of the least talked about and
miscalculated forms of violence.
As all women know, here in America as well as many other cultures,
apprehension about not finding a "prince in shining armor"
(man/husband) and becoming an "old maid" (independent/single woman) have
served to keep women's notions of happiness and self-worth directly tied
to the presence of men in their life. Ironically enough, this search for
companionship can result in violence and abuse, as the supposed
savior/lover becomes his partner's worst nightmare.
For men, although there is not the same pressure for companionship,
conditioning to be the strong and silent protector begins early.
Often times this conditioning manifests itself in a drive to reduce our
(women's as well as men's) resistance to violence. This starts as we sit
in front of the television for hours on end as children, watching
destruction, animated war, vandalism, and murder - with frightening
frequency. Often an early exposure to violence manifests itself later in
disturbingly violent and intolerant adult attitudes. One study showed
that one third to one half of college educated men would rape if they
knew they could get away with it. That number represents more men than
would rob a bank under the same circumstances.
In a society (the united states) with a legal system that sanctions
marital rape, it is assumed that women will be sexually available in
any relationship - willing and able to please "her man" whenever he
wants or "needs" it. In addition, there is great pressure on women to be
passive recipients of sex, as well as a similar pressure on men to be
the aggressor in sexual acitivity. As a result, there is often a great
deal of friction surrounding sexual relations in heterosexual
relationships. Aggression (as well as rape) is often considered an
integral part of male sexuality (sex = conquest), expecially if the male
views intercourse as pursuit and penetration.
The wife beater, much like the incestuous father and child abuser,
usually has very low self-esteem. He often feels powerless and
inadequate and has a very hard time being open with his feelings. When
some husbands begin to feel very unsure of themselves, believing that
they must control her or they will never be able to control themselves.
Whether or not they have come from a violent background, many men have
accepted (having been taught by their fathers) that the husband/father
must be the wielder of (arbitrary) male power in the family. If he has
grown up in a violent family environment, the man almost always learns
to accept that violence is an acceptable resource for solving disputes.
When the husband feels that he is the victim of verbal assaults from his
wife, he sees his superior position as threatened. He then often turns
to physical force, knowing no other legitimate way to end the
disagreement. For the man, aggression is often followed by a huge
release of tension, which tells him what he's doing is acceptable and
"good" for him. In marriages where domestic violence does occur, early
warning signs usually surface during the first few weeks of marriage.
During the early part of the relationship, or the "courtship period,"
the male tends to be more considerate and understanding toward the woman
than he usually is, often willing to do things to please her. At the
same time the female acts more submissive and less argumentative than
she really is and seems more willing to accept his decisions as law.
After the actual marriage ceremony takes place and these roles are
terminated, the couple encounters a high level of confusion and
frustration. Realizing that the person who is now their spouse is quite
different than the person they thought they married, the couple's sense
of reality is often shattered. As the woman begins to show her "real,"
(more assertive) self, the husband often becomes very angry as he fears
not only losing her to other interests such as school and work, but also
losing the unquestioningly submissive partner who he had been able to
take for granted at the beginning of their relationship. Acts as trivial
as gaining weight or changing hair color often trigger a great deal of
anger from the husband. Many times this anger turns into violence as the
man tried to frighten his partner back into her previous submissive
role.
As a response to this initial shock, the male will often attempt to
control his partner by refusing to let his partner use contraceptives.
If the woman does become pregnant at the beginning of the relationship,
her partner often feels trapped - not ready for the added expense and
time commitment that new babies demand. As the end of the term
approaches, the husband's stress increases as he no longer feels
responsible for his half of the relationship, but now feels the added
pressure of having to provide for both the wife and the new baby. As the
pregnant woman's body changes, her partner's sexual frustration often
does also, as he feels less and less attracted to her body. During
pregnancy many women experience significant mood swings and tend to be
overly depressed, irritational, and critical. This is unexpected by the
man, who not only doesn't know how to deal with her, but also, assuming
that he is a battering husband, has a low tolerance level to begin with.
At this time the male often comes to the realization that the pregnant
woman is even more defenseless than she was before she became pregnant,
and can be spurred on to violence by this fact. His own desire to
terminate the pregnancy and relieve the responsibility that it places on
him - even though he may see abortion as an unacceptable, immoral way to
terminate life - enables him to use twisted logic to convince himself
that violence to the mother is a permissible way to end the pregnancy.
Once the first beating occurs, the wife becomes extremely ashamed,
believing that the violence is a reaction to her own failure as both a
wife and a person. As the beatings continue with time, she can become so
extensively dehumanized by the violence that she begins to accept her
abuser's hatred for her as legitimate. She accepts a self-view of total
worthlessness and all but gives up hope of ever living like a human
being again. Her daily life revolves around trying to avoid getting her
partner angry, avoiding his mood swings the best she can. With no
support structures, the battered woman can no longer conceive of making
her own decisions, and views her life as a series of occurences that are
being "done" to her, rather than being able to take the responsibility
and function "normally." The wife often begins to isolate herself from
friends and family, too tired and depressed to think up excuses and try
to explain her bruises and injuries - and in her isolation she steadily
becomes more and more dependent on her husband. He often aids her in
this process as he becomes increasingly jealous and suspicious, and
works to further cut off her contact with the outside world.
Many men live in permanent denial about the violence that they commit.
They exist in two worlds, one outside of the house where they are often
well-liked yet close to no one, and another secret world inside their
home where they terrorize their family. They see battering as logical
punishment for their partner's "obviously" inconsiderate and inadequate
behavior, and therefore neither consider themselves nor their acts
criminal - feeling that they are acting well within their rights as
husbands. This whole concept of violence as just punishment gets way out
of ahnd when the abuser gets to the point - during violence - where he
wants to destroy the woman completely. Often times when the man gets to
this point he is completely unconscious of anything happening around him
except for the beating that he "must" inflict. It is at this point that
the man cannot be dissuaded from the beating by anything but sheer
force, seeing it as something that "needs" to be done.
The victim's dilemma in a violent relationship must be understood as
much more serious than her not wanting to leave. In fact, once an
abusive relationship has progressed to the point of violence, the
concept of the female partner having any free will at all is ridiculous.
Her inability to leave must be understood to be much more than maternal
instincts directing her back home. Once the violence has robbed her of
any possible control over her life in a familiar setting, many women
cannot imagine being able to assert control in a setting even remotely
alien to her, and therefore they remain at home. Hoping that each new
day will bring a change in her partner, (because of the many promises
that it will), many women endure suffering and pain far beyond
reasonable limits - urged on by clergy and law enforcement officers who
keep telling them not to press charges, but to return home where they
"belong." Women are expected to believe them when their husbands swear
to the policemen that it will stop, even though his promises have proven
empty in the past.
But there are also many more concrete reasons that keep women
entrenched in domestic violence situations. In most cases the
wife-beater controls all of the family's money - even if the wife works
herself - allowing her no way to save money, which could aid in her
escape. Even if the wife gets up enough strength to flee from her
abuser, it is often quite easy for him to "track" her down and promise
to reform. Most people in her life (her own family included) are
unwilling to help her if she attempts to "escape," believing that the
many fronts her husband produces to them (the outside world) are the
true him. Convinces that he is incapable of violence towards his
partner, no matter what she says, they refuse to believe that they are
not good judges of character and urge her.
There is a definite element of classism present in many studies of
domestic violence. Although no all-encompassing statement should/can be
made about violence being more prevalent among lower-income families, it
seems that among unemployed men (of all social status) violence rates
seem to be extremely high. In one study, 73% of men not employed
full-time expressed high amounts of violent behavior, as compared to
only 37% of men employed full-time. In many of the situations where
violence occurs in lower-income families, it can be attributed to
certain behavior inherent to the male's social standing, but because
as males, many men feel unable to live up to the masculine expectations
that society has for them. Men who are not employed full-time often feel
trapped by jobs where no matter how hard they work, they are still not
able to earn enough money to adequately serve as father, husband, or
provider.
45 to 90 percent of all spouse abuse cases are estimated to be
directly related to alcohol. When inebriated, the batterer loses
control over what he is doing and often cannot recollect what he did
the next day. Because of this, abusive men often use alcohol as an
excuse for their violent behavior, and attempt to convince their wives
that the beating was a mistake and that they would never beat them while
sober. Women often accept this excuse, wanting an explanation for the
pain that has been inflicted on them by someone they thought/think loves
them very much. The cause and effect of alcohol use in violent
situations needs to be examined by both parties - does the husband drink
so that he can beat his wife, or should he be exempt from blame because
he cannot control what he does when drunk?
The epidemic of domestic violence is widespread and traumatic. Not
only has society all but overlooked its effects, but it has also denied
the victim protection (legal and physical) from her husband. The
battered woman often lives a secret life of terror and oppression,
eventually wasting away to a mere shadow and dying with no friends or
real achievements, or escapes with not much more than her life and an
all-encompassing fear that her abuser will come back to hurt/kill her in
the future. This is not a legitimate solution at all - that women should
be able to constuct a life free from terror and pain, in which they see
themselves as strong and independent human beings.
This (zine) may seem like a rather strange forum to be addressing the
issue of domestic violence. "Why do I need to worry about it, I'm not
sexist/I don't hit my girlfriend?," becomes the rallying cry of the
masses. But it must go way deeper than that. Domestic violence is a
terrifying epidemic, and one that needs to be addressed by all of us for
there to be any real headway made. We all need to be sensitive to issues
of power and control in our intimate relationships - concentrating on
the way we, as men and women, interact. Living life as a feminist or
humanist (or whatever) has got to be about not just recognizing issues
of violence and oppression on a global scale, but analyzing how you
contribute to these larger problems on a personal level as well.
For more information, read:
Susan Brownmiller, _Against Our Will_
Terry Davidson, _Conjugal Crime_
Susan Faludi, _Backlash_
Charlotte Grimes, _Sexual Violence_
Roger Langley and Richard C.Levy, _Wife Beating: The Silent Crisis_
Del Martin, _Battered Wives_
Diane Mason, _Equal Justice?_
Erin Pizzy, _Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear_
Maria Roy, _Battered Women_, and _The Abusive Partner_
Carol Schall, _Behind Closed Doors_
Women's Action Coalition, _Facts About Women_
________________________
disgusting things I have seen/read in the past few months:
exhibit a:
ok, so I guess the next "new" issue these days is rape and
sexual violence, because I now am seeing more and more articles in
zines about this issue, and mostly it's men/boys screaming about how
they are so fucking pissed that this is going on and that they just want
to kick the ass of whoever hurt their friend/girlfriend/whatever. It is
also becoming more and more chic to use some sort of rape metaphor to
get your point across, whether or not you are even talking about sexual
violence.
I have a real problem with this, for obvious and maybe not so obvious
reasons. We all know of the standard "rape of the earth" deal that's
been used for ages when talking about various environmental issues,
tying into the idea of a "mother" earth and placing deforestation, etc
parallel to the rape of humans. My problem here is not so much that
specific usage, although I do have some problems with it, but with the
all-too frequent and insensitive use of the same metaphor when
discussing the issue of veganism.
I got a little sticker at a recent show here in nyc, and it says,
"drinking milk.. is the same as raping a woman." My gut instinct to this
was utter disbelief that anyone would make such a stupid and insensitive
statement. Not only is drinking milk not, in fact rape, but to equate
rape with milk runs the risk of totally devaluing the trauma involved
with that experience. Drinking milk is consuming food, drinking fluid,
ingesting lactose, however the hell else you want to call it. It is, in
fact, true that the dairy industry that produces the milk that we "all"
drink does attach cows to what are commonly called "rape racks," and
forcibly impregnates them over and over so that they will produce enough
milk for "our" consumption. It is predominantly on these grounds and
these alone that I do not drink milk. Because I feel that it hurts cows,
not because I think that it is the same as raping women.
It is not that I don't understand the greater point here, and the one
being made with the sticker, but that I do have a problem with the way
that this information is being presented. I mean, to anyone who has
survived sexual assault or rape, having that experience equated to
drinking a glass of milk is completely insulting. The experience of
being raped is very traumatic, and affects the survivor for the rest of
his/her life. For every reference to rape (direct or indirect) that the
survivor is exposed to, the experience must be remembered and dealt with
all over again. To make stickers that say things like "dairy is rape,"
you are being insensitive to the pain that so many people have gone
through. This "shock value" method of presenting information is, in this
instance, completely unnecessary and ignorant. Fucking wake up and try
to extend a little of the compassion for human beings that you claim to
have for the animals.
exhibit b:
A little excerpt from an article on veganism - "I had stopped eating
eggs long before I went vegan, I just looked at them for what they
really were. Try it, next time you, or somebody you know gets their
period, take a look at their tampon or pad when they're done with it.
Now was that scrambled, or sunny side up?"
Ok, here we go. First of all I really don't know of anyone
who A) would want to look at a maxi pad after I had used it, or
B) I would want to show it to. Menstruation is the process where the
lining of the uterus walls comes off, and passes through a woman's
system in order to "clean out" the uterus and make space for a new
lining to come in. This process means that you are not pregnant, because
if you were, the lining would stay in place to nourish the fetus as it
grew inside of you. Ovulation (the passing of eggs) also occurs near the
time of a woman's "period," but what comes out in a steady flow of blood
during a woman's period is this lining, not eggs.
This little "article" is total bullshit, one again distorting the
facts in the name of "vegan education." I find it very condescending
that my (and all other women's) bodily processes are being termed
disgusting and unclean in order to, again, make a case for veganism.
Spreading knowledge about veganism is, I agree, a worthwhile thing to
do, but not if it's at the expense of accurate information and insulting
people to make your point. Be careful about what you are saying, about
whome and what it all means, and for gods sake maybe even condescend to
do a little research before spouting off about eh "vegan revolution."
_____________________
An interview with Ros Weisman of Women's Way Self Defense, about
girls, fighting, feminism, karate, and other stuff.
I first came in contact with Ros Weisman through a series of
women's self defense classes that she offered at my school,
through Women's Way, Inc. Rose runs Women's Way, which is a
self defense training program for adult and high school women in
the Washington, DC area. Taking her class and interacting with her
on that and other levels really made me respect Ros and want to
interview her for this zine. I really think that Ros has a lot of
insights to offer about interacting with the outside world and
beyond, as well as about issues that are often overlooked by our
"scene." She is running a very successful and tremendously
important business as a strong feminist and woman, and I have a
great deal of respect for her because of that. I interviewed
her last January at her house in Silver Spring, Maryland, and
what follows is a partial transcription of that conversation.
Daisy: Can you talk a little about how Women's Way was started
and how you got interested in women's issues/feminism/etc?
Ros: I was in a terrible with a young man where I was being
treated extremely badly, like dirt, in ways that were very
traditionally male "aggressor" vs. female "the victim." I was
behaving in very, let's say traditional female ways, being
passive and believing that this man was everything and what I
was nothing without him. I would totally do what he wanted,
and [believed that] I was stupid. At the same time I was
living in a family that could not have been more supportive.
Daisy: Did they know what was going on?
Rose: My mom really didn't. My dad did, but he didn't know
how bad it was. At the time, being a teenager, I was so
focused on maintaining my privacy that I really didn't want
to share it with them, so I didn't. There were two other
reasons that I didn't want to share it with him.
One was that this guy had very successfully figured out
a way so that I felt like our relationship was very secret
and very special and that no one knew him and how miserable
he was, and so I wanted to protect him. I couldn't tell
people how bad my life was, because then I would have to tell
people what his actions were, and I didn't feel like that was
justified because he had such a terrible family situation.
The other reason was that in high school I was totally
focused on getting a boyfriend, being cute, being popular
and doing/saying the right things. Wanting older guys to
like me... I was really fixated on that. I hooked up
with a guy who was extremely charming, and extremely
wealthy. It looked good to me, I was like "this is
what I want! It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks
or what the reality of my life with this person actually
is, because everybody totally thinks it is cool that I
have a relationship going with this guy." They totally
did. I had girls who were completely jealous, and it
made me feel good even though they had no idea that
not getting involved with this person was the best thing
that ever happened to them. Even though I grew up in a
completely feminist, liberal background where people
were very compassionate, where they treated each other
well, I still got trapped. I had this real dual consciousness
going on, and so I went to college to get away from him, and
all the people who pegged me with him.
Coming from Washington is insane, the little clique of
private schools can be really sickening to people. It is
so intolerant of weakness in so many ways. The only people
who are respected are people who are really good-looking,
totally wealthy, successful, humble, and academically
brilliant. It makes you crazy. It even makes you crazy when
you look back on it all and you actually appeared to be that
kind of person. It still makes you crazy, because no matter
what, you are always going to feel like someone is better
than you.
Daisy: So because of that relationship you saw yourself as
part of that whole scene?
Ros: Yeah, totally. His family was a part of the Washington
scene and I really wanted to be a part of that, but it's
harsh here (DC), everybody's so accomplished by the time
they're 12. Some of those expectations are extremely difficult
and I just couldn't handle it, I broke. The only way that I
could deal with it was to leave and go to California. I found
a school, thank god, that was really down to earth, and I
gradually made very good male friends. Before that I couldn't
talk to them (men). I was so freaked out by guys that any
time they came near me, my face would lower. I wouldn't look
them in the eye and that was a real problem for me, because
I had learned to be terrified of them. So I went to college,
got out of the Washington scene, and I didn't really come
back here at all, which really made me feel stronger.
I lived in Central America for a while because I just
needed to go somewhere different, and that was a totally
life-changing experience for me. It helped me come to grips
with the experience with my boyfriend, and it was really
life-affirming. So when I came back I did the traditional
thing where a young woman takes a few feminist classes, and
her eyes open up, and I got into it. I did go through a
period of being very extreme on one side and very intolerant,
but since then I have really changed my focus. My viewpoints
[now] are very different than the ones I had three years ago
as a senior in college.
At the same time I also got involved with martial arts.
I was a competitive tennis player in high school and college,
but I hated it because it very much identified me with what
I was in DC. I needed to do something in place of it, and
James (the primary male instructor at Women's Way) who was
a very good friend of mine at the time, asked me to come
and watch him take a test. I really liked it and thought it
was very beautiful, but at the same time I had always been
really athletically inclined and yet I was just flailing
from the very beginning, which was very frustrating to me
because I wanted to learn. As soon as I started doing it I
realized how much it was going to teach me on so many levels;
it was going to teach me about my anger, fear, the capacity I
had to be violent, to admit that and acknowledge it and move
on. To acknowledge the anger that I had for my past boyfriend
and release it in extremely violent ways - ways I never
thought would be possible for me to do.
... I don't view guys as potential rapists. I think that's
an extremely unfair characterization, and it also stratifies
the gender separation even more. It makes communication even
worse. It makes the process through which we could get to a
place where rape dynamics and date rape dynamics could be
understood, fall apart by the wayside. For me overall, the
goal is stopping rape. [The goal is] women getting confidence
in themselves so that they can stand up for themselves and
say "no" in whatever way that means.
Let me qualify that. I don't mean "no" by whispering. I mean
a woman standing up and screaming "no" in whatever way she
wants. I don't care if she wants to sleep with 1,500 guys,
I don't care if she wants to take drugs until she dies,
as long as it's her decision to do it. It's really important
to me that it's her choice. The process now between young men
and young women is such that there's just no ability to have
a dialogue because people are so strident. I've really learned
in the past year that the educational process will really
falter if we don't listen to and respect men's opinions and
vice versa. I think we've gotten to the point where men's
opinions about this are not respected. I do think that we need
to listen to them to a certain extent, not to the point where
the content of the issues dies away - but to a point where
they really feel respected. I truly believe that if they feel
that way, it'll change the dynamics of the educational
process around these issues, and that's what it's all about
for me.
__________________
homosexuality in ancient greece
In contrast to today's treatment of homosexuality as
disgusting and abhorrent, greek society accepted it not only
as a legitimate subject of art, but also as an integral part
of a young man's development. Although homosexuality between
men was openly accepted, this attitude did not extend to
women whose sexuality (and homosexuality) was viewed with
complete disgust and contempt. Treated as second-class
citizens, even the richest and most powerful greek women
were considered ignorant and worthless.
One of the most commonly accepted ideas in ancient Greece
was that true love (platonic and sexual) could only exist
between men because they were the superior sex. The Greek
language does not contain any words for heterosexual acts
at all, though there are many specialized terms for
homosexual acts. Greek art often portrays a woman bending
over with her hands on the ground, while the male penetrates
her from behind. The Greek preference for anal sex in
heterosexual relations stands in stark contrast to the
frequent portrayals of homosexuals engaged in intercrural
sex. Anal sex was used (especially by prostitutes) not
only as a form of birth control, but it's frequent use by
married men and women shows that it was regarded as the
superior method of sexual intercourse.
In Greek art, courting scenes between a man and young boy
often show various degrees of intimacy - a man enticing a
youth with presents, reaching out to touch a boy's genitals,
or placing his penis between the thighs of the youth.
Although homosexual and heterosexual courtship scenes were
often represented similarly, in vase paintings the actual
sex act was shown very differently. Homosexual intercourse
scenes in Greek art often show the younger partner standing
upright, staring straight ahead with his face hidden from
his (older) partner's view. The older partner is shown
facing forward as well, but he often slouches down. Most
Greek scenes of frontal heterosexual sex have both
partners looking at each other affectionately, while
homoerotic portrayals usually show an entirely passive,
pleasureless, (and often erectionless) younger partner.
Homosexuality was both a celebrated and encouraged part
of life for the Greek (male) citizen, though only within a
strictly narrow content. In the public arena, homosexuality
was acceptable only as it occured between two men who were
not equals, or as part of a mentor-child relationship.
Because love between men was considered incredibly sacred
and noble (within limits), learning from (including having
sex with) a grown man at an early age was considered an
invaluable part of growing up for Greek boys. These man/
boy relationships generally began when the boys were about
10-12 years old and often came to an abrupt end when the
boy began developing facial hair. The elder partner was
responsible for both finding a boy to have such a
relationship with, and courting him. Because of this and
the noticeable age difference, the older men definitely
played the role of aggressor. Early on in life, young boys
were encouraged to find a virtuous lover and be faithful
to him, in order to avoid the temptations of promiscuity
and male prostitution.
The Greeks were absolutely repulsed by the idea of
homosexual love between two full grown men of equal status
that contained even a trace of submission. Issues of power
and control were both very much accepted and encouraged
as a necessary part of homosexual relationships. The
power that the older partner was expected to exert over
his partner was often thought of as a good thing. The
control served both as a way for him to reclaim the
vigor/enthusiasm of his youth, as well as a channel through
which he could get out his aggressions. These power
structures were played out primarily in sexual contact.
While the older partners frequently fondled and penetrated
their younger companions, the younger boys were allowed
to touch the genitals of the elder, but never penetrate/
touch his anus.
In Sparta, the practice of mentor/boy "warrior love" was
first institutionalized by hellenistic tribes migrating
South and eventually ending up in Crete. In Sparta, which
was an entirely militaristic society, every honorable boy
had an older lover. Spartans believed that an army linked
by love would stand together better than an army of mere
comrades, such as the sacred band of Thebes - an army of
lovers who fought to the death in the battle of Chaeronea
in 338 BC. In Sparta, young boys roved in herds, each under
an Eiren (an older boy aged 20 - 22). When a boy turned 12
he was picked by an "inspirer," who would train him for
the next eight years until he began to grow body and facial
hair. All men lived in military barracks until they were
30 years old, at which point they would be married to an
18 year old girl. On the wedding night, the Spartan girl
would lie face down in the dark on her husband's bed,
with close-cropped hair and dressed in boy's clothes.
Recognizing the necessity of heterosexual union for
offspring, the Spartans preserved the ideal of boy love
by disguising their heterosexual relations as homosexual
ones.
Although the subordination found within these early
homosexual relationships was accepted by Greek society
as a natural rite of passage for young men, it was
condoned only within strict boundaries. If a man was found
to be playing a subordinate role in a relationship with
someone who was his equal (socially, politically, or
economically), he was stripped of his social status.
Often denoted to the same social level as prostitutes,
foreigners, slaves, and women, the subordinate partner
was "punished" because he (obviously) deeply yearned to
be inferior and manipulated, both of which were considered
womanly qualities. He accordingly lost all privileges
of a free (male) citizen, including the right to vote and
hold public officeas a result of this infraction.
Regardless, it was considered perfectly normal and
virtuous to be the dominating partner in an "unequal"
relationship.
According to Greek mythology, the original creatures
on earth (each with two heads, four arms, and four
legs) were one of three types. These creatures were either
composed of two male halves, two female halves, or one male
half and one female half. To punish these creatures for
their insolence, Zeus cut each in half, making it possible
for each half to survive independently. Greek culture
stated that each half's purpose was to find it's missing
half and unite with it once again, creating the concept of
homosexuality and heterosexuality. Because the androgynous
pair of halves was the only kind of creature that could
reproduce by itself, androgyny began to be seen as the most
perfect state of being to many Greeks. It is interesting
to note that this myth is one of the few known references
to lesbians and female sexuality in all of Greek history.
Greek art shows an ideal for beauty based not upon
distinct sexual bodily characteristics, but rather on total
androgyny. In ancient Greece, female prostitutes were
obligated to wear male clothing, clearly indicating the
strong male preference (at the time) for boyish and slightly
masculine characteristics in women. A strong preference of
men/male characteristics can be found in ancient Greek art.
While womanly morals or personality traits were despised,
it was specifically boys with female characteristics who
were considered attractive by men.
In contrast to modern society, many Greek vase paintings
have exclamations on them that praise male beauty, while
women are hardly ever mentioned.
A familiar Greek story is Zeus' abduction of Ganymede, in
which Zeus took Ganymede up to the heavens and seduced him.
Of all the women that Zeus seduced and raped, all of the
sexual acts that ocurred on earth, the fact that Ganymede,
a male, was taken back up to the world of the gods to have
sex with Zeus is an example of how male lovers were valued
a great deal more than female lovers in Greece.
Greece, although usually highly regarded as a place of
immense sexual tolerance, was actually a haven for misogyny.
Homosexuality was widely accepted and practiced by Greek
citizens not so much because boys were considered better
sexual partners than women, but because women were
considered disgusting, inferior, and not capable of true
(male) love. While women's sexuality was being repressed
and ridiculed, feminine body characteristics were being
admired in boys. Although Greek art shows many scenes
of men's penises in the mouths of boys and women,
cunnilingus was viewed with great disgust. For the
most part, Greek men thought that sex with women was so
disgusting that they engaged in it solely for the purpose
of producing heirs. When men did have sex with women, they
tried their best to disguise their partners as young boys.
When women such as Sappho and her female students learned
to induce orgasms by touching each other, men became
insulted and lashed out against lesbians as a whole.
The fact that lesbians did exist amid such hatred and
repression shows the true strength of Greek women lay
in both learning how to please themselves and breaking
away from the destructive dominant-submissive patterns of
male sexuality.
Lesbians were considered "unnatural" because they were
breaking Aphrodite's rules. While (male) homosexuality was
esteemed because of the deep, spiritual love that ocurred
between man and boy, women's love for each other was
dismissed as superficial/unimportant because they were not
considered capable of the instense/complex feelings (as the
men experience.) In Sparta, where women exercised in the nude,
owned two-fifths of the land, and got married much older than
the (Greek) age of 15, female homosexuals as women of good
repute having female lovers. This attitude is the exception
though, while the few other existing references to lesbians
describe them (and most women) as whores.
For the most part, the history of lesbianism in ancient
Greece is unknown. Because they did not have their own meeting
places such as the male-only bathhouses and gymnasia, Greek
women were never really able to establish a distinct culture
the way the Greek men did. Most information about Greek
culture has been handed down to us as art and literature,
historically male-dominated fields, and as a result
information about lesbianism and women's sexuality has been
ignored. In many cases in art and literature, women (and their
sexuality) were ridiculed outright. Artists often portrayed women
as drunks, showed satyrs masturbating with dildos, etc.
Sappho stands alone as the most extensive reference to
Greek female homosexuality in literature. Using her own name
in her poetry, she relates her love of young women in terms
much like that of the man/boy mentoring relationships. [Probably
because that was the most acceptable form of homosexuality.]
In Sappho's highly erotic poetry, she describes both pursuing
and being pursued by the girls at her school at the island
of Lesbos. Lesbia never feels malice towards the males who
take her lovers away from her, envying them as god-like beings.
That a woman so independent from men for affection and
financial support still sees men as superior to herself, shows
how deeply ingrained male domination was in Greek (sexual)
culture. Although the name Lesbian is not noticeably linked
to negativity without antiquity, it was probably linked
(in the minds of most Greeks) to different kinds of genital
acts, cunnilingus, use of dildos, and copulation in all sorts
of "unusual" positions.
Orpheus, known by many for his musical skill and sad love
affair with Eurydice, is often hailed as the founder of Greek
homosexuality. Orpheus first began to take boy lovers after
the devastating loss of his beloved. Eventually he had charmed
a great number of men through his music, and introduced them
to the concept/practice of pedastary (love of boys). The
Thracian women who had recently who had recently lost their
lovers to him/his practice, were so enraged that they
murdered him, cut off his head, tied it to his lyre, and
threw it into the ocean.
For more information:
Kenneth James Dover, _Greek Homosexuality_
Louis Dramant, _Male and Female Homosexuality_
Wayne P.Dynes, ed. _The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality_
-end-
