My Hair as a Marker of Milestones.

Change, in my life, has not come easily or lightly. I’m one of those people who doesn’t like change and who have a dramatic reaction when change inevitably comes. I remember when I was in high school, my parents got a new refrigerator that opened from the opposite side than the previous one had, and it took my months to get over it. As I get older, I have an easier time dealing with change: no fits, less crying, just some inner turmoil that can be disguised. But in the changes that I’ve experienced in the past four years of college, I’ve realized that there’s one thing that I can easily and unemotionally change: my hair.

I’ve changed my hair a lot in the past couple of years, and it has always been at a time of transformation or transition. I guess I like the symbolism of meeting a metaphysical or emotional change with a physically-manifested change. It makes me feel less afraid of what may come.

In the beginning, I had very long hair.

May 2008
This is what my hair looked like two years ago. It had survived multiple bleachings and an ill-fated attempt at dreadlocks, and though it was damaged like hell, I loved it because it was long. I was very attached, and I never wanted to cut it.

June 2008
I cut my hair at the end of my sophomore year. It marked the halfway point of my college career, my first real break-up, and my first time leaving my family and the continent on my trip to South Africa. On a practical level, I wanted a lower-maintenance haircut for when I went abroad; but this haircut encompasses my taking the plunge, letting go of the familiar and the comfortable in favor of something new and strange. After I cut my hair, my life followed suit.

December 2008
I cut my hair again on my 21st birthday. It marked my coming-of-age as an adult, getting over my break-up, overcoming an existential crisis and letting go of my fear of change. I had always wanted short short hair, but was too afraid that it wouldn’t look good or that it would never grow out. I made a conscious decision to cut my hair because I didn’t want to regret not doing it later, or wonder about what could have been for the rest of my life. So I did it, and it was the first haircut I got that didn’t make me cry; I even liked it.

March, 2010
I’ve let my hair grow out, but I changed my hair color to mark my college graduation. I loved my platinum hair, but it was time to move on; I have to enter the working world now, and I want to be taken seriously, which I don’t think my platinum hair would allow. It was really hard to let go of my super-blonde hair because it’s been that way for so long that it feels inextricably linked to my identity. But at the same time, I don’t feel like I need to have an extreme hair color anymore to make me unique. There’s more to me than my hair, and those are the things that make me stand out.

Music Video Monday #9: Sinead O’Connor’s “Nothing Compares 2 U.”

Short anecdote: I read a quote on Pitchfork the other day from Jack White (of the White Stripes fame). He was defending his “sister”/bandmate/ex-wife Meg White against haters, saying:

“Her femininity and extreme minimalism are too much to take for some metal heads and reverse-contrarian hipsters. She can do what those with ‘technical prowess’ can’t. She inspires people to bash on pots and pans. For that, they repay her with gossip and judgment. In the end she’s laughing all the way to the Prada handbag store. She wins every time.”

As someone who has criticized Meg White’s ostensibly skill-less drumming in the past (I think Jack would have classified me as a reverse-contrarian hipster, for sure), I think Jack’s statement really illuminates what the musical palate of American music consumers has come to expect: bravado, decadence, gloss. We want to be impressed, and with expectations of extravagance we find it more difficult to appreciate the beauty of minimalism.

Any time I think of minimalism, I think of Ernest Hemingway. On the surface, the man’s prose is as dry as the heat in Arizona, which seems to turn people off; they think that if someone can’t write with the verbal flourishes of a William Faulkner or a Charles Dickens that the writer is lazy or not as gifted. But the thing with Hemingway is that his minimalism was intentional; he wanted to pare away the unnecessaries and present a narrative whose words weren’t wasted, but were deliberate. The tone of entire sentences could hinge on Hemingway’s use of pronouns, and once, when Hemingway was asked to write a story in six words, he wrote “For Sale: Baby Shoes, Never Worn.” The reason Hemingway’s prose is so powerful is because it’s sparse and minimalistic and because it removes linguistic distractions.

Thinking about minimalism in terms of music videos, I immediately thought of Sinead O’Connor’s heartbreaking 80′s classic, “Nothing Compares 2 U.”

In my mind, this video is visual Hemingway. Even by 80′s standards, this video is incredibly sparse. But it’s brilliant because it doesn’t rely on impressive production or special effects or sex appeal to make an impression. The only time that anything other than Sinead is on the screen is when she isn’t singing; but the close, tight shots of Sinead singing directly into the camera are riveting because there are no distractions from her face or the words coming out of her mouth. It’s like having an intimate conversation with her, and the minimalism of the video makes lines like “I can put my arm around every boy I see / But it will only remind me of you” that much more powerful, and real. Which I suspect was Sinead’s intent: to show heartbreak without embellishments, to show the rawness and reality of it, tears and defiance and pleading and all. This video not only gives me the chills every time I watch it, but it makes me cry too (you turn me into a blubbering weeping infant, Sinead!). And because of that, because of the emotional connection I feel when I watch this vid, it makes it more memorable than something with snazzy production value; because really, a music video is not meant to be about the video, but rather it’s meant to be about the song and serve as a vehicle to best express the heart of the song, and I think this video is a divine example of that.

To Jack White, Meg White, Hemingway, Sinead O’Connor and her single tear: I salute you, and respect and appreciate your minimalism.

Greater Thans.

I lifted this idea from Kyla Roma’s blog. I think one can gain much more insight into a person from knowing what they prefer over something else, rather than simply what they like.

writing letters > writing emails
Twitter > Facebook
classic rock > popular music
spontaneous adventures > planned adventures
Mad Men > every other show on television
companionship > romance
taking a train > flying on a plane
having good manners > having good jokes
exercising > smoking
Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart > Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side
style > comfort
real-life friends > internet friends
openness > being right
foreign films > American films
deliberateness > flippancy
graduate school > a 9 to 5 job
creativity > uniformity

What are your greater thans?

my current disappointment in republicans.

usually, one of my favorite things about visiting my parents is having regular access to a television, namely to be able to watch msnbc. what i’ve seen the past week in regards to the health bill and the republican outcry against it has made me wish for tv-lessness. everything i’ve seen has made me lose faith in humanity in general, and republicans in particular.

for one, i don’t understand why republicans are looking on the health bill as if it were a sign of the apocalypse. there are no seven-headed beasts in sight; only the institutionalization of something that the majority of americans don’t have, but need in order to stay healthy and alive and to avoid having to claim medical bankruptcy. the united states is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have universal health care. why is it a bad thing to want all americans, rich or poor, to have access to health care that will protect them and take care of them? it’s a recognition of human rights, and of humanity in general, to attempt to extend health care to all people, not just those who can afford it. i hear the word “socialism” being thrown around casually and as a synonym for “communism,” but i suspect that most americans don’t even know what the word actually means.

actually, i do know why republicans are having a coronary over the health bill: abortion. of the hundreds of pages of the health care bill that outline plans for comprehensive health care for all americans, the topic of abortion gets singled out and dwelled upon until the entire process is at a standstill. the democrats and republicans who voted in favor of the health care bill, as i understand it, were not condoning abortion; they were admitting that abortion is one small component of health care, and that americans’ right to health care shouldn’t be compromised by this single issue. as a result, democratic senators are receiving death threats from angry republicans and are fearing for their families’ safety, and republicans have done nothing to discourage them, and have in fact abetted this awful behavior. i say shame on you, republicans.

shame on randy neugebauer, republican senator from texas, who shouted “baby killer!” at michigan’s democrat senator bart stupak, who is pro-life. shame on sarah palin, who created a map with gun crosshairs in areas where the state’s senators voted for the bill, in order to identify republican “targets.” shame on the men and women who have called bart stupak’s home and threatened his and his family’s life. shame on the man who went to what he thought was virginia senator tom periello’s house (which was actually periello’s brother’s house) and cut the propane gas lines, and double shame on republican senators for not condemning it. shame on fox news and glenn beck for being brainwashers and propagandists.

there’s no reason why, if so many people are upset about the health care bill, that there can’t be a civil discussion and dialogue about it. there is absolutely no reason to threaten senators or vandalize their homes and offices. there is no reason that the health care bill has to be a partisan issue that splits our governing body and pits republicans and democrats against each other as enemies. there is no reason that republican senators shouldn’t be chastising the people who are vandalizing and threatening democrats, and urging americans to work together toward a solution that is viable for everyone, instead of egging them on to propagate violence against democrats who are just trying to do what they feel is best for the people they represent. republicans, you need to step it up. let’s be adults here.

writing exercise, 24 march: the reluctant i

Untitled

The number 66 bus looped around its little holding area, the kind in mall parking lots that have glass plate ceilings printed with multi-colored designs that look like swirling gusts of wind to shield the riders from the rain. It came to a stop in front of the small crowd of people but its doors remained closed. The tired faces of the riders morphed into the vexed faces of people who just want to sit down somewhere, anywhere, after having walked every square foot of the mall for the past four hours. Why shouldn’t they be able to rest when they were ready to? It was a personal affront in their mind and their expressions began to show it. Maybe the bus driver could see the questions on their lips and burgeoning hostility in their eyes, for he opened the bus doors quickly and said “I’m early. I can’t start boarding for another four minutes,” before quickly closing them again.

Sighs cascaded from open mouths as everyone resigned themselves to four more minutes of bodily agony. There were some that stood close to the curb so that they could be the first to step onto the bus once its doors opened again, and there were others that leaned against the triangular plastic directories that displayed the bus schedules on one side, a list of stores and a map of the mall on another, and an ad for an expensive-looking purse on another. I stood next to a small puddle that had formed where the cement was uneven, watching a small bird flitter and splash around, seemingly unafraid of the giants it was surrounded by. It had rained the day before, but the only water that remained was in those puddles that pointed out the poor craftsmanship of someone’s work, or maybe just the natural wear that happens in places where people spend a lot of time standing.

The bus doors opened, and the sound was like air exiting a room, like a vacuum seal. Four minutes was not so long. Most of the people got on the bus; the others must have been waiting for a different number. I slid into a window seat near the back of the bus. Through the window, there was a boy leaning against the triangular plastic directory with his hood over his head, obscuring the features of his face. His skin was rich and dark like coffee grounds, and his enormous pants hung low on his thin body. He couldn’t have been more than seventeen. Another boy came up behind him, close to the same age with the same enormous pants and hooded jacket but with broader shoulders and sharp eyes. He touched the boy on the shoulder and the boy pulled his hood down and turned toward the other boy. Their words were muffled by the glass, but the other boy’s face started to look hostile and demanding, his eyes narrowing and his mouth tightening. The first boy was in mid-sentence when the other pushed him into the directory.
The noise of his body hitting the hard plastic was loud enough to make the people sitting inside the bus turn toward the window to see what was happening. The second boy had dragged the first boy toward the curb and started hitting him in the face and head with a closed hand. The weight of the second boy’s fist must have been numbing; the first boy got a single swing in, but after a few punches from the other, he just stood there like the wind had been knocked out of him, like receiving the next punch was something he didn’t mind.

The people standing around them had stared, but they eventually just turned in the opposite direction or moved away from the fight. Only one man stayed to watch, and he moved closer to better see. He was a tall, large black man, maybe forty years old, with a rotund belly, wearing a tailored black suit with a purple tie and long black peacoat over top. He smiled as he watched the two boys, exposing the gap between his two front teeth. He laughed, chuckled. He bent over, legs bent, and rested his hands on his knees, watching, jeering. He encouraged the second boy, loud enough to hear from inside the bus, shouting “That’s right, you get him, boy! You tell that nigga who’s bad.” He laughed as he said it, like it was an old joke between the two of them.

Eventually, the first boy fell to the ground, curled up, and it was over. The second boy walked away. The older man went back to waiting for his bus, the people around him continuing to ignore each other, and the people inside my bus turned forward and exhaled, letting go of their breath that they had been holding. The bus driver started the bus, softly rattling the glass that had separated those inside the bus from those outside, and pulled out of the holding area and onto the road, heading toward the freeway.

[The Exercise: Write a first-person story in which you use the first-person pronoun (I or me or my) only two times--but keep the I somehow important to the narrative you're constructing.]

music video monday #8: the xx’s “basic space” and tegan and sara’s “alligator.”

a double-whammy music video monday? i think so.

the simplicity of the images in the video complements the ambience of the music, i do believe. the lighting in this vid is amazing; subtle and moody and impressionistic.

tegan and sara are so darn cute! i love the choreographed dancing and the garbage-bag igloo.

some upcoming changes.

i’ve had this blog for almost two years, and in that time, it hasn’t changed much. the transitional period of life that i’ve entered into has been making me think about changes; big life-altering changes as well as small-scale, ostensibly meaningless changes a la this blog. there are things that i can do to make this blog better suit the purpose that i had in mind for it. here are the changes that i’m looking into:

1. new blog title.
i’ve had the same title since this blog’s inception, and while i like it and think it encapsulated who i was when i started it, i’d like to see it evolve into something that fits better with the description on my about page. and preferably not be a direct lykke li lyric. i’m open to suggestions.

2. more creative writing.
i’ve been wanting to use my blog to post my fiction writing and get some feedback on it, but as i haven’t been writing consistently in the past two years, it hasn’t been feasible. but now that i’m a college graduate and have a lot of free time on my hands, my goal is to start writing on a regular basis again. one of my old classmates jillian does what she calls a “fast write” on her blog, and i’m hoping to do something similar as i work my way through the writing exercises in the 3 a.m. epiphany.

3. more photography.
i haven’t used my camera since october! literally, i have barely even picked it up since then, let alone used it to capture images. i want to get out in the world and behind the lens again. i’m thinking i may do a separate page on the blog for photos, but i’m not sure yet… i just hope that posting photos on a regular basis will motivate me to use my camera as much as possible.

4. more projects.
i’m hoping to embark on several new projects. mostly i just want to do some sewing projects, but i’m also interested in collaging, cooking and possibly even jewelry-making. it doesn’t hurt to try everything, right? whether the projects turn out good or bad or hideous, i feel like it might be helpful to document them on the blog both as a reference for others and for myself, to learn from mistakes and benefit from inspirations, and (again) to motivate me to keep doing new things.

that’s all i have in mind for right now, but i may come up with some other renovations as well. changes will probably happen gradually, but keep an eye out for the new and improved blog.

survey of marriage and gender roles.

for my women’s studies class, i had an assignment in which i had to survey three men and three women at my college about their views of marriage, and more specifically, gender roles within a marriage. i found the results really fascinating and thought that they were worth sharing.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Participants:
A (female 21 years old)
D (male, 21 years old)
J (male, 20 years old)
Ja (female, 23 years old)
M (male, 22 years old)
S (female, 19 years old

Whose career will come first?
All six survey participants agreed that the answer to this question was dependent on several factors, including financial needs, location and childcare. All six participants also agreed that the decision of whose career should come first is something that should be decided by both spouses together. All six participants saw themselves in a marriage where both spouses worked, and each expressed a personal desire to have a job outside of the home at least part-time; S stated that before her kids entered school, she would want to stay home with them and raise them and that her husband’s career would come first at that time, but that once they were in school, she would want to have a job outside the home. She said she didn’t want her vocation to be “housewife.”
Of the three men surveyed, D and J said that they wouldn’t mind being the parent who stayed at home most often with the kids and that doing so wouldn’t make them feel less masculine; M stated that he didn’t want to be the parent to stay at home because he doesn’t like kids very much, but that he would do it if his marital situation required it.
Ja placed an emphasis on “collaborative passions” in terms of career prioritization, stating that money is less of a factor than pursuing a job or profession that a spouse is passionate about.

Who will do the bulk of the parenting?
All participants advocated for strong co-parenting. While all participants conceded that in the context of time spent with children, that the person who worked less would probably fill that role, but that both parents need to take an equally active role in parenting. A claimed that if both parents were working, both parents should have a “second shift,” while D asserted the importance of kids spending one-on-one time with each parent as well as spending time with both parents together so that they have a good balance. While D, M and S all stated that traditional gender roles come more naturally to both parents, all six participants disliked the idea of the father being the disciplinarian and the mother being the nurturer; all claimed that parents should try to embody both traits, even if the participants believed it went against “natural” inclinations for each gender, and that it is important for children to see both traits in each parent so as not to draw distinctions between “good/nice parent” and “bad/mean parent.”

How will chores be divided?
All participants stated that, ideally, chores should be divided evenly between spouses, but that that is an unattainable reality for most couples. A was the only participant to adamantly say that chores should be divided 50-50; D explicitly said that chores don’t need to be divided 50-50 in order for the partners to be equals, but that both should “do their part” and think of doing chores as an act of love. All participants excluding A said that the parent who is at home more often has a greater responsibility to do chores.
When presented with a hypothetical situation in which a child needs to be picked up from daycare and both parents have a work-related commitment that requires their presence, participants gave varied answers on how they and their spouse would determine whose commitment took priority. A and M stated that spouses should have a system of trading off in situations of inconvenience, so that one spouse isn’t consistently having to miss their commitments. J said that the parent with the most flexibility in their job would probably be the one to pick up the child in this situation. D again emphasized the importance of sacrifice, and the need for spouses to reciprocate sacrifices that the other makes. Both S and Ja said that if the commitments were equally important, that they would seek outside help (ie. have a friend or relative pick up the child).

How will the lines of authority be determined?
While A stated that the husband should have authority over the family in a broad sense, all participants agreed that each spouse should have equal authority both in parenting and within the spousal relationship. In terms of the spousal relationship, all participants advocated for relationships to be an “open dialogue” rather than one spouse wielding more influence or authority, and all openly opposed a marriage in which one of the spouses could tell the other “no” about something without offering explanation. S stated that relationships were a joint effort and not a “hierarchy of power,” and that her spouse telling her “no” about something would be unacceptable behavior that she wouldn’t tolerate. Ja stated that any explanation for a spouse’s “no” opinion, even if it was simplistic, would be better than no explanation. A said that even if her spouse tried to make a decision for her that was in her best interest, she would still try to defend herself and fight for what she wanted; J, on the other hand, said that his spouse’s expression of disapproval would make him think twice about what it was he wanted or was asking for, and that he would rather try to find a middle ground through discussion to keep the relationship stable, instead of just getting his way.
In the context of parenting, all participants agreed that both parents should have equal authority. S said that although it’s natural for one parent to be more lenient than the other, kids shouldn’t feel like they can only go to the parent that is perceived as more authoritative for permission to do something; she asserted that decisions should be the result of a consensus between both parents. Both J and Ja advocated for parents making authoritative decisions together, but that the parent who spends more time with the children may have more insights on the situation and that, after a certain point of making decisions together, one parent should be able to make a decision based on their knowing that the other parent would agree with them or make the same decision. M was the only participant who made a distinction between authority and dominance, and said that the father should have a more “dominant demeanor” but not necessarily more authority than the mother.

Grounds for divorce?
Participants were asked, operating on the assumption that their marriage was based on the shared conviction that divorce is not an option and that any impediments to the marriage should try to be worked through together, if there was anything that their spouse could do that would make them feel justified in wanting or seeking a divorce.
The three women all cited abuse, both physical and psychological, as grounds for divorce. A and S said definitively that they would leave the marriage if their spouse abused either them or their children; Ja said that there could be situations where abuse could be overcome, but also situations where it couldn’t and it would just depend on the situation. All three women said that they might be able to work through marital infidelity.
All three men cited marital infidelity as grounds for divorce. All said that they would try to work through it, but realistically, couldn’t see their marriage recovering from such a breach of trust. J stated that the physical act of infidelity isn’t what would prompt divorce, but that his spouse intentionally broke the bond of their relationship by seeking intimacy elsewhere. M also stated that he would leave a marriage if his spouse were not in love with him anymore, because it wouldn’t be pointless to be married to someone who wasn’t in love with him.

Did your parents affirm traditional gender roles within marriage?
None of the participants said that either of their parents fit completely into traditional gender roles; all said that their parents affirmed them in some ways, but didn’t affirm them in other ways. Ja characterized her parents as “partners for each other”; she said that they “weren’t bound to conservative roles because they were conservative, but because that’s what worked for them.” J affirmed that sentiment by saying that his parents “served each other, even if they fit gender stereotypes.” S was raised by a single mother, who had to act out both motherly and fatherly roles in the context of parenting. M’s mother fit the traditional feminine because she stayed at home with her children, but she also did all of the disciplining, a traditionally male role.

Additional Comments
Though A, J and Ja are all currently in relationships, Ja was the only participant who talked about her views of marriage in the context of her relationship. For example, she talked about how her boyfriend wanted to be a pilot, and that how his vocation would effect how often he was at home, and thus how much he would be responsible for housework or how much time he would be able to spend at home with the kids. For the most part, all of the participants’ opinions and views of marriage were expressed as hypotheticals.
However, all three of the male participants mentioned their parents’ marriage in their answers to multiple questions. The males would state their opinion in response to the question, and then they would tell an anecdote about their parents or talk about the structure of their marriage as a way to reinforce or support their own statements. Neither of the three female participants mentioned their parents or their marriage in any of their responses, except to the question that expressly asked them about their parents’ gender roles. Ja only mentioned her brother’s marriage, and she mentioned to illustrate what she didn’t want her marriage to be like.

big love.

‘big love’ is one of my favorite shows on cable television. the show concluded its fourth season a couple weekends ago, and in the course of watching the show over the past four seasons, my opinion about plural marriage has been significantly altered. and i think that’s a sign of really good television show: one that can make me care about and be sympathetic toward people that i perhaps wouldn’t be otherwise. so let’s talk about polygamy, ‘big love’ style.

the family structure of polygamy consists of one man, several wives and many children. bill henrickson, the protagonist of ‘big love,’ has three wives (first-wife barb, second-wife nicki, and third-wife margene) and eight children between his three wives. the principle of plural marriage was once a tenet of the mormon church, but is no longer accepted by the church (they excommunicate people who practice a polygamist lifestyle) and is in fact a felony in most u.s. states.

many would argue that polygamy is just an excuse for a man to have multiple sexual partners, an excuse that is validated by his faith. however, sex is not really the point of plural marriage, as i understand it. mormons believe in an afterlife where they are reunited with their earthly family for all eternity. as a result of this belief, the practice of polygamy is used to grow the earthly family for the afterlife. the reason that there are multiple wives instead of multiple husbands is that women can give birth to children, which helps grow the family. and it’s not just a man having multiple children with multiple women and then not having anything to do with them; while bill and his family are an exception, they have three houses (one for each wife) with a big shared backyard so that everyone can come and go into each other’s houses as they please, and so that they can all be in community and relationship with each other. i think to have multiple children and wives and to take care of all of them is commendable in many ways; think about how hard it is for some men to provide for one wife and two or three children, and then think about how much harder it would be for a man to provide for three wives (and pay for each to have their own house, no less!) and eight children. regardless of whether polygamy is moral or not, bill serves as a better model of a good father than a lot of men do with fewer wives or no wives.

i think that what fascinates me the most about the henrickson family is the level of commitment that they have to each other, and how much trust is present in their marriage. especially the wives. they live in a world where their family is looked down on and discriminated against and where they constantly have to hide who they are. nicki and margene especially exhibit so much faith in their marriage given the fact that barb is bill’s only legal wife; bill really has no legal obligation to his other two wives, and that could mean so many bad things for nicki and margene if bill were to decide that he didn’t want to be married to them anymore. but the wives don’t even see themselves as just being married to bill; they are all married, and fully committed, to each other. as opposed to the juniper creek polygamist compound, where marriages are arranged by the prophet, bill and barb and nicki and margene are all part of the marriage because they want to be. they whole-heartedly believe that their model of family is the way god (or “heavenly father” as they call him) intended family to be and that their afterlife will be blessed because of it.

although i prefer the original opening sequence, i do think that this sequence is really powerful conceptually. it’s like a visual representation of what they experience in their everyday lives as polygamists: the sensation of free-falling, loss of control; constantly reaching out toward each other and toward what they believe; having to constantly be asking the question “is this my home?” for the henricksons, earth is not their home; their home is in the afterlife, where they’re free to be themselves, to be a family, and in everything they do on earth, they are mindful of that.

one would think that a plural marriage would yield a hierarchy between wives, and while that’s somewhat present on ‘big love,’ the wives are generally equal. barb, as first-wife, is in a slightly elevated position because she’s legally married to bill and because she’s the “public wife,” but she doesn’t necessarily have any more sway within the marriage than nicki and margene. the wives sit together every week and plan out bill’s schedule (ie. whose house he’ll spend each night at); the only rigidity in the schedule is that they try to split bill’s nights as evenly as possible, but it’s very flexible in the sense that they can trade nights with each other, or give one wife more nights with bill if there’s a special occasion or something of the like. for example, when nicki decides that it’s time for her to have another baby, barb and margene give up their nights with bill for an entire week so that she has more opportunities to conceive. the wives are also willing to trade or give up nights if bill and one of the wives are fighting, so that they can have a night away from bill to cool off or have an extra night to try to work through their problem, depending. the wives don’t just try to selfishly try to have bill to themselves as much as possible, but rather they are willing to sacrifice for the good of their sister wives, and they do so without much complaint. what’s interesting is that bill doesn’t really have a say in where he goes from night to night: the schedule is left entirely up the wives, and if bill doesn’t like it… tough.

barb, nicki and margene are all really different as women and have vastly different backgrounds, but they use their diversity as wives for the good of their family and their marriage. all have strong personalities, and none of them are shy about voicing their opinions or their distaste about something to the other wives. they butt heads a lot, but at the same time, they are all endlessly supportive of each other. each wife has parental authority over all of the kids, so that if one of the kids gets into a predicament and their biological mother isn’t there to remedy it, one of the other wives can take care of it. barb, nicki and margene have all taken turns working outside of the home, but regardless of who is working at a given time, there is always someone at home to take care of the smaller kids and who can be called on by the other kids in times of need. the wives are the glue that hold the family together, and they operate within a really loving model of feminine community and interdependence.

now, i’m not advocating for polygamy or saying that i take a moral stance on it one way or another, but rather that, through watching this show, i can see both the advantages and disadvantages of plural marriage. i can understand the intention behind plural marriage, and i feel sympathetic toward these characters who live this alternative lifestyle based on strong convictions. there are a lot of interesting dynamics at play within a plural marriage, and i seeing how it plays out in people and not just thinking of it as an abstract marital structure makes me less hasty to condemn it or the people who believe and participate it. i guess what i’m saying is that i really like ‘big love’ as a show.

sex-ucation.

i read an article in the new yorker a while back about the relationship between religion and teen pregnancy for one of my classes, and the article mentioned a documentary called “the education of shelby knox.” shelby knox was a teenager in lubbock, texas (a town that has the highest incidences of teen pregnancy and stds in the nation), who was part of a youth commission that championed comprehensive sex education in public schools.

the documentary follows shelby for three years during her efforts to expand the abstinence-only sex education policies of the lubbock public schools. what i found interesting is that shelby was a pretty devout christian and pledged virginity until marriage via true love waits; but i guess that fact is less interesting than the flack that shelby gets from church members for supporting a cause that they believe is immoral. what i was wondering throughout the film echoed shelby’s argument: if abstinence-only sex education isn’t realistic for all students, then why shouldn’t they have a comprehensive sex education that shows them how to be safe if they choose to be sexually active?

this seems like common sense to me. public schools shouldn’t be teaching faith-based sex education because not all people that attend public schools are religious. it wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy and stds, but it’s irresponsible to say “abstinence is the only option” because it’s “moral,” and simply leave it at that. it’s pure idealism to think that abstinence should work for everyone; it is not a one-size-fits-all. whether a school teaches abstinence-only or not, there will always be kids who are going to deviate from that and have sex anyway. even for people who proclaim abstinence as teenagers, having knowledge about safe sex and birth control can only help kids if and when they find themselves in a situation someday where they’re going to have sex.

i’m reminded of an essay i read in my women’s studies anthology about a catholic woman who was the director of a local planned parenthood, a fact that got her excommunicated from her church because she was seen as advocate of abortion. this woman was not, in fact, an advocate for abortion but merely gave women information about abortion and let them use their own conscience to decide what was best for themselves; nevertheless, the church saw it as advocation. sex education programs suffer from this same kind of dualism: in the documentary, shelby says of her school administration that “they have it so set in their heads that telling kids about sex will make them go have sex.” it is dangerous to treat sex as a taboo, to resist acknowledging that it happens outside of marriage and between teenagers: in my mind, that perpetuation of sexual ignorance is what causes teen pregnancies and std’s. if sex educators would realize that there’s a way to teach safe sex without advocating sex, the results would assuredly be fewer teen pregnancies and std’s.

while comprehensive sex education would be a good start, the real issue at the heart of this debate is the negative connotations attached to sex, especially by religious groups. if everyone was of the mindset that sex is not a privilege that only married people are entitled to, and that sex is not solely reserved for procreation but is something that god intended both partners to enjoy within a loving relationship, radical things would happen. young people would no longer rush into marriage so that they could have sex without feeling guilty or immoral (an especially heinous epidemic at my college); women would no longer have to feel like they’re just wombs in the context of sex; unmarried couples would practice safe sex out of responsibility to, and respect for, their partner, not just for fear of an unplanned pregnancy that would expose them as sexually active; men and women would no longer have to experience their sexual desires as something shameful. as long as sex is stigmatized, there will always be ignorance and irresponsibility, which means there will always be unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.