On Women And Hair

So, I'm loving on Autostraddle right now, and I just found this post about haircuts (read the comments for more discussion). It's primarily about long hair vs. short hair when you're a lesbian, but it got me thinking about something I read somewhere the other day/week/month/year about long vs. short for women in their 20s. This second article I'm referring to was likely geared toward straight women, although of course pretty much nobody clarifies that because duh, of course we're talking about straight people, right?!? I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it.

Anyway, apparently I'm not the only 20-something woman feeling torn over long vs. short hair; this article claimed it has to do with age, and that since long hair is associated with youth, and short hair is associated with maturity, much like in the rest of our lives, 20-something women can't figure out whether we're adults or not.

The point is, why do women have to worry about their hair so much? Do gay men worry about what their haircut is "communicating"? Seriously, someone tell me. I don't know any straight dudes who care too much; for example, my boyfriend's qualifications for a haircut are as follows:

1. Doesn't make me look like a tool
2. Allows me to wear baseball caps

 He doesn't worry, in a specific fashion, about how people will interpret his appearance; he just doesn't want to look stupid. The biggest thing he worries about is whether freshly-cut hair should go above or over his ears (he only worries about this because he doesn't know which it's "supposed" to be; I solved this conundrum by accompanying him to his latest haircut and telling the stylist to cut it above). Of course, I'm not sure if this a straight dude thing or just an SBT* thing; SBT is, in general, astoundingly indifferent to the opinions of others (except mine, of course :D).

It just seems to me that women have to think more about how they present themselves to the world--but maybe it's just marginalized groups in general. I hear that some black people worry about natural hair vs. relaxed; I read something written by an Asian-American woman that discussed hair as a cultural signal. I'm sure haircut/style can be pretty important to those of non-"traditional" gender presentation, as well as to non-cissexual people; but is that different? Are those individuals who use their hair as communication glad of the opportunity to do so? More or less glad than a cisgendered white woman who loves using her hair as a tool?

Discuss?

If anyone read this blog, I could hope for some replies that would help educate me. However, the only readers I'm certain of are pretty much just like me, so, yeah. Such is life. Anyone?

*Strange Bearded Thing, which is boyfriend's newly adopted name on this blog

On Two Days Of Inattention And The GOP

I took a two-day break from the Internets this week. I went snowshoeing, drank tequila, saw my parents and sisters and brother, had dinner with my boyfriend's parents, drank coffee, and laughed until my sides ached.

I returned from my two-day break tonight, only to discover that, while I was out enjoying life despite all of the shit in it, Republicans want to "eliminate the word 'victim' from statutes dealing with stalking, rape, obscene telephone contact with a child and family violence and replace it with 'accuser'" and de-fund programs that prevent sexual assault and domestic violence along with oh so many more programs for women and children.

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but, I'm not.

TWO. FUCKING. DAYS.

On Queerness And Wearing Men's Clothes

I'm wearing, quite literally, boyfriend jeans. As in, jeans that belong to my boyfriend. He's a good 11.5" taller than I, which means the inseam on these things is unbelievably long, and despite subjective appearances, he's only skinny for his height, which means that a belt is absolutely a requirement. But, they are comfortable as hell.

And I sure do love some butch in my outfits sometimes.

Here's the thing: queer, as I see it, can be both innate and constructed, all at the same time. From what my little sister has told me, if I said anything about queerness around a lot of the people she knew in college (she went to a small women's college in California), I probably would be laughed down, or accused of appropriation or something. When Little Sister returned to school for senior year in a relationship with a cismale, she was told she wasn't "queer enough" to discuss queerness; her boyfriend was referred to as "the bioman"; she was presumed to be heteronormative simply by virtue of being in a relationship that was, in terms of outward appearance, heterosexual.

Now, I don't presume to assign any labels to my sister's relationship, which is now a marriage, but it seems to me that a group of self-identified queers claiming to understand my sister's relationship better than she herself did seems terribly condescending and presumptuous. Haven't queers, and LGBT folk, fought so long for the right to define themselves on their own terms, without being forcibly assigned identities based on nothing more than guesswork--or cultural precedent?

Anyway, my point is, we all have a little queer in us--or so goes my opinion. Maybe I'm appropriating; I don't think I am. How the fuck do you know whether I'm "queer enough" or not, anyway? You don't even know me--not really. Who does? Being in a biologically heterosexual relationship and queerness are not mutually exclusive.

I had a discussion with Strange Bearded Thing (this is my new term for the Boyfriend) last night about my defensiveness; see, I'm used to people disagreeing with me. I'm used to saying things and having them questioned, or having myself questioned, or whatever; this is a standard experience for anyone female-coded in this society, of course. Used to be, my response to this was to back down--to doubt myself. I also began meticulously constructing my arguments before opening my mouth, in order to have everything all laid out, in anticipation of resistance. Bolstered by thoroughly thought-out thoughts, backing down gave way to bristling, to defensiveness.

So, my point is, I might be defensive about my claim to queerness; this is to explain why.

Back to queerness, and how it can be both innate and constructed. It's not really that difficult; just think about it for a minute. I guess all I'm saying is that when I do something to my external appearance that communicates culturally-understood queerness, that's a construction of queerness. I could do this regardless of whether or not I felt I was innately queer, but I think the desire to externally code oneself as queer kind of makes one queer, y'know? Even if you're heterosexual/heteronormative to the max, messing with your gender presentation is a queer action.

And I'm not heterosexual to the max; I just happened to fall in love with a cismale.

Incidentally, I love this Autostraddle Boyshorts 101 article.

Save Us From The OMGZ!Liberal!Media!

I just read an interesting article. Dated February 29, 2008, the headline is "McCain's Panama birth prompts eligibility probe by his campaign".

As precedent, the article describes the case of Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state. He was allowed to run for president, losing to Lyndon Johnson. The main point is that John McCain was born in Panama while his military father was stationed there.

Jill Hazelbaker, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said the request for legal help was purely routine, while The New York Times, the first mainstream news outlet to run the story, drew fire from conservative commentators for raising the issue at all.

At present, it appears Democrats have little interest in pursuing the matter.

(emphasis mine.)

Does anyone else find it odd that I'm only now hearing about this? Does anyone else find it odd that there are still members of the Tea Party railing on about "WHERE'S OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE?" Does anyone else find it odd that the so-called "liberal media" picked up the Obama birth furor, yet didn't really seem to care about McCain?

Obama was born in a U.S. state. McCain was born on a U.S. military base in an area controlled by the U.S. at the time. But, oh, yeah, Obama is black. He must be a secret Kenyan citizen, or secret Muslim, or secret Enemy Of America!, but McCain is white, so he's obviously a Patriot!, or a MilitaryAmerican!

No On 3

Personal Breakthroughs for 600, Alex

I've just had an epiphany--an epiphany about myself. (Incidentally, this is one of my essential characteristics of a critical thinker--the ability to continually discover new things about oneself.) Throughout high school and college, I received several Bs. Each time, as one would expect from an ordinarily straight-A student, I decided on a reason for the B--in order to internalize and deal with the situation, and thus move on from my perceived failure. I offer a list of the Bs that stand out in my mind, with accompanying reasons for their existence.

Chemistry (High School): I'm bad at science.
Pre-Calculus (High School): I'm two years ahead in math.
Gender and Society (College): I skipped some classes that resulted in missed quizzes, and I didn't like the professor.
History 105 (College): I never went to class.
Forensic Science (College): I'm bad at science.
Linguistics (College): Lingustics is hard, and I'm not really interested in it.
Anatomy and Physiology (College): I'm bad at science.

Notice any patterns there?

With the exception of any "I'm bad at science" answer, every reason on that list is completely valid. I was indeed two years ahead in math; I did indeed never go to class; Linguistics is indeed hard and uninteresting (to me, anyway). In retrospect, I got a B in forensic science because the course was heavy on entomology, which I am decidedly not interested in. I got a B in Anatomy and Physiology because the course was heavy on physiology, and I hadn't taken a basic biology course in about 5 years, and hence was rusty on central topics like cell function and replication, enzymes, the like. Straight-A students are monsters in that they expect to consistently excel; when I got a B--a B, for chrissake!--I assumed I was bad at something.

Except, not always. I didn't assume I was bad at math when I got a B in pre-calc; I rightly recognized that I was in an advanced course and so found it a bit challenging. I didn't assume I was bad at gender studies when I got a B in it; I rightly recognized that I didn't like the professor, and so skipped class as as well as failed to give the course the time and attention I should have. I just kind of blew it off. But these are things I've always known I'm good at; I've always been good at math, and since I usually got As in my major, I knew I wasn't bad at anthropology, just didn't care about Gender and Society. I also didn't decide I was bad at anthropology just because Linguistics is hard; I didn't dismiss an entire field just because one piece of it was hard for me.

So. Why do I think I'm bad at science? I'm clearly not. I did exceptionally well in classes on things like evolution, human biological diversity, research-oriented statistics,  and archaeology--all clearly science-based topics. As an anthropologist, I have regularly excelled in an field that relies on scientific methods to explore cultural and societal issues. Now, if I were really bad at science--the fucking foundation of most of the things I'm good at--how could I possibly be good at anthropology?

I can think of two possible reasons.

1. We did a lot more of everything else besides science when I was homeschooled; it was more a function of a homeschool environment lacking equipment rather than because my mom is a bad teacher or doesn't know anything about science. When I started public school, I had less of a science foundation than most of my peers; consequently, I may not have excelled as easily at science as I did in other subjects, leading to the belief that I was naturally less adept.
2. My culture tells me women are bad at science.

Both, maybe?

My point is, I'm not bad at science. I am currently a scientist, and I'm damn good at it. I decided against forensic anthropology because I thought I'd be bad at it, but I probably shouldn't have. Getting lost in an entomology class doesn't mean I can't be a forensic anthropologist; getting a B in Anatomy and Physiology because I lacked a solid cellular biology foundation doesn't mean I'm bad at physical science. Even if I'd taken an actual forensic anthropology course and gotten a B, all it would have meant was that I'd have to work a little bit harder at forensic anthropology than I had to at, say, the trigonometry course in which I earned roughly a 99% and learned absolutely nothing.

In Which I Ineffectually Rail Against Illogical, Uncritical Thinking

A 'discussion' just took place in my living room, between my father and I, within easy hearing of my 13-year-old brother. This 'discussion' began with my father denouncing the Westboro Baptist Church for their "abuse of free speech", as demonstrated by the whole "Everyone but us is going to hell", and ended with my father defending Sarah Palin's "right to free speech", as demonstrated by the whole "Don't retreat...RELOAD" crosshairs fiasco. I am also apparently not allowed to tell my dad what some people are saying, because he apparently knows exactly what everyone is saying at any given time.

Please, someone explain this to me; explain to me, as though I were a child, because I feel as though I must be since I fail to grasp the logic here, why one group of people is 'evil' when they express their hatred of other groups, but another group is 'within their rights' when they express violent desires and tendencies resulting from their hatred of other groups.

Seriously. Please. Explain.

If a string of murders occurred wherein the victims were Catholics and members of the military, you can bet the Westboro Baptist Church would be blamed for their indirect involvement. When a string of murders occurrs wherein the victims are abortion doctors and Democratic senators, the spewing of violence-themed hatred toward liberals, which includes abortion doctors and Democratic senators, as expressed by the likes of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter, is apparently completely unrelated.

Oh, and where are all the murders of pro-life advocates, Republican politicians, NRA members, and religious leaders that should be happening because, clearly, both sides are just as bad? If these events were really just the work of two mentally ill individuals, operating in a vacuum, acting merely by virtue of mental illness, completely unaffected by the culture and society in which they exist, why is it always the liberals who get shot?

P.S. If you disagree with the idea that rightwing rhetoric has affected and is currently affecting the present climate as well as the context of Dr. Tiller's murder and the Tuscon massacre, please read this before presenting arguments.