Frangible

As a young and semi-liberal lesbian, I've developed quite the luscious list of strong and empowering female role models. They vary from the women I've known intimately to the women I've read about in books to the women who have graced history and when I'm feeling down or lost about something, I usually turn to one of these women to help inspire me to find some kind of footing. Once, when I was having a bad day and I could feel the anxiety attack approaching, I took an hour between classes and read the end of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland." I instantaneously felt better. Somehow the naive and spunky nature of this daydream-driven character helped me see that there is value in the crazy, yet extraordinary moments of life and that obsessive organization doesn't make life inherently better, (a lesson I've been forced to learn time and time again.) It's dorky, I know, but the list of fictional characters who have inspired me to be better is more than extensive.

But there is one woman, a real-life woman, who above all, never ceases to be my all-time inspiration. That woman is Maya Angelou. Maya is the woman that inspired me to become a writer; she is an incredibly strong woman and her writing perfectly exemplifies that strength, but it wasn't until I saw Maya in person that she became a true inspiration for me. Maya's writings do have an undeniable and unparalleled strength, but in person Maya is soft and gentle and quite the vulnerable female and I find that soo inspiring. Her soft, quiet nature doesn't muffle her strength, but rather accentuates it. Our society, so often, puts down women that appear vulnerable or frangible (sidenote: frangible is one of my favorite words, I use it all the time; it means "easily breakable," like as if someone was trying to say 'fragile' and 'breakable' at the same time and it came out as 'frangible' and then they just decided that it would be a word and now it is)...anyways...we put down women that appear frangible, because as a society we uphold strength, which is an admirable value to uphold, but not if it teaches women that being vulnerable and being strong are mutually exclusive, because I think that nothing could be further from the truth.

Lately, I've been putting a lot of effort into striving to be imperfect, which, I know, is an odd way to look at it, but in actuality I think that it's a productive way to look at it. Because perfection is so unattainable; when perfection becomes your ultimate goal, I think that you end up sacrificing a lot in order to get it. I have a very aggressive desire to be a strong woman, but sometimes in my quest to be a strong woman, I end up taking on the facade of strength, rather than actualizing strength; which I think makes me weaker, not stronger. Part of being a strong woman is having the strength to offer yourself compassion; the compassion to know that you don't have to be perfect to be great, that you don't have to hide from your history to move forward. And that part of being a strong woman is having the strength to accept yourself exactly as you are, even if that means embracing your frangible-ness.

One of the biggest lessons I've learned as a gay woman is that embracing exactly who are doesn't mean embracing the things that make you feel comfortable, it means offering yourself the compassion to feel whatever it is you're feeling and to go after whatever it is you want, no matter what (or who) it is you want. That's what makes a strong woman; not the facade of strength, but the actualization of strength. That's something I learned from Maya and I think that it's invaluable.

Faceplace

At least once a day, and often times it is more than once a day, I am reminded of the fact that I was assuredly born in the wrong decade. Don't get me wrong, as a women, and especially as a gay woman, I'm grateful that I live in a time when I can freely be my hyper, nerdy, independent self...but more often than not I feel out of place and awkward in our current century.

There are lots of things that I don't understand about our modern day times...like why there are four-thousand kinds of shampoo, or why we need an automated machine to open a can of tuna, or how someone thought that casting Jack Black in a movie about the first year on Earth was a good or gainful or entertaining idea. But more than anything, the thing that makes me feel the most out of place in our current century is the technology that permeates our everyday lives. For me, technology has always had that cold and unwelcoming feeling and so I never learned how to use it or to become comfortable with it. Frankly, I find reading the paper on actual paper incredibly simple and sweet. I find that the pictures that I've developed on my own hold more value and invoke a stronger emotion than the ones I developed in Kinkos. I find sitting down for an actual cup of coffee with friends more fulfilling than an acronym-infested conversation over a computer screen.

I don't have any of those twitter/myspace/facebook accounts and I have functioned just fine...until now. In 21 days I'm moving and I'm discovering that being able to have four conversations at once could, perhaps, be productive. One of the positive things about a social networking account is that saying goodbye to your not-so-close acquaintances doesn't have to be such a big deal; you can justify your half-hearted farewell with the somewhat comforting thought that you're still cyberly connected. But because I'm not cyberly connected to my not-so-close acquaintances, I'm going on an excessive amount of one-on-one coffee dates in order to say goodbye. And as much I prefer and love the face-to-face conversations, I have 21 days left in Portland and more than 21 acquaintances.

So I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I'm not sure how much time there will be for the blogosphere over the next couple of weeks. I'll try, but my next post might just be from the big city of York.

Ouch...

Gay marriage has been a major topic of discussion in the blogosphere since Prop8 ads starting appearing on television. It's a topic of discussion that I feel ill equipped for. I'm gay, but nowhere near being married and I have a difficult time finding my footing when it comes to this conversation. Despite my weary feelings, I've thrown my blog into the depths of this discussion here and here, and I'll do it again.

This week the United States Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss in the case Smelt v. United States of America, a legal suit that challenges the Defense of Marriage Act. The plaintiffs, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, are a gay couple legally married in California that are suing the Government for the entitlement of federal benefits allotted for married couples.

DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, was signed into law in 1996, when the conversation about same-sex marriage was beginning to present itself in the courts. As a means for maintaining status quo, President Clinton signed DOMA into law in order to preserve the already existing definition of marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act ensures that 1) states that do not authorize same-sex marriage do not have to uphold the same-sex marriages of other states (which is contrary to Article IV of the constitution which says that states have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states) and 2) the federal government does not have to treat same-sex "relationships" as marriage for any purpose, even if the couple's state of residence recognizes same-sex marriage. In other words, states hold jurisdiction when it comes to the laws of marriage, but through DOMA, the federal government waved the responsibility of honoring that jurisdiction. **From a legal and unbiased perspective, DOMA, in it's inception, wasn't an unreasonable or inconsistent piece of legislation. Its purpose was to create the opportunity for a "wait-and-see" approach, to allow states the freedom to explore same-sex marriage without the federal government having to get involved or sidetrack their current agenda. It didn't take away the freedom of control that states have when it comes to the laws of marriage, and helped the more conservative states to not feel as threatened by the conversation...the "wait-and-see" approach was understandable, but let's not forget that 1996 was 13 years ago. The dating stage is over, it's time to make a decision: propose or move on.**

Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer are not fighting for the generalized equality of gay marriage, they are fighting for the equality of their already existing marriage. They're not asking the courts to make an ethical, moral, or legal decision on the validity of same-sex marriage, they're asking the courts to validate the federal benefits of their current marriage. The U.S. Government's response to the same-sex suit was to file a 54-page document that 1) calls for a motion to dismiss and 2) defends DOMA as a valid piece of legislation.

The brief reads like a High School speech and debate paper. It's unorganized. It lacks focus. It has no thesis. It's as if the assistant attorney general wrote down every thought that could possibly be construed as an argument and then accidentally submitted it to the courts. Here are some points in the brief that stood out to me...

-The brief constantly uses the word "experimental marriage" when talking about same-sex marriage. Nothing pisses me off more than when people in power label homosexuality as an idea, as if it's something that exists outside of a personal realm. Homosexuality wasn't made in a science lab. Equality for the gay community isn't something that you can test out, altering variables until the laws reach the solution that everyone's happy with. We are hardly an experiment and I don't buy the excuse that the wording is "legal jargon."

-The Justice Department's most legally backed argument is that marriage isn't a fundamental right and therefore denying someone the benefits of marriage isn't unconstitutional. Ummm....like in the same way that eating at a restaurant or drinking from a water fountain isn't a fundamental right? or sitting down on a bus isn't a fundamental right? I don't understand how people don't see that it's the same thing. It might not be a life and death issue, but that doesn't mean that the legislation isn't wrong.

-One of the arguments that Smelt and Hammer use in their case is that DOMA violates their rights under the equal protection law. The U.S. Justice Department's response to that argument is that DOMA doesn't discriminate against the "individuals" and therefore doesn't violate anyone's rights. A gay woman or a gay man can receive federal benefits, but same-sex "relationships" aren't acknowledged as marriage and so those "relationships" don't receive the same benefits. In what world is that valid logic? That it's not the "individuals" that are discriminated against, but the "relationships." Does that make it better? or is it that you can receive the federal benefits of marriage as long as you deny who you are...is that their argument? The brief also argues that gay individuals that get married are allowed the same benefits they received before they got married, "they remain eligible for every benefit they enjoyed beforehand" and therefore DOMA is not a violation of their fundamental rights. So, in other words, because gay "individuals" aren't treated as second-class citizens, we should just be happy with what we have. Stop complaining.

I'm not going to pretend to be politically naive. I understand that until the Obama administration decides, if they decide, to make a change to DOMA, they have to defend the current legislation. Obama ran a seamless campaign and has, assuredly, been aiming to run a seamless presidency, and a top-down change to legislation is a much more credible method of operation than a court battle ruling. I also understand that altering/abolishing DOMA isn't a priority for the administration and I don't fault them for that. But it's one thing to defend the legislation and motion to dismiss a case like this because it's not the right time or it's not how the administration wants to handle the issue. It's a completely different thing to write a 54-page document that explains in excruciating detail that it would be absurd for this new form of experimental marriage to be recognized by the federal government; that in no way does DOMA violate anyone's constitutional rights, and it's ridiculous that anyone would assume that it does. There was no need for that brief to be as vulgar and contemptuous as it was. There aren't very many times in my life when I feel inconsequential and this was one of those times.

P.S. I don't trust people that strive to appear perfect; I think that to actualize the appearance of perfection you have to sacrifice the things that brought you integrity in the first place. And I don't mean to cut down the president, but now might be the time for me to say, "told you so." It's more than likely that our president didn't read this brief before it was submitted, so it's hard to hold too much against him, but if he wants to keep his perfect-esque stature, he might want to send out a memo to get everyone on the same page. Or maybe he could hold one of those meetings in a movie theater. Or make a power-point presentation. Mr. President, I'm throwing out gold here.

The Great Equalizer

In less than six weeks I move to New York City and recently I realized that I am not anywhere near being ready to pack up my life and head out east. It feels as if my "to do list" has been mysteriously enchanted, because every time I cross an item off that said list, ten more items magically appear. So I decided to take a little trip to The Big Apple in the hopes that I could...
1)get some of the residency paperwork out of the way;
2)get a more accurate, less media-driven sense of what life in NYC will be like, and therefore alleviate some of the relentless anxiety that has been creeping into my packing process;
3)get a sneak-peak of my temporary living situation and, again, alleviate some of that incessant anxiety; and
4)further cement the idea into my mind, that this move IS actually happening.

I flew out for Laguardia on Monday at noon and headed back to Portland on Tuesday at 6:30pm; in other words, I was in New York City for less than 24 hours, half of which were spent in the airport or the hotel room. My momentary trip was so brief mostly because I am in the middle of finals and couldn't afford to miss any school, and while my trip was productive and goal-achieving...it equally blew up in my face.

I'll start with the bad news. My trip was productive, but the remainder of my week back home was not. My glimpse into life in the big city has seemed to put me into a sort-of trance and I can't manage to get anything done. I am more than ready to start the next chapter of my life, but part of the moving process includes creating closure in life's current chapter. I still have six weeks in Portland; I have finals, I have work to wrap-up, I have people to say goodbye to, and more than anything, I want this move to be about creating new things, not running away from old ones. Seeing New York has put me in a new york state of mind and I can't seem to keep my head in Portland, but the couch isn't going to create closure and I refuse to leave with the possibility of regrets.

While my trip did leave me with idle hands, it additionally brought about an unexpected revelation. One of my biggest fears about moving to New York City is the somewhat trivial fear that I'm not fashionable enough to live in New York City. After I had taken care of all the things on my itinerary, I had about an hour or so to kill before I had to head back to the airport. I decided that I'd take a stab at navigating the subway system, so I found stairs leading to a shuttle, which lead me to an express train to midtown, which lead me to 42nd and Broadway. At first I was incredibly intimidated and overwhelmed; you come out from that subway station and you walk right into Macy's (THE Macy's) and you look down Broadway and the Times Square sign is staring you in the face. And then I started walking around. And then I started noticing something.

The city is big. The city is overwhelming. The city is chaotic. All of that is undeniable, but because the city itself is so big, the people in it seem small. Everyone walks amongst the same skyscrapers and stops at the same crosswalk. The enormity of the city encapsulates everyone. It's as if the city is the great equalizer. While I was walking down Broadway, towards Times Square, I noticed people sitting in the middle of the street drinking coffee and I had the thought "I do that. I drink coffee with my friends after work." Maybe not in the middle of the biggest, most notorious street in the country, but none the less, the action is the same. The buildings might be taller and the streets might extend farther, but people are people, and that doesn't change just because you change a location.

P.S. My mother didn't believe that people sit in the middle of the street in midtown (or at least she insisted that it was for a parade, in which I offered the rebuttal that the middle of the street might not be where you'd want to sit during a parade.) In case you also don't believe me, here's the proof.

Promiscuous Girl

Recently, I got into a heated discussion with a straight friend of mine. She was trying to casually and lackadaisically suggest that it was time for me to grow-up. While probing her ('probing' might be too soft of a term; it was more like a targeted inquest than a casual query) about what she meant, I came to the insight that she was trying to refer to my sex life. (DISCLAIMER: I met this friend at Bible College and am, most likely, her only friend outside of that reclusive-like environment. I love my friend, but I take most of her advice with a grain of clear-headed sensibility. And while she might consider my behavior *slutty*, I refuse to label myself as such.) I can be a tad-bit promiscuous and I feel no shame in admitting that. I don't have a girlfriend or a venereal disease, so I feel no ethical distress in fucking whoever I want, whenever I want.

While I don't agree with my friend's view, I understand where her thought-process originated from. I have been vocal about the fact that I want to be a wife and a mom, and in a rudimentary way of thinking, if those are the things that I value, then promiscuity doesn't tend to be the path that leads to those things. However, in a more all-encompassing picture, I enjoy being single, like REALLY enjoy being single, and while I would love to have a wife and kids someday, that day is certainly not today. My desire to eventually have a family doesn't invalidate my present-day desire to get laid; and I don't think that those two desires contradict themselves.

It's not just my religious friends, either. I feel like there is a double-standard. That because I can name everyone on the Supreme Court or I can draw you a map of Middle Eastern geography, that I'm not supposed to be promiscuous. That it would be totally fine for me to be *easy* if I was a hot, leggy blond in the entertainment business, but because I'm a well-read, witty brunette in the publishing business, I should be able to control myself. OR it would be fine for me to be promiscuous if my promiscuity was the result of something; like heartbreak or mommy issues or religious repression. (Okay...I was religiously repressed, but my promiscuity isn't the result of that repression. I'm sure of it.) But none of those things ring true for me, so my loose views on sex are interpreted as immature behaviors that shouldn't represent who I am as a woman. I say: Bullshit! I say: Who cares if I find women alluring and then decide to act on that allure. (I think that my Post-Prop8 frustration might be reincarnating itself in this topic.)It's just sex and there is nothing wrong with enjoying it...and just because I don't have a steady partner, doesn't mean I should enjoy sex less than the person who does.

My life is often one big anxiety-fest, so when an element of my life becomes reposed or nonchalant, I embrace it for all that it's worth, because that feeling doesn't come around very often for me. Sex has become one of those things. In all honesty, I don't know how it happened; I don't know how I became able to separate sexual attraction from whole attraction or the act of sex from the materialization of love...it kind of just happened. But am I supposed to apologize for it just because people don't understand it or can't actualize it in their own life or because they think that it's a below par way to act as a woman?

Year of the Stumble

Today is my 24th birthday! and I am officially declaring the year ahead, the "Year of the Indomitable." In many ways I feel like this is my year to conquer and achieve, to actualize the things in my life that previously seemed unreachable, and to relish in the joys that come when you approach life in an unyielding manner.

I think that my 23rd year of life should be most appropriately called the "Year of the Stumble." I truly believe that there is nothing shameful in stumbling; whether you're stumbling out of an extremely difficult time, or you're stumbling because it's dark and you can't find your footing, or you're stumbling simply because you lost your balance. Whatever it might be, or even if there isn't a reason to it, a person who stumbles is a person who doesn't give up; a person who stumbles is a person who fights to gain their balance, even though they know that gravity (or any outward force stronger than ourselves) will most likely take over; a person who stumbles is a person who keeps their feet moving, no matter what obstacles stand in their way. Stumbling should be admired and commended, not hidden and forgotten or worse, treated like a lesser way to live your life. (I'm not saying that I want to aim to stumble through life, but when life gets hard, as it often does, there is nothing paltry or dishonorable in letting go of grace and poise for a moment in order to get your life back on track.)

The above lesson might be one of my favorite lessons learned during the "Year of the Stumble." I am a tiny bit obsessive compulsive (shocker, I'm sure), and my life was beginning to resemble that of a checklist, rather than that of a journey. Checklists can be useful, to take things one at a time can be productive, but I became so rigid in my checklist disposition that I lost sight of the missed opportunities passing me by. I would successfully complete a task on my metaphorical checklist and then move on to the next item, but what I came to realize about that mentality is that it didn't allow for growth; I wasn't allowing myself to reevaluate. If I was walking down a figurative path and then came across a different path, one filled with beautiful flowers that could, perhaps, lead me to an extraordinary view, I would 'tag it' in my mind and then diligently proceed with my current path, forcing myself to believe that I could always come back when I was finished with the current task, but I never actualized that thought. There is nothing wrong with diligence, it is an admirable trait, but I was using diligence as an avoidance tactic...to hide from the fear of advancing down a path that perhaps didn't lead to an extraordinary view. I want my life to be about taking chances and growing into a woman that I'm proud of, not playing it safe and becoming tedious or trite.

This year I also learned to LOVE my sexuality. When I came out, at 22, I embraced my sexuality, but I did not love that I was a homosexual. It was kind of like my feelings on running. I don't love running (I don't hate it, but I don't love it), but I go running because I want to live to see my someday-children grow old. I want to be the best mom I can be and that includes living a long, healthy life...which means getting up and going running. I don't love it, but I do it. In that same fashion, I didn't love realizing that I was gay, but I accepted it, and I even accepted it with open arms, because I wanted to experience the kind of love that moves mountains and I was never going to experience that kind of love if I forced that kind of love with a man. Women make me all tingly inside, men don't; I was well aware of who gave me butterflies and who didn't. I didn't love it, but I embraced it. And then, I started living my life as a gay woman. I came out (read: changed my facebook status...ha, jk, I don't have facebook), I added homosexual "slogan buttons" to my messenger bag, I started reading Portland's gay publication. (Everytime a new issue would come out I would pick one event from the publications calendar and then promise myself I would go to the said event; at first I went to educational events like seminars or book clubs, then I started going to the actual clubs, then I started going to events where you had to have an actual conversation.) I started having gay sex. I started writing a gay blog. And then I started really loving being gay. Having pride is one thing, and I had pride from the very early stages (assuredly because I am so narcissistic), but loving your sexuality is a completely different thing. It is freeing to love who you are. And what I love the most... is that I started loving my sexuality before I loved someone else.

I am not afraid to say that this year has been filled with my fuck-ups. I lost contact with friends I cared deeply about. I closed the door so firmly on Christianity that it will take years upon years to gain any kind of footing back. I spent more than a few Saturday nights at home, only because I, stubbornly, didn't want to hang out with one particular person. I let other people's opinions about my life get the better of me. AND today is a new day! Today starts the "Year of the Indomitable" and with my feet planted assuredly beneath me and a set of values in place to help illuminate my path, I'm ready to get this show on the road. Cheers to what will be a fantastic year!

P.S. Other people with my birthday: John Wayne, the first woman astronaut, and...drum roll please...Stevie Nicks. May 26th is a day that births cool ass motherfuckers.

It's All About Sex(y) Ladies!

It has been quite the dramatic week; so I thought, as an exercise in relaxation, I'd talk about some of my favorite ladies! What could be more relaxing than beautiful women?


Khloe Kardashian
Khloe is the youngest of the Kardashian sisters, but in many ways she takes on the role of the self-assured, accountable one. She is sarcastic and goofy, and she knows who she is and what she wants. She perfectly exemplifies how women can be strong, yet soft and sexy, yet warm ALL at the same time. Her heart is bigger than her fame or her family or her fashion (which, p.s., is totally killer). Khloe first started appearing in my dreams after I saw her PETA ad, which is the most carnally beautiful picture ever taken. Though sometimes outrageous and inappropriate, she has a smile that would make the sun jealous. Not to mention her fantaaastic boobies.



Elisabeth Hasselbeck
I know. I know! I will forever be further blackboxed from the lesbian community for outing my Hasselbeck crush, but I can't help it...she's hot. I don't agree with 93% of the things that come out of her mouth, but at least she has a viewpoint; at least she comes to her exposition from a grounded perspective (unlike a certain someone who sits to her right). She values Homeland Security and traditionalistic families and her views on politics and life stem from those values; those are NOT things that I value, but that, alone, doesn't make her opinion unfounded or stupid. The truth...is that it takes an incredible amount of strength to say what she says in a time when media is as liberal as it is. And her ratings would go through the roof if she were to wear those glasses more often.



Mary Alice (from "Ace of Cakes")
She is yummy!!! and any girl that works with cake all day is the girl for me. (p.s. she's married...to a man) She says things like "flipped a gasket" and "thank you for being the super dooper double plus awesomest ever." She appeals to my obsessive dorky nature, which sometimes makes me forget that she runs one of the most notable cake shops in the country. Her ability to sit down with a client, understand exactly what it is they want, and then relay that vision to the cake decorators, who then produce an impressively perfect cake; well, it's super dooperly awesome and it's a trait that, I'm sure, is fantastic in a wife. And she rocks the Madonna-inspired headset like the rock star she is.



The Supernanny
She is stunning. She has that accent. She's demanding and bossy...it's nice.










Meghan McCain
Meghan has yet to stay hidden from any of my sexy late-night dreams. She is beyond gorgeous and beyond smart and beyond ballsy. She holds her own when in the company of any news-media giant like Rachel Maddow, Ann Coulter, and even Karl Rove. She is incredibly honest; honest about her opinions, honest about the things she doesn't politically understand, honest about the fact that she has a unique, a more free, platform because she's not running for office (and she's been honest about the fact that she has no intention to). Nepotism assuredly played into her career, but she wouldn't still be around if she wasn't smart enough to play with the big boys. More than her refreshingly moderate viewpoint or her fabulously fashionable closet, the thing that I admire the most about Meghan McCain is her amazing ability to welcome the judgement and criticism; she embraces conversation, which is the first sign of a woman who is assured in who she is, yet constantly striving to be better.