The Whole Woman by Germaine Greer

Before I opened this book, I went to Amazon to read the reviews of the book in order to get some kind of inkling what this book was all about and what Germaine Greer, a person I've never read before, could possibly say in it. As I have said, there is no one feminism, but several feminisms and one feminist writer does not represent them all, so I wanted to know what kind of feminism I was going to encounter in this book. The reviews were interesting, it was everything from the types where Greer is claimed to have completely changed someone's world to accusing her of hating all but homosexual women. Both are quite expected when dealing with feminism, but I was happy to see that it was a provocative book as these usually make for interesting reading. I was not disappointed.

The book is structured in four sections called "body," "mind," "love," and "power," each section dealing with topics that, not so surprisingly fall under those headings. I shall structure my thinking according to these sections below in order to get some kind of coherent text instead of loads of brain splatter.

body

I think my favourite part of the book, and the one that was thought-provocative in a way that I could grasp was this section. In it, Greer discusses everything from body ideals to abortion and female genital mutilation (FGM). Actually, one of the things I had read about this book before I read it was how Greer had been under heavy criticism as it comes of as if she is defending FGM in this book, and I will explain why I disagree with this assessment.

In this section, Greer talks about manmade women, plastic surgery and the strive to look as unnatural and unwomanly as possibly can. From the position where Greer stands, all this shaving, use of make up, obsessive striving to become thinner than is healthy and the consequent widespread use of plastic surgery to look as 'perfect' as possible, is nothing but a result of mainly male thinking that the female is not female enough and so has to be altered in order to fit their imaginings of the female. She rightly argues that a woman is a woman in her natural state. The armpit hair, the leg hair, the often asymmetrical breasts and the body fat is all woman. A woman is never more woman than before she alters her appearance, because that is what the woman is - nothing more, nothing less. No one can be more woman than woman herself in her natural state. It is an interesting thought and one that a lot of feminists have argued, but one that is nevertheless important to be reminded of. Women themselves take part in the reproduction of this culture, Greer argues, but it is imposed by men.

This ties into where people have (perhaps mistakenly) argued that she is a proponent of FGM. In the section talking about plastic surgery as a self-mutilation, Greer mentions FGM. Why is it, she asks, that in our culture we accept that women go through vaginoplasty (plastic surgery on the vagina) to ensure that they look like what they think is culturally appropriate and acceptable, while we do not accept this argument with people in non-Western civilisations? She not only draws parallels to vaginoplasty, but also other forms of plastic surgery like breast augmentation. She invokes the argument of cultural relativism to prove how absurd this entire plastic culture has become and reminds us that we are really morally opposed to it. Of course, Greer fails to acknowledge that plastic surgery is legally supposed to be done to an adult with her consent, but FGM is done by adults to children, which makes a helluva difference. With regards to health risks, distorted body ideals and the danger in trying to fit a narrow description of 'perfect', she is, however, right.

It is also in this section Greer tries to rally up feminists not to accept trans people as female, arguing that at the end of the day, trans people can never be female because they do not have the sex chromosomes for it. This argument really surprised me as generally feminists are very pro trans people out of a very simple explanation - feminists believe that gender is a social construct, that is to say that femininities and masculinities are something that we are taught, something we are socialised into, rather than something that is biologically determined. Therefore gender is fluid, and the key issue is what gender someone identifies as, not what they were born as. If someone who was not born biologically female identifies as a female, this person will be female to most feminists. That Greer, who has been one of the most prominent feminists for a long time, would fail to make this separation between sex and gender is just unbelievable. As the book goes on, however, it is not so shocking anymore, as Greer seems to take a more "back to nature" stance with sex and genders, putting much emphasis on woman as a sex and gender as well as gender as a social construct. To me, the extent to which she focuses on the female sex in the first section somewhat contradicts her thoughts on gender in the social later on. But it does raise an important point even though it perhaps does not explicitly say so - the point of the third gender, or rather the lack thereof everywhere but in Australia.

I will not go through the entire section, because even though it's a non-fiction book, I don't want to recount everything for people that might possibly want to read this book. Suffice to say that the section deals with most things that have to do with the female body and in a very interesting and thought-provoking way.

mind

This is also a section where Greer focuses heavily on the difference between men and women, both biologically and socially. In her chapter on oestrogen, she questions the need for it in menopausal women and also questions why there is only chemical contraception for women and not for men. Greer argues, and I have heard this argument elsewhere as well, that there are ways to create chemical contraception for men, but as this would emasculate them, this is not done.

I also enjoyed the chapter on soldiers and violence as this is what I am currently writing my dissertation on and something I am considering looking further into when I will hopefully study gender further. (Fingers crossed that I will meet my conditions!) I will not go into this as I have written about gendered violence before.

love

Here Greer writes about women's capacity to love, and women's apparently insatiable need to be loved back. She writes about how women always love but are never loved back, beginning with the relationship between the daughter and the father and continuing on in later life up until death. Greer claims that a woman will never receive the amount of love back that she gives; to a father, to a partner, to her children. Interestingly, she also claims that mothers will always love their children unconditionally but implies over and over again that it is their sons that will receive the attention, not the daughters. If this is because mothers, according to Greer, cannot love their daughters as much as their sons, or if it is due to a girl child's apparent utter disinterest in their mothers, she fails to make clear. In either case, it is a contradiction. Either mothers love their children more than they will ever be loved back, as Greer claims at one point, and this will include their daughters; or they are not capable of the unstoppable, indefinite love that she claims that they are. This is one of many times where I feel Greer is more out after glorifying the female species rather than understanding why things are as they are.

There is nothing wrong in aiming to increase the status and view of women - on the contrary. This is one of the things that I really enjoyed with the Whole Woman; the attempt to view woman as a beautiful being instead of an incurable, screwed up, weak mess that deserves to be stomped on and forgotten. All human beings deserve to be seen and heard and loved, but all human beings are also at the same time flawed in that beautiful way that makes us who we are. We are capable of being both at the same time. Making out one gender to be above the other or worthy of being viewed as 'perfect' is not beneficial to any human being. That is what got is into this whole mess with gender roles and gender hierarchies in the first place.

I really enjoyed how Greer put sex in the "mind" section, pointing to the bond between the mental and the physical that often exists in sexual relations for both men and women. This mental bond does not have to include love, that is not at all what I am saying here, but it does have to include trust and respect for it to be enjoyable for both or all parts. Her critique of the quick jumping to penetrative sex is exquisite. She raises some really good points in that section, but what they are, I shall leave for you to find out.

power

This brings us to the final section which deals with the structural inequalities in society and Greer continues to be controversial and thought-provoking up until the last page. Here she deals with the somewhat irrational fear of male violence, arguing that society has led us to constantly fear male sexuality, male violence and male aggression when we often do not have to. This disproportional fear gives men more power and control over women. Liz Kelly in Surviving Sexual Violence argues much the same. The disproportionate fear by women of men leads to women not daring to act in certain ways and do certain things in fear of the possible consequences which happen in a minority of cases. This is comparable to the victim blaming that all too often happens after rape, where women are cautioned they should have been more careful, and that next time they should think before they act/dress themselves/speak lest they get hurt again. Women's fear of men is an oppression in itself, and while men are partly responsible for it, not all of them are, and women are actively reproducing these fears as well. At the same time it is quite interesting how Greer at one point in the book makes all men into sexual predators through saying that a father's love for a daughter will inevitably become inappropriate at one point or another (a claim I am not even going to discuss because that's how little I agree with it - don't feed the troll).

As always, I am always happy when masculinities are discussed, and Greer delivers in this area. She talks throughout the book about the gendered pressure on men, like that on women, that exists in society - the pressure to perform sexually, the pressure to act aggressively, to protect, to earn money etc. Once again we are back to gender as a social construct. Although, Greer points out in the very last few pages that her aim is not to order people to be in a certain way, but rather for herself and others to feel comfortable in their own skin, in their natural beauty - both internal an external. She wants to make the Whole Woman. That is an aim I can relate to and that I will support.

------

These points made above are just a tiny piece of all what is thought-provoking, controversial and wise in Greer's book. It is a book of 425 pages dealing with everything female and women. There is a lot that I disagree with that I haven't brought up, a lot of arguments that I still need time to digest before I can make up my mind on them, and a lot of arguments that I will remember, use and be grateful to Greer that she reminded me of or pointed out to me. It is definitely a book that requires an open mind; there is no point in reading it if you already have your opinions set in stone. If you are, however, curious about feminism, this particular feminist, or are someone already immersed in the gender debate who wants to explore and find out more, I would recommend you read this book! It should be noted, though, that this book is kind of a sequel to the Female Eunuch, Greer's debut book written in the '70s. I have not read this, so I can safely say that you do not need to read it before you read the Whole Woman, but if you want a bit of background on Greer and the arguments she expands in the Whole Woman, I am sure it is interesting reading.


Books mentioned in this post:



This book is registered on BookCrossing.com. Here is the journal for it. As more people read the book, the journal will grow with their thoughts and reactions to this book.

the United Nations and Human Rights Male Normativity

This semester I am taking a course called "Human Rights in Global Perspectives." As opposed to the class I took last semester on the politics of accessing human rights, this course is actually on the theory, philosophy, rhetoric and implementation of human rights internationally, and to a certain extent, on state level.

As part of the course work, I have had to read different treaties and agreements on human, civil/political and socio-economic rights. Tonight I have read the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. All three are quite short reads and fairly repetitive, so if you want to have a look through them, I would recommend that you do.

What struck me to begin with is that these arguments are such blatantly male-centric documents, probably because they are written by men and for men. Remember, CEDAW - the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women - came later, as it was widely viewed that women's rights were not sufficiently covered by these previous covenants.

And no wonder that UN, member states and women's rights groups felt the need to create a separate and complementary agreement referring specifically to women and women's needs after these, so called, universal rights documents had been produced. The covenants are literally teeming with male-centric language and rhetoric. In every single instance, when referring to an individual in the documents, "his," "him," "he" is used. Even if the use of the gender neutral plural pronouns were not widespread at the time, it would not have taken much energy and effort to add a corresponding female noun there to make sure that the female gender was represented as well. Although, it should be noted that this would probably not be accepted practice today anyway, as there are people who do not define as either gender and are thus not covered by these gendered nouns. Unfortunately, this thinking had not come as far in the 1948 when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was finalised, nor in 1966 when the two covenants were.

If it were not blatantly obvious in the way that any other genders but the male gender are excluded, it is certainly obvious in the very first article of the UDHR, which states

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The word 'brotherhood' implies that either we are operating under a male normative set of rules, i.e., all people, women, men, all human beings, should act and operate under the rules for something which is defined as 'brotherhood', implied by the name to be a set of rules set up by males for males. Even if this would be an inclusive set of rules, welcoming all genders, it would still be referring to a specific set of male normative rules. If it is not inclusive, then it means that all genders, apart from the male one, would not be included in this 'spirit of brotherhood', which is a human right. Women and other people not identifying as male, would thus be excluded from human rights. This is set out in the very first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As if this was not enough, the sacrosanctity of heteronormative culture is also inscribed in the Covenant on Civil and Policial Rights (1966) in Article 23. I quote (my bold):

Article 23

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

There is so much wrong in this article, but let me just start out by saying the natural and fundamental group of society? In this part of a sentence, the UN and its signatories have assumed that the heteronormative family is a biological fact and that it shall not be threatened. By what? Gay marriage, probably. Assuming that blood bonds are very strong is not in itself a wrong, but not defining what they mean by 'family' is. I assume, however, that in the 1960s, when this covenant was agreed upon, it was quite self-evident what was meant with 'family,' as homosexuality was still illegal in many countries. Point 2, also indicates that this was the intention, as "the right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and found a family..." probably means to each other and not to whomever they so wish.

That fact, alone, should make all of us question the intention of universal human rights. Or shall I say universal as long as one conforms to the white male heteronormative society in which families are the untouchable cornerstones of society and women are not a part of being human to the extent that complementary agreements have to be made to ensure that they, too, are covered by human rights. (If you want more information on either of these topics, just look into the two of big debates within human rights 'are women human?' and 'are human rights Western?')

International debate and treaties made by international organs like the UN are riddled with gendered language. If there is one thing that I have learned while reading for my dissertation on the discourse around women in conflict, it is that. While there seems to be a will to mainstream gender into organisations, which essentially means making sure that gender has been taken into consideration at all times, there is a disconnect between that and the implementation of gender-neutral policies. Not to mention that gender mainstreaming as an approach has been severely criticised, among other things, for 'streaming' women away, neglecting women's particular concerns that may exist.

So when I am reading documents like these, the fundamentals of human rights, which are supposed to be universal, and women are supposed to be included, but the language is so blatantly male-centric, it is hard to believe that things will get better. The problem is that the entire framework within which, and upon which, human rights implementation, discourse and philosophy are based, is gendered. Regardless of what improvements we do in the future, there will always be the male-centric original documents that to a certain extent neglect or exclude women and other people who do not identify as male. Added to that, it also excludes LGBTQ groups that wish to exercise, what is supposed to be a universal right to marry whomever they wish.

As long as our rights are based on a male perspective, we will be excluded in one way or another - through implementation, in the rhetoric (which is a severe problem), in the discourse (which is slightly different from the rhetoric), in the philosophy, in the politics - in all aspects. Human rights cannot be universal until everyone is included, and according to the Western thought on human rights, they are. Human rights may be inalienable and universal, but the implementation and thought certainly do not ensure this. It could even be said to hinder the universality of human rights through its exclusionary nature. If human rights are to be universal, rhetorical issues like these need to be paid attention to. Ignoring gendered aspects of human rights is not benefiting anyone, apart from the white male.

Passing Judgement on Sexualities

An MI6 agent, Gareth Williams, is suspected to have been murdered, but all his friend can think about is to 'clear' his name from 'allegations' that he might have been gay. Talk about having her priorities straight.

There are no accusations or allegations that need to be cleared in this case. First of all, the only thing that has been said about Williams is that "detectives suggested the 31-year-old may have died at the hands of a mystery bondage sex partner he met on London's gay scene" (from article linked above). There are no speculations whether this was just a one time sex connection or if it was something Williams did recurrently or if he was sexually curious or bisexual or homosexual. There are no speculations about the man's sexuality, just a speculation of what happened to him and how he was connected with the person believed to have murdered him.

Secondly, even if he were gay, does it matter? Being gay is not something negative, not anything one needs to clear one's reputation from if it is false. The fact that this woman feels she has the need to go to media and set the record straight (pun intended) is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, she doesn't know everything about this man's sexuality or sexual feelings, no one knows, apart from him when he was alive. He might very well have had sexual encounters with other men while he was alive out of curiosity, because this was what he wanted, or perhaps he was doing research for a new identity. No one knows, and it doesn't matter. He chose not to talk about it, so neither should anyone else.

Talking to the media about the man's sexuality and trying to 'explain' that he was, beyond doubt, heterosexual is nothing but passing negative judgement on homosexual men. To feel the need is there to actually explain who this man did or did not sleep with is saying that homosexuality is below heterosexuality, that Williams was being accused of something, and an accusation, as we all know, is associated with making a wrong. Love or sex between two members of the same sex is not a wrong, but William's friend clearly believes it to be so. To flip the coin, would she, or most people, talk to media about a homosexual person allegedly having sex with a heterosexual person? Most likely not.

Many people claim that they have no problems with love or sex between two members of the same sex (or gender), but the rhetoric tells otherwise. If people keep on trying to 'clear' a supposedly heterosexual person's name of speculations of sexual or emotional relationships with members of the same sex (or gender), it is no different from saying that heterosexual people are more worth in the eyes of the society. This is not so surprising, perhaps, considering that the norm is heterosexuality, and as many of us know, breaking norms is not always viewed favourably. Just because something is the norm, however, does not mean that it should be, or that other groups, thoughts or people should be marginalised or feel forced to justify why they are the way they are, why they think what they think or why they hold certain opinions.

Feeling attraction to someone of the same sex is just as valid as feeling attraction to someone of the opposite sex. Furthermore, love is love and can be just as beautiful, loving and caring no matter of the sexes or genders of the people involved in the love, no matter how many people are involved in it. Being heterosexual and monogamous is no guarantee of a 'better' relationship (if there is such a thing) and statistics of domestic violence can testify of this. The fact that domestic violence occurs in heterosexual monogamous relationships tells that it is not necessarily the most optimal form of relationship for everyone. Being in a heterosexual relationship is no guarantee against being hurt, abused or stuck in a destructive relationship. Being in a homosexual or polyamorous relationship is not either. Love is love regardless of who is or isn't involved in it, and it can be constructive or destructive regardless of who is involved. That someone therefore should have to have their name cleared from being able to love in a way that strives from the norm is absurd. Norm-breaking love is no less valid than any other form of love, and there is no need to make excuses for love, as long as it is consensual.

I will never make excuses for my friends' or family's love - their love is just as valid as mine, regardless if it is between people of the same sex, people of the opposite sex, people where one or more genders are undefined. They need not have me or anyone else make excuses for their love. Neither did Gareth Williams. He lived and he loved, it should have been left at that.

Another Victory of Love!

Some happy news: the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy (previous posts here) has finally been voted through in both the Senate and the House and all that seems to be standing between letting gay people openly serve in the US military is an approval of President Obama and his top military advisers. Seeing as one of Obama's election promises was to do away with this policy, it should not be a problem.

I've blogged before about love being love no matter in what shape and how certain kinds of love should not be judged because they strive from the heterosexual norm. Love is love, and love is always good as long as one is not stuck in a destructive spiral. Everyone can love and everyone should have the right to love whomever they wish without being judged. Our world needs all the love it can get, and this will certainly add to it. This is most certainly another victory of love!

To the Marine Corps and Army combat units: Grow up and get over it.

Asylum Seekers Having to Undergo "Arousal Tests"

I was hoping I had read enough horrible things for one day after posting the previous post not even an hour ago, but I was clearly wrong.

BBC reports that asylum seekers in the Czech Republic have had to undergo 'arousal tests' to determine whether or not they are truly gay, since being homosexual is a valid ground for seeking asylum. This is due to the appalling conditions that a lot of gay people face in their home countries, including violence, rape and persecution.

How this clear violation of human rights and integrity should be regarded as anything less than the persecution a lot of these men have to undergo in their home countries is unclear to me. The article reports that the men are made to watch heterosexual porn, and if they become aroused while watching, they are denied asylum. There is nothing to say that a man cannot get an erection from watching porn even if the actors are heterosexual. Besides, how is one tested if one is a bisexual male? As a bisexual male, having a relationship with a male is still going to make people do all sorts of atrocious things to you in the countries where homosexuality is illegal or completely unacceptable culturally.

Regardless of whether the test works or not, no one should have to go through sexual tests of any kind in order to determine whether or not someone should be granted asylum. According to the same logic, trafficked men and women should be ordered to perform certain sexual favours to prove that they are sex workers. (I know that being a sex worker, especially one held under coercion, doesn't automatically teaches you sex tricks, but it is a common misconception.) It is completely unacceptable, regardless of existing written consent. Come on, what are the asylum seekers going to do? Refuse to undergo the test and be sent back with all certainty? It is a ridiculous defence and would not hold anywhere.

This whole ordeal also strikes me as very unequal. Or perhaps they have thought of ways of testing lesbian women that I have not. I shudder at the sheer thought. Is this another one of those cases where male homosexuality is regarded at least doubly as 'awful' as women's? In either case, it is appalling.
Shame on you, Czech Republic!

Don't Ask, Don't Tell upheld by Supreme Court

The Guardian reports today that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It's sad that while court proceedings to assess whether DADT is unconstitutional or not, all the gay men and women who serve in the US military still have to live a life of secrecy.

However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court has not ruled that this is a fantastic policy to keep in place or that gay people do not deserve the same rights as straight people. They have only refrained from judgement in favour of upholding the ban while court proceedings are still taking place, i.e. while this case is appealed over and over again. They have thus not taken a stance on the issue of DADT itself and will refrain to do so until (and if) the case proper makes it to their courtroom.

Meanwhile, BBC reports, a leaked Pentagon survey shows that most military personnel does not have objections to end DADT. A quotation from the Guardian shows that the Pentagon has already taken steps toward a possible ending of the ban:

The Pentagon has already begun developing transition plans for accepting openly gay soldiers. Officials have advised gay service members to keep their sexual orientation secret while the court fight continues.

While it is still too early to predict how, and when, this is going to play out, and whether it will be through the legislative, executive pressure, or the judiciary, it is still a step in the right direction.

The Supreme Court deciding to allow the upholding of the DADT should not necessarily be viewed as a setback, rather as a postponement of something that is already long overdue.

(Huffington Post on the matter)

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but Actively Discriminate

It seems that the much longed for repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the USA which stops gay men and women from serving openly in the US army is facing some difficulties. While a court in California is currently trying to decide whether or not the policy is constitutional, it seems that if the DADT policy is going to be repealed, it is not going to be through the Senate, but through a long and difficult judicial process. Because the issue is such an inflamed one, with some people on the right being strongly against gays openly serving in the military, the process would not stop until it came before the Supreme Court. And what would happen there is impossible to say.

Personally, I don't see what the discussion is all about. Yes, DADT is unconstitutional and it is also discriminatory. It is a huge impairment of freedom of speech, which is supposed to be guaranteed in the First Amendment. If a gay person were to come out while employed by the military, he or she would not be allowed to keep his or her job. The only chance for a gay person to keep their job is to hide their identity. It is a situation where they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Furthermore, all American citizens are supposed to be equal before the law. The fourteenth amendment states that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How is it to be equal before the law when you can be discharged for falling in love with the same sex, but you cannot if you adhere to the social norm? This separation has been legal for 17 years. Inequality is, under DADT, institutionalised as well as legalised.

What really baffles me, however, are the arguments for keeping this ridiculous policy in place. NY Times writes:

In comments to reporters in California this weekend, General Amos said that ending the ban in the middle of two wars would involve “risk” for Marines, who, unlike other service members who generally have private quarters, share rooms to promote unity. “There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we’re talking our young men — laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers,” said General Amos, 63. “I don’t know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that’s what we’re looking at. It’s unit cohesion, it’s combat effectiveness.”

I simply do not understand what the problem is here. A gay man and a straight man sharing quarters? First of all, it would be ridiculous to assume that the gay man would automatically be attracted to the straight man on the basis of they being of the same sex. Arguing that would be just as ridiculous arguing that all men want to have sex with all women or are attracted by all women and vice versa. While I am sure there are some very sexual men and women out in the world, these are the exception, not the rule. All heterosexual men and women are not automatically attracted by each other, so why should all gay men and women be?

Secondly, assuming that the gay man or woman would be attracted by their quarter mate, why would that be a problem? Yes, sure, we all deal with people being attracted by us when we don't reciprocate those feelings, but we deal with them. Sometimes it is uncomfortable, but being adults, we will tell the person that we do not feel the same and then we will put it behind us. One-sided attraction would only be a problem if the person feeling the attraction would not respect the other person turning them down. I sure hope that General Amos doesn't automatically assume that being gay means you have no boundaries, because that would be just as ridiculous as assuming all gay men and women are attracted to each other. Not respecting boundaries is not inherent to homosexuality, otherwise we would not have heterosexual rape or any kind of heterosexual sexual assault, abuse etc.

Third, grown men and women should be able to handle homo and bisexuality. It is not beneficial for an individual or society as a whole to be narrow-minded and adhering to every norm as if they were social commandments written in stone. Without questioning and broadening our views, society will not move forward. It is because we have accepted things outside the social norm that society has been able to progress. Accepting social norms as some kind of unchallengeable truth is not going to achieve anything other than the stagnation of society. We need to continue being humans and bring forward the curiosity and the progressiveness.

Stop being afraid of that which you do not understand. Deal with your fears instead. It is absurd that people, in this day and age, should still be judged on whom they love. After all, it is the love that seems to be a problem here. How can love between two consenting adults be ugly or wrong? I would rather think that it is the hatred and intolerance that is wrong, that distorts society. Stop projecting your fears onto other people. Just deal with it.

Proposition 8 and the Victory of Love

I truly do not understand this whole thing about homosexuality as a dangerous or wrong thing. I don't believe that love in any form can be dangerous as long as it is not a destructive relationship and I don't believe that same sex relationships are in any way more often destructive than are opposite sex relationships. This is why I am so happy that a federal judge in California recently overruled proposition 8, a proposition that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and thus effectively bans any marriage between two men or two women.

Now, as I have stated in a previous blog post, I have issues with the institution of marriage and I don't ever plan on getting married myself, but I strongly believe that if a man and a woman have the right to get married, so should a man and a woman be able to marry someone of the same sex if they so wish. Who am I, or anyone else, to say that their love is less valid or less strong than a marriage between two people of the opposite sex? Surely there are several men and women in the world who marry someone of the opposite sex for reasons other than love: financial, unexpected pregnancies, parental pressure, green cards, visas or what will you. If these people are allowed to marry each other for reasons other than love, why should two people who love each other not be allowed to marry each other? The point being, someone else's marriage is none of my business. I am not part of it, and it is illegal for me to be part of it in a lot of countries in the world, so therefore how/when/why they marry is between them. I do not have the right, nor should I have the right, to tell them when they are to marry and who they are to marry. As long as the people getting married are consenting adults, naturally.

In proposition 8, the issue was never whether the parties were consenting adults or not. The issue was instead some people trying to define what love is, according to their narrow framework. Love is endless and vast. It is friendship, family and sexual. It is between men and women, men and men, and women and women. It can be both constructive and destructive. It can be both beautiful and insane. Whatever form it takes, however, it always starts in the individual and it is always subjective. This is why no court in any form can judge what love is and isn't and why there should be no narrow definitions of it. I don't know how my straight friend loves her boyfriend or husband, and so I can also not know how my gay friend loves her girlfriend or wife. It is not for me to say.

To reiterate, I truly do not understand people who are against homosexuality or the rights of these individuals. For that is what we ultimately are, individuals. Why should we have to be defined or judged by whom we love and why should our right be distributed accordingly? The overruling of proposition 8 is a victory for love and for the spreading of love, for not narrowing it down to some outdated definition and for letting it grow. Let's hope it's allowed to stay like this.

There’s this anti-gay Senator (Roy Ashburn) who recently got arrested for a DUI while leaving a gay club. While, personally I don’t believe sexual preferences have anything to do with politics, it is a matter of the private sphere, in this case that rule does not apply.

This Senator is someone who has previously given the impression he is against gay rights and this is one of the things his constituencies expect from him. When he then, doesn’t practice as he preaches, it is highly relevant to his politics and to the people who possibly vote for his policies on the matter.

Just the other day, however, Senator Ashburn came out as gay. If anyone of you have ever wondered if the people in the Republican Party truly are anti-gay, here’s your answer. I do not believe for a second that Senator Ashburn’s view on gay rights are coherent with what he really thinks. Surely this man is not denying something so fundamental to his own being as his rights. I mean, if he is still anti-gay, then he is anti himself and I, for one, does not see this as something that would work.

In either case, I am happy for this man, that he has finally admitted to himself and his loved ones that he is gay. I just hope that the people who voted for him will accept him too, because in my opinion, he is not less qualified as a politician just because his sexual preferences.

If this blog looks weird, it’s because I’m trying out this new application called MacJournal which is supposed to make it easier for me to play around with settings in my blog.