I am not evil scum (or: thoughts on feminism)

May 10, 2012 | Posted in Identity & Relationships

In many of my social circles, saying “I’m not a feminist” is roughly equivalent to saying “I am Satan”. If you aren’t a feminist, you must be a sexist, which is the lowest form of scum, and your arguments are no longer valid. To avoid causing this ad hominem reaction and having my arguments ignored, I will not say that I’m not a feminist. Instead I will say that as a person with no gender, I find feminism to be limiting, and I don’t like to take on a label that tries to cover more ground than it can.

One definition of feminism is: “the belief that women are equal to men and should be treated as such”. According to that definition, I am a feminist, sure. But I don’t think that this definition is inclusive enough for me to take it as my label. What about all the people who are not men or women? I’d rather use a word that includes us.

Well, all right, let’s try a more nuanced definition: “the belief that femininity is equal to masculinity”. Those who use this one usually say that all people who are oppressed due to gender are oppressed because femininity is considered worse than masculinity. Anyone who “should be” masculine but is feminine is oppressed for leaving the “good” side and going to the “bad” side; anyone who “should be” feminine but is masculine is oppressed for trying to sneak over to the “good” side; naturally, a feminine woman is oppressed because she is on the “bad” side where she “belongs”. According to this definition, too, I am a feminist, but since I don’t think that masculine and feminine should be the only ways to exist, I’m not all that interested in defining myself according to them. I’m also not convinced that elevating femininity to be equal to masculinity will stop people from oppressing those of us who don’t want to be feminine or masculine.

Other feminists say that the definition is “the belief that all people are equal regardless of gender” and that the word is used because of its historical roots. When the feminist movement began, gender was still all about men and women; our understanding of gender identity has broadened, but the principle of equality remains the same. I certainly get this point of view, and by this definition I am a feminist, but it makes me feel erased. I am indebted to the feminist movement, of course, and I respect much of its philosophy and certainly its writers and activists, but I wish to take on a label that, if it does not explicity include me, at least doesn’t explicity exclude me as a person who doesn’t identify with femininity.

So, sure, I am a feminist — I believe that women are equal to men and femininity is equal to masculinity. I’m also a neutralist, and a genderqueerist, and an agenderist, and all kinds of other -ists, and my stance on those is equally important to my stance on women and femininity. Trying to say that “feminism = equality of all genders” is kind of like saying that “blackism (a word I just made up) = equality of all colors and ethnicities”. There are a lot of people of color who are not black, and lumping them all together under the word “blackist” wouldn’t be cool, even if the argument for the word was that all POC are oppressed because blackness is considered worse than whiteness and everyone who is not white is oppressed for being closer to the “bad” black side. It would be especially uncool if a POC who was not black stood up and said, “I want a word that includes me,” and everyone said, “Sit down, Satan — if you’re not a blackist, you’re a racist.”

Instead of focusing on one segment of gender possibility, I focus on all of them and call myself an egalitarian. I would rather not identify as a feminist, partly due to my desire to make a more inclusive word more widespread, and partly due to bitter rebellion against the assumption that feminism is the epitome of gender equality and all who reject the label are sexist scum. The adjective “feminist” fits me, but I don’t like to wear it by itself, because it just doesn’t cover enough.

0 Comments

I found the right person and I’m still aromantic

April 22, 2012 | Posted in Identity & Relationships

Once upon a time, I experienced love at first sight, except it wasn’t romantic love and we couldn’t actually see each other because we met online. I am drawn to people who are good at spelling and use punctuation in instant messages; it’s the internet equivalent of a great smile. And if that great internet smile is accompanied by kindness and openness and shameless dorkiness— oh, be still my heart. I wanted to learn everything about this person and I felt like I could share my scary secrets and I just knew that we could talk for hours and hours about anything and everything and I wanted to start right that second.

The intensity of this freaked me out. First, this was my friend’s girlfriend, so I had to tread carefully. (I failed at that.) Second, I’m aromantic, so I was all confused. What do you do with a strong attraction that isn’t romantic? And what if it actually was romantic and I just didn’t know that? What is romantic attraction? What is romance?

Oh, lord, not this again.

Fortunately, I was completely right: we could talk for hours and hours about anything and everything and share our scary secrets, and we did. Four years later we say we are “together”, in some undefinable, undeniable way, and I still don’t know what romance is.

I’ve got this relationship… Am I still aromantic?

Yes.

That should be enough, because what is identity if not our own deep down feelings about who and what we are? If a description of myself feels right to me, that’s about as well-justified as it’s going to get. (Telling people they are wrong about their own identities is obnoxious and oppressive, by the way. I see it happening way too often. Please don’t do it.) Still, analyzing things is fun, am I right?

A while ago on Hot Pieces of Ace, a YouTube channel about asexuality, one of the members was an aromantic in a romantic relationship. She’s the only person I’ve come across who has talked about being in this situation. She defined her aromanticism as a lack of romantic drive, but not a lack of romantic attraction, which is interesting because I have usually seen aromanticism defined as a lack of romantic attraction, and I don’t know what a lack of romantic drive is called. Quirkyalone?

Whatever it’s called, I’m completely certain that I am it. Romantic drive is a free-floating desire for romance, analagous to the free-floating desire for sex that is called a sex drive, and it causes people to do such things as go on dates with strangers and complain about being lonely when they’re single. This is not me; I am the opposite of this. Dating is a bizarre ritual that perplexes and repels me, and I love being single. I’ve never gone looking for romance — in fact, I have often gone to great lengths to avoid it.

Romantic attraction is the tricky one for me. It’s when you’re drawn to a particular person or type of people in a romantic way, but to me this makes very little sense. I’m only drawn to people in one way. If I think a person is interesting, I am drawn to them. The only difference is in degree. I was drawn to my person (I call her my partner or my person) more than anyone else I’ve ever met; does the extreme degree make it romantic? It seems like there should be some qualitative difference in the feeling, but I don’t know what that might be.

My person suggested that romance might be something that is completely up to the individual, and if the individual doesn’t find it a useful concept to describe their attractions, they are free to ignore it. Wise suggestion. This is how I deal with gender, too.

In conclusion: I ignore romance because I don’t find it a useful concept. I think the best word for this is aromantic, so that is what I am.

Is my relationship romantic?

I don’t know. Neither does my person. It looks a lot like other relationships that people call romantic. So maybe? If it looks like a duck…

I already talked about how I build relationships, but since I’ve spent some more time in public with my person I’ve begun to wonder how we look to other people. We sometimes hold hands or do other small physical things to show affection in public, and we talk about each other in a very matter-of-fact way that sounds like an established romantic couple. We still talk about anything and everything and share our scary secrets, though there aren’t really any scary secrets left to share at this point. We have every intention of staying together longterm. From the outside, it looks like romance.

From the inside, I’m not sure. My person is a panromantic demisexual, so our relationship is quite mixed since I’m an aromantic asexual (see my definitions here). She has her own idea of what romance is and it can’t easily be put into words. With that in mind, her feelings for me are romantic, but that doesn’t mean that our relationship has to be romantic. We both like subverting social norms and we are interested in getting away from the strange fairytale drama of romance.

I’ve toyed with the idea of calling it queerplatonic, but I don’t feel comfortable saying that it’s definitively non-romantic in nature, since I don’t know what that means. I’d rather leave that label to those who are more certain. Instead I call it close. A close relationship. My closest relationship. There’s no confusion in that.

Sometimes, though, it’s easiest to let people think that we’re romantic. That word gives a relationship a certain social status; people treat it as something important, something almost sacred. And, most of the time, we just don’t feel like explaining ourselves to anyone. Let them think what they will. I’m sure they’ll get the basic idea.

In conclusion: Whatever you want to call it, my relationship with my person is awesome. It gets me thinking, which I love, but it never demands that I be anything other than 100% unadulterated me. Who could ask for more?

3 Comments

Is there a perfect toothbrush?

April 21, 2012 | Posted in Minimalism & Environmentalism

I’ve always gotten a free toothbrush when I went to the dentist for a cleaning, but I missed my last cleaning due to moving across the country. Left to my own devices, I tried to find a toothbrush that was cheap, easy to aquire, and — most importantly — not too environmentally offensive.

I used Beth Terry’s post about toothbrushes to guide me. She talks about three different options: one from Life Without Plastic, one from Environmental Toothbrush, and one from Preserve.

The toothbrush from Life Without Plastic is made in Germany out of wood with boar bristles. I immediately ruled it out because I’m not comfortable with buying animal products if I can avoid it. The one from Environmental Toothbrush is sold in Australia, but it’s made in China out of bamboo with nylon bristles. I decided not to get that one because it comes in a big package and I don’t have the money to buy 12 toothbrushes and ship them halfway around the world, especially since I wasn’t sure if they would work for me or not.

There are a few other wooden toothbrushes I’ve seen around the web, but they either had boar bristles or came in big packages or both.

I ended up going to my local natural grocery store and picking up a brush from Preserve, which is made in the USA out of recycled plastic. I’ve had it for a few weeks now, and here are my thoughts so far:

Pros:

Preserve toothbrushes are recycled and recyclable. They are made from recycled new plastic, such as yogurt containers, and when the toothbrush is recycled its material is made into less fussy things like park benches.
Preserve takes responsibility for recycling its products. The package my toothbrush came in doubles as a mailer. When it’s time to get a new toothbrush, I just stick the old one into the pre-paid mailer and send it back to Preserve to be recycled.
You can buy a subscription that sends you a new toothbrush every three months as recommended by dentists. I just think it would be cool to have a toothbrush subscription.
It’s cheaper than the wooden toothbrushes I have seen.
The soft bristles are just the right softness for me. You can get medium or ultrasoft as well. I’ve heard that some of the wooden toothbrushes have really stiff bristles.

Cons:

They are still made of plastic, and plastic is not an environmentally friendly material.
While they are made of recycled plastic, they still require new plastic to be made. Rather than being a closed loop where the material goes back to be made into more toothbrushes, they are just slowing the plastic down on its path to the landfill. I’m not sure if it’s better to take advantage of the recycled plastic we’ve already got, since it’s not going to be breaking down anytime soon, or if it’s better to abstain from plastic altogether in the hope that new plastic will not be made. In the meantime, I’m happy to support a company that’s making this kind of effort.
The curve of the handle took some adjusting on my part, since I’m used to a straight handle. I like straight handles better but it’s not a big deal. At least there is a small flat part on the head of the brush so that it doesn’t roll all over the place while it’s lying down.
It’s not free, like the ones I used to get from the dentist.

All in all I’m pleased with my choice. The fact that Preserve takes responsibility for their recycling was the biggest draw, for me, because “recyclable” is meaningless if no one buys the materials and uses them. A lot of things that we put into our recycling bins just end up in landfills anyway. I considered getting a toothbrush handle with replaceable heads, like the one from Eco-Dent, but it was more expensive than a Preserve brush and it wasn’t recycled. I may go ahead and buy a big package of wooden brushes next time I need a new one. Or I may get a subscription from Preserve — perhaps with surprise colors!

Cutting down on buying new plastic is one small, small step in the direction of not destroying the environment every time I do anything. Next step: get the dentist to give out better toothbrushes.

2 Comments

Anyone could do it, but how many do?

March 27, 2012 | Posted in Lifeology, Writing

When I published my little book about my trip to Britain, my goal was to see what self-publishing was like and to have copies for my grandmothers. It wasn’t my best work and I wasn’t taking it seriously. It was no big deal.

To my friends and family, though, it was a very big deal. They congratulated me as if I’d, you know, actually published something. I was embarrassed by the attention. I hadn’t done anything special! The process was not that hard; anyone with patience and a word processor could do it! It wasn’t even a novel. It was just a short collection of blog posts. I was afraid that people were going to think I was some kind of Real Author and then they would read my book and realize I was in fact a Giant Fraud because self-publishing a collection of blog posts is not real publishing.

But then my partner reminded me…

How many people actively save up for a trip they’ve always wanted to go on?
How many people actually go on that trip?
How many people are brave enough to write about it on their blog for the world to read?
How many people learn how to put a book together?
How many people push the publish button to get a book in print?

Anyone could do it, but how many actually do? I didn’t publish a bestselling novel that’s touching the lives of millions or whatever, but I had still done something that many people daydream about and never do. I have a right to be proud of that. (Isn’t my partner wise? I’m so lucky.)

This wisdom has two sides:

Anyone could do it, so you could do it too. When you learn more about how things are done you often find that they aren’t as mysterious and difficult as you had imagined. Our idols, who have accomplished so many amazing things, are humans like us. Rather than feeling like the magic has been taken out of it, embrace it. This just means you can do something that you never thought you could. Fewer and fewer things become impossible.
If you have done something important or cool, be proud of it. Don’t be embarrassed by praise, even if what you did seems easy once you’ve gotten to the other side. Part of the praise is admiration because you’ve stepped up and acted. We need more of this. There’s too much apathy, too many people setting aside their dreams for mundane reasons. I wanted to publish a book, and I did. Now there are books with my name on the front floating around in the world (nineteen of them, to be exact). Even if the book isn’t the most impressive one ever, that’s still pretty cool.

Is there something you want to do, but you keep thinking, “It’s too hard,” or “I’ll do it later,” or “I could never do that”? Stop it! That kind of thinking won’t get you anywhere. Do a little research and you may find that your dream is far more attainable than you realize.

Anyone could do it, but will you?

1 Comment

On screenwriting

March 24, 2012 | Posted in Writing

Sometimes I think that I should write movies instead of novels. My fiction tends to be visual and active, and while I’m writing I often picture the scene in my head — music included — as if it’s a movie. Some of my ideas for novels would be much better as movies.

The strange thing is that it never occurred to me that I could possibly write scripts until 2009, when the Office of Letters and Light (the non-profit organization responsible for NaNoWriMo) introduced me to their 30-day writing marathon called Script Frenzy. 100 pages of script in the month of April? Why not? I gave it a try.

It turns out that when you write a script, you have to leave room for all the people who actually make the movie. Like the director, for example. And the camera operators, and the actors. They apparently get to do whatever they want with your script once you pass it over to them. Bah. My script was basically a novel written in the action sections, because I could not bear to give up even the smallest amount of control.

Upon reflection, I have realized that I completely missed the point of screenwriting. The great thing about movies is the collaboration. In the special features of every DVD you hear the cast and crew talking about how fantastic it was working together, and it sounds sappy and you wonder what it was really like on set, but in fact I think that the best movies are probably the best because they had so many talented people working together on them.

As a novelist, especially one planning to self-publish, I have control over every single detail. If I want to I can keep it a complete secret until I hit the publish button. It can be mine and mine alone. It was difficult for me to break out of that mindset and accept the fact that I was not the only person who was working on this (imaginary) film.

I wonder if it would have gone any differently if I approached it the way I approach roleplaying and collaborative novel writing. When I enter into one of these projects, I relish the opportunity to mix my ideas with other people’s and create something that none of us would have done on our own. Maybe it was too hard for me to do this during Script Frenzy, when there would never be any directors and actors and editors. There was just me, sitting at my laptop, trying to figure out why I wasn’t writing a novel.

April has come around once more, and I’ve been thinking about giving scriptwriting another try. I’m sure I’d do better this time. But I think I’ll stick to what I do best and keep working on my novel. I’m at 40,000 words since I deleted all the superfluous stuff from my NaNo adventures. It’s probably about halfway done. No sense in stopping now!

If you’re interested in writing movies, plays, TV shows, comics, or any other kind of script, go check out Script Frenzy. You have one week to prepare. That’s plenty of time. And I’ll be cheering you on from the sidelines. Ready? Go.