Xordelia (dot) COM

Some of the most outspoken personalities of the religious right are women. Sharon Engel, Sarah Palin, Anne Coulter – the list continues. They claim to believe in the bible and to live by its rules, but do they really adhere to strict biblical canon? After all, it is immoral and sinful to pick and choose the parts of the bible that you like. Lets see what the New Testament has to say about the role of women in society…

This from 1 Corinthians 11:

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Further, from 1 Corinthians 14:

14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Rather than being so outspoken about political issues, campaigning to deny civil rights to minority groups, and having tea parties – perhaps these outspoken women should follow the teachings of the Apostle Paul in their Providence-inspired holy book: shut up, cover your head and if you must speak, filter it through your husband. Don’t have a husband? I’m sorry. Marriage is sacred, you should go find one.

Until next time…

It is weird to use a phrase that Bill O’Reilly coined, but it is very true. Racial Witchhunter (noun) – one who tries to find racism and discrimination in the most petty things.

I saw the following comment on Facebook today and couldn’t help reply. I admit, I did not know how they meant their statement, so I did jump the gun a bit on assumptions, but I still stand to my comments.

Racial Witchhunter: “Cali is most def. not the place for me…it’s more racist folks here than it is in the backwoods of Mississippi! At least down south you already know wat the deal is…people are just so damn IGNORANT”

Me: “I hate to be devil’s advocate here, but everyone is racist in some way. I know a lot more black people who hate white people than the other way around. And yes I know that my ancestors enslaved them, but I didn’t personally so for them to hate me is pretty silly. But overall I think CA is a lot more accepting than anywhere else. Except for the idiots in like Lakeside and Santee I don’t know of too many overly racist people here.”

Racial Witchhunter: “michael first off you really do not know wat the hell you are talking about! i did not say anything about YOU or YOUR ancestors, or anybody hating you or white people for that matter and you have know idea wat i experienced or went thru o make any comment on the matter… I am the last one to blame the entire white race for wat happened in the past. your comments are without merit and furthermore not everyone is racist, period. And you also made an assumption that I was talking about white people, so the next time you decide to coment on an issue you know absoutely little to nothing about, DON’T!”

Me: “I did not accuse you of having any of those sentiments, I was generalizing racism as I see it in California and in the US. IE: my opinion, not a fact. I am sorry you are so angry but people disagree on things it is part of life. It’s pretty childish to explode on them.”

Racial Witchhunter: “Actually its pretty ignorant to go in or comment on any situation in which you have zero to little knowledge. I do not disagree with you because you have no grounds to stand on. I could say that I know plenty of white people who hate black than you know black people who hate white people, but THAT would be childish of me. And f.y.i, just because the observations you partake in within California does not negate the experiences other peole go thru let alone negate the fact that it exists. Obviously your world is much more sheltered than me and for that you must feel O SO LUCKY!“

Me: “It does exist and it sucks. I felt it every day at CPH being the huge ethnic minority. But you’re right, I don’t know the background on your comments and making assumptions is obviously bad, so I apologize if my musings offended you.”

I should have known better than to comment on something about racism coming from 1) an African-American female and 2) someone with the political views “if it ain’t Obama, it ain’t no good” but I couldn’t help myself. I’m used to educated people who can listen to other people’s opinions even if they disagree.

The facts as I see them: everyone is prejudiced in some way be it sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, weight, age etc. Society programs us to favor straight 20-something fair skinned upper-middle-class males.

If not prejudiced or “racist” in some way, this racial witchhunter is at least very hostile with a lot of bitterness toward people who disagree with her. But I would go as far as to say has some kind of hard feelings toward white middle-class males since she reacted in the way she did. Perhaps males in general. She reminds me in so many ways of Chima from Season 11 of Big Brother on CBS.

She accuses me of making assumptions about her but then turns around and makes assumptions about me that I am 1) accusing her individually of being racist and 2) accusing her of thinking all white people are evil for enslaving her ancestors. I said no such thing, I was speaking in a generalization of racism in California and America as I see it.

Next is her comment that I know nothing about “racism”. I went to a predominately hispanic high school where I was discriminated against every single day. Walking down the halls I would be called things like “pinche guero” (fucking whitey) every day. On top of that I am gay, so I know a lot more about being discriminated against than she does. She can at least get married and have children legally.

Next is a personal attack on me. She assumes I am sheltered because I have different opinions than she does. Honestly, I did have a sheltered life, but I’m a pretty cultured person as well. I have traveled a lot, I have friends from all different walks of life, many of them African-American friends. I worked with a friend on an African-American clothing line and I voted for Obama. I was raised to be color blind and I still am. I judge people on ignorance and rudeness, not color or any other factor out of their control.

In the end I was the bigger man and apologized if I offended her. Life is too short to get so upset over something so insignificant. It would have been fruitless to continue the virtual argument because it would have only got me deleted from her Facebook account.

Based on this huge overreaction I would say her “racism” is more due to ignorance than her race. If she blows up on people for disagreeing with her and hates other groups (which she obviously does) then who can blame people for being rude to her?

It is ignorant to call California a racist place; it is more accepting than anywhere else in the United States that I have been. It has more opportunity than anywhere else I have been. But the sad reality is that no matter where you go, not everyone will like you. People will always find something wrong. Such is life, get over it, accept reality, move on and enjoy life for what it is: an awesome adventure.

My best friend Yvette Amezola walked up to me my first day of my junior year of high school and kissed me on the cheek. At the same time she did this, I went to hug her. Being from different cultures, we were both a little bit uncomfortable by the other’s use of haptics and proxemics. Haptics is “the study of touch” (Adler and Rodman G-4) and proxemics is “the study of how people and animals use space “ (Adler and Rodman G-7). Both haptics and proxemics vary dramatically cross-culturally even in cultures as close as the United States and Mexico.

Growing up I was raised in a family that was very touchy-feely and went to a church that was very touchy-feely as well. My family would always hug and kiss on each other and on me but this made me very uncomfortable. When it came to church, I never was one for hugging random people and was especially against kissing random people. Although people at church considered me a sibling in Christ, I found this affection to be both uncomfortable and absurd. I prefer to shake hands or hug a friend in greeting but then keep my distance from that point on.

When I was in elementary school and middle school I had normal casual friendships and acquaintanceships that were able to flourish without getting too touchy-feely. But as I got older, biological and social changes started to take place. These changes implied in an unspoken way that my use of haptics would have to increase and I would have to start maintaining a closer proximity to my friends – especially female friends. When I started my freshman year of high school I was used to handshakes. As I progressed through the year, I became used to the idea of hugs and pats on the shoulder. Physical affection was still a bit foreign and uncomfortable to me outside of a romantic relationship, but I continued to work toward accepting it. Attending a high school with such a large Mexican-American population, the culture dictated that I must also be touchier and maintain an even closer proximity to friends and acquaintances in order to be socially acceptable.

I soon established a close personal friendship with Yvette Amezola who is still my best friend to this day. On top of being from a touchy-feely culture, she is part of a family that is more affectionate than usual, so from the beginning of our friendship she was very affectionate. My sophomore year I had her in my second period English class and I still remember walking with her everyday from PE to English and then sitting next to each other in class. In the beginning we were pretty hands off but as we got closer to each other we became more affectionate. Throughout my sophomore year we were casual friends but junior year and the summer preceding junior year we became best friends. The first day of school during my junior year, we walked into our history class together. Of course we sat next to each other, but before sitting down I moved to hug her and she moved to kiss me on the cheek. She was not expecting a hug from me and I was not expecting a kiss from her. We both stiffened and recoiled a little bit in a moment social awkwardness, but as neither of us wished to offend the other, neither of us pulled away. We both later got used to the ideas that my culture and environment predisposed me to hugs and that her culture and environment predisposed her to cheek kissing. Though we were not comfortable with the other’s preference, we both subconsciously worked at accepting the other’s method and by the end of our junior year and throughout our senior year, we both hugged and kissed interchangeably.

Today, even though I am still not a particularly touchy-feely person, there is a marked change in my interaction with others. I am a lot touchier than I ever was previously and I now embrace friends of both genders. At the same time, although I am more touchy with close friends and family, when it comes to meeting new people including first dates, I go for a handshake rather than a hug. Kisses are out of the question unless they are with a Hispanic female friend and I am expecting them ahead of time. For the most part, Yvette is still the only friend that I allow to kiss me. I even discourage kissing from immediate family and have done so since I was a small child.

It is quite fascinating how cultures so similar are still so different when it comes to the unspoken conventions concerning haptics and proxemics. In Mexico, haptics dictate that a woman should greet both men and women with a kiss on the right cheek and that men are to kiss women with a kiss on the right cheek. Men, however, are to greet other men with a handshake or a handshake-half-hug (“Cheek Kissing in Mexico”). However, in the United States, a culture classified as a “medium-touch” culture (Brown), there are no clear rules to define how people should greet or how close they should stand. Traditional American gender roles dictate that men should be gentlemen and kiss girls on the cheek at the end of a date and greet both genders with a handshake. However, with the rise of metrosexuality and the gradual disregard of traditional gender roles, American culture is changing to make it more socially acceptable for men to hug and show affection for other men while still maintaining some sense masculinity (Brown).

Even more interesting is the contrast between “high-touch” Latin American and “medium-tough” American culture with the “low-touch” cultures of Northern-Europe, Western-Europe, Australia and New Zealand. These “low-touch” cultures are almost completely hands off outside of the immediate family. Although there are some exceptions, especially among youth and young adults, hand shaking continues to be the preferred method of greeting and affection (“Stop, you’re beginning to hug me”). Humorously, the author of “Stop, you’re beginning to hug me” attributes the rising of open outward affection to American television. He goes on to say “in fact, I blame American TV for everything wrong in the world (except Miami: CSI, which is totally awesome)”.

Culture is a fascinating thing. It is so engrained into us that we do not even realize that most of what we do is dictated by it. There are unspoken rules that we all nonetheless are aware of that tell us when it is appropriate to hug, when it is appropriate to shake hands and when it is appropriate to kiss on the cheek. It is very true that the American media is changing the relational ideals all around the world – constantly changing what is ok and what is not in our culture and in other cultures. When two cultures have different expectations and then come together, very bad things can happen. Initial awkwardness aside, if one or both parties misjudge what is appropriate for a situation “an excruciating dance will follow, as the poor lads work feverishly to determine what to do with their hands, their arms, their bodies (Brown).” I am glad that this was not the case with Yvette and I. Through our experience, though it could have ended badly, we both became better friends and both became more engrained into the other’s culture through our initial awkward moment.

Citations

Adler, Ronald, and George Rodman. Understanding Human Communication. 10. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Brown, Douglas. “Men are hugging men more, but rules aren’t always clearly defined.” SeattlePi. 11 July 2005. The Denver Post. 18 Apr 2009 <http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/231855_guyhugs.html>.

“Cheek Kissing in Mexico.” RiverGirl: A Gringa Writes About Life in Cancun Mexico. 01 June 2008. 17 Apr 2009 <http://www.hiddencancun.com/rivergirl/2008/06/01/cheek-kissing-in-mexico/>.
“Stop, you’re beginning to hug me.” China Daily. China Daily. 18 Apr 2009 <http://www.china.org.cn/living_in_china/news/2009-03/23/content_17487656.htm>.

In my Communications class this past weekend we took our midterm and then afterward because most of us were brain fried, the Professor showed a video called Killing Us Softly 3. It was focused on the affect of advertising on women. I found it fascinating.

It’s fascinating yet disgusting what our society does to women. It uses advertising to oppress them and make them into the sex objects of men. They are told that they must look like an anorexic model that has been photoshopped. The reality is that less than 5% of women have the body type that models have (tall and thin) and even then, most of the models are anorexic and digitally retouched. In the end, the ideal woman is impossible to be. But our society tells women they must look like that or they fail – thus there is so much plastic surgery in America – and women with low self-perceptions.

Sex is used to sell everything – Carl’s Junior, Sunscreen, bottled water, etc. Women then become sex objects rather than people. They are forced to conform to stringent standards of femininity – they have to be perfectly made up to look beautiful for their husbands/boyfriends yet are supposed to work full time, cook, clean the house, take care of the kids and then put out afterward.

A lot of ads go as far as to say that when women say no, they don’t really mean no, they mean they want it but they are just playing hard to get. This leads to rape and date rape.

Looking at history, sex didn’t become such a big deal in society until the late 70s. This is largely attributed to advertising. Sex does sell, but at what cost? The teen pregnancy rate has skyrocketed, STDs have skyrocketed and the self-esteem of young women has fallen greatly. Our society says that you should be having sex and lots of it – and if you buy our product you’ll get even more (Axe Deoderant for instance). Then we wonder why there are so many teen parents and absent fathers.

This upsets me as a male because I do not hold unrealistic ideals of women. I’m sure I’ve been influenced by advertising in some of my thinking, it would be naive to say that I have not been at all, but I feel that I am reasonable enough to form my own conclusion of women. For instance, I don’t find implants attractive. Boobs should move around and have indentations and be real. Kate Winslett in The Reader was so beautiful…and guess what her tits are real.

Well that is my social commentary for the day. America sucks. It has corrupted the whole world in so many ways, advertising, materialism and fast food being the worst.