Is Man the Ultimate Woman?

For years, I believed that most fashion designers of women’s clothing actually meant to dress men. The ultra-thin runway models, almost devoid of breasts, with their above-average height for women resemble men.

Now there is proof to support my theory.

The Associated Press reported that transgender (male to female) individuals are being used as models in Brazil. While I wholeheartedly embrace the idea of transgender people in the limelight receiving positive attention versus ridicule or harassment, I find it difficult to accept this from the fashion industry. As if it weren’t already nearly impossible for the majority of women to meet the runway model ideal, that standard is now becoming entirely impossible due to the fact that most women were not born more bio-chemically male than female.

I find it difficult to protest the “use” (and I choose that word purposefully) of trans-models because I understand gender identity itself as more fluid than fixed, and have sincere empathy for any person who feels entirely in the wrong body, like some kind of “Freaky Friday” accident. I am wholly comfortable in my female body, and cannot imagine how foreign it would feel for my brain to be transplanted into a male body. I imagine this as the situation transgender people face. Not only do transgender persons feel out of place in their own bodies, but there is also a long history in many cultures of discrimination against anyone who is transgendered. That we may have advanced to the point where transgender individuals find a place where their status as transgendered is not merely accepted but rather embraced should be celebrated! That said, I claim the fashion industry is using transgender individuals.

The fashion and modeling industries sometimes seem like Halloween all year long. The majority of the population cannot afford what is shown in the pages of VOGUE, for example. For that matter, many of the designs are impractical for everyday wear. Additionally, the styles may look fabulous on a 5’10” 110 pound seventeen year-old female, yet fail to enthrall when a 110 pound 5’5” tall woman dons them. (For some perspective on the heights and weights listed, normal weight with a BMI between 18.5 and 25 for a woman 5’10” is 132 to 174 pounds. For a 5’5” tall woman, a weight between 114-150 pounds puts her BMI at 18.5 to 25. Thus, a 5’5” woman weighing 110 pounds is actually below the normal BMI range. The average model height for runway fashion is 5’10” with an average weight of 110 pounds.)

Thus, while I’m glad that some transgender individuals have found work rather than face discrimination in the workplace, I do not believe they are being truly accepted, but rather used for their bodies. The use of bodies that are predominantly male in their genetic, biological and chemical make-up creates a woman’s body that is scientifically impossible for people born genetically, biologically and chemically female to emulate. Feminists have long-criticized the fashion industry for its objectification of women. We are now subjected to the male body turned female, an ideal no woman who was not once male can achieve.

Most men do not have the bodies of supermodels, and in a perverse way, the fashion industry has created gender equality by objectifying the male body in the same way they’ve done to women’s bodies. The disembodied “abs” of men grace shopping bags, store décor and billboards, for example. Body dysmorphic disorder is gender neutral, and boys represent the growing number of people who suffer from anorexia. My own fifteen year old son, whose body is not quite through growing and developing, fears that women will reject him if he doesn’t start looking like Captain America soon.

I hope this latest move by the fashion industry opens the minds and hearts of people so that transgender individuals find an accepting and understanding world ready to support them. I cannot help but also lament the impossible ideal male-to-female transgender models put forth for women and especially girls as models of women’s clothing. I still hold onto my fashion fantasy: real women, of all heights and weights wearing practical and flattering designs!

First published: http://www.hercircleezine.com/2013/03/21/is-man-the-ultimate-woman-2/

Mental Health Care: A Topic on Which a Liberal Feminist and Republican Representatives Agree?

Published at www.hercircleezine.com - January 31, 2013http://www.hercircleezine.com/2013/01/31/mental-health-care-a-topic-on-which-a-liberal-feminist-and-republican-representatives-agree/

In the aftermath of the school shooting this past December in Newtown, Connecticut, where elementary school children and teachers lost their lives as the result of a troubled gunman, the debate about gun control has moved to the front burner. An issue that has long simmered in the U.S., it seems that gun control is finally getting close attention. From bans on particular weapons and limits on ammunition clips, to more consistent, comprehensive background checks for gun permits and purchases, many so-called solutions have been lobbed forth from bunkers where the various camps on this issue take cover.

The old “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” statement has been dusted off by those favoring gun rights. Silly analogies, such as claims that “baseball bats are used to kill people, so why don’t we ban all baseball bats?” have been put forth to deflect charges made against weapons. Hunting has been “ok’d,” while the possession of assault rifles and quantities of bullets in magazines for assault weapons has been attacked. When the press called the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.), the organization deflected criticism by pointing the finger at policing. Essentially, the N.R.A. said, “Don’t look at us law-abiding gun owners—it’s the illegal firearms, the lack of policing, the problems in the justice system.” Then, as an added offensive defense, the N.R.A. said, “Oh, and what about violent video games?” as if to suggest it’s not owning and shooting actual firearms that contributes to violence with guns, but rather its the result of virtual, digital shooting of firearms.

The video game industry has been arrested, tried and convicted by the mere indictment. When it was invited to the table to talk with Vice President Biden’s task force to address gun violence in our country, the video game industry was damned. If the industry participated in talks, it was admitting a role in societal violence, hence condemning itself by its mere presence. If it ignored the invitation, then it was charged (and convicted) with not being responsible for its products. Gaming magazines and online forums held their own talks and published articles this past month on the issue, making this point.

Gamers and developers repeatedly complain about the fact that the most violent games—shooting games especially—are always rated “M” for “Mature,” which amounts to games created for the seventeen-plus person. That children are playing violent shooting games is the problem of parenting, not the industry. My favorite comparison is film. Parents see the “R” rating, and automatically disallow their children viewing of films with this rating. They do not buy these films for children under seventeen, and if they allow kids to watch “R” rated films, the majority of parents watch the films with their children. When it comes to video games, the word “game” apparently somehow erases the “M” rating from parents’ minds.

When my husband purchases video games for himself and our son, the clerk in the store regularly asks whether my husband is aware of the rating of the particular game, and warns him that the game play is not necessarily suitable for our son. This tells us that more often than not, store clerks are warning parents away from certain games at the point of purchase, potentially losing sales for the company, which is practically unheard of in any retail industry. My husband has witnessed an annoyed parent march into a store to buy an “M” rated game for an adolescent, who was refused at the register unless a parent accompanied him or her in the purchase of the game. The parent inevitably blows off the warnings of the clerk, sighs exasperatedly, and theatrically (and rudely) jams cash or a credit card at the clerk, then storms out of the store with his or her child and the game in tow.

My son has been playing “M” rated games for years. He has also been watching “R” rated movies for a long time. My husband and I screen films (and games) and my husband also plays these games with our son. They discuss what is going on in the game, and the value (or lack thereof) of the content. Is there something from history in the game? What portion or side of a story is being told in the game? What side of the story is missing? What does online play with strangers say about human nature? (This last question is always a good one for a long conversation!) All of these questions (and more) are addressed regularly. Games with story lines are discussed. How men and women are depicted, and even the interaction between human and alien populations is part of the discourse around games, their content, online play and design of the game itself, its merits where game play, storytelling and art intersect. Video games make for a rich discussion in our household. These discussions lead to talks about conflict resolution, the actual violence in today’s world and violence throughout human history. If more parents heeded the warnings of the game labels, knew the content of what they let their children play and used games as a gateway to conversation, video games would not be blamed.

The attack on video games reminds me of the outrage around heavy metal in the 1980s, when teen suicide was blamed on particular bands and their music. Parents, grieving the loss of a child, placed the blame on heavy metal bands and the song lyrics that their suicidal teens listened to. The lyrics often spoke of despair, suicide or violence. Thus, the bands were to blame. No one wanted to consider that the teen was drawn to such music because of already present depression. No one wanted to think that a child isolated in his or her room listening to hours and hours of music without human contact was the problem—–whether the music was heavy metal or classical. No one wanted to recognize that a lack of public awareness about and the stigma attached to mental illness and depression contributed to the problem.

Now that I’ve mentioned mental illness and depression, I get to the crux of what I’d like to now call my open letter to President Obama, Democrats across the country, and Republicans in positions where they might act in Congress today. Republican representatives in Ohio spoke out against gun control the third week of January this year. In place of gun control, they claimed President Obama was not doing something about the real issue: mental health. I propose that the President invite every member of Congress to a meeting in which he asks whether both Republicans and Democrats might agree to put aside any talks about gun control whatsoever in favor of a discussion about mental health. Let’s not consider changing one thing at the federal level, nor at the state level. Let’s not ask for universal background checks. Let’s not discuss what number of bullets is not dangerous in a single clip of ammunition (such a silly argument anyway since a single bullet is, obviously, meant to be deadly). Let’s not talk about assault weapons. Let’s agree that guns don’t kill people, and that people kill people. Let’s talk about what “kind” of people kill people with guns, in fact. Republicans and members of the N.R.A. would have to admit that unstable, emotionally vulnerable, mentally ill people are those who are most likely to use any kind of weapon, regardless of the amount of ammunition, to kill people, including classrooms full of children. We can all likely agree that mentally stable people do not walk into malls or kindergartens or former employers and kill people.

Now that all of that has been made clear, that talks in Congress will not be about gun control, but rather about mental health care, and not just mental health care but rather specifically mental health treatment and access to this treatment, and let me run-on this sentence further to say that talks will also be about removing the stigma associated with mental health treatment, let’s talk about it. Of course, I am sure that plenty of people will know where I am going with this as a liberal feminist. You might have heard the words “health care” uttered together as I began this paragraph. If you were a Republican, or member of the N.R.A. (or both), and President Obama started down this line of talk, you might wonder where the other shoe was and when it was going to drop. Well, here it is. I’d like nothing more than to have talks in Congress be about health care, access to health care and removing stigma from mental health treatment. Yet, when we talked about this last time, when a couple dozen (white, suburban) elementary school children had not been killed so recently, Republicans weren’t so keen on mental health care, unless it was something each individual paid for through a private company with no cap on earnings for its executives, no caps on bonuses, and definitely no caps on premiums for coverage for each individual. A single-payer plan, which would allow access to physical health as well as mental health care, was at the very least considered socialism and quite possibly was akin to communism. However, I do not believe we can have a conversation about, or blame our President for a lack thereof, mental health care or the stigma associated with mental health treatment without considering health care and how it is provided in our country.

Thus, a liberal feminist and Republican congressional representatives agree about mental health care. We agree that Americans need access to mental health care, and that stigma must be removed from seeking such care. We also agree that access to mental health care will do more to reduce violence of all kinds, including gun violence than any gun control measures. Where I know we will battle is about how we can assure access. However, seeing as Republican representatives made the suggestion, I now wait to see exactly what they’ll do about this call to action on mental health as a national issue.

"Presents" of Mind

First published at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/12/20/presents-of-mind/ December 20, 2012.

Each year, I cannot help but be disturbed by the holiday season and the demands for donations of gifts from all over. It’s as if “not getting something” was akin to having a fatal disease with the fervor expressed by the campaigns for gift donations. From toy drives to “adopt a family” programs, we seem to collectively view not having presents as sacrilege. Why this time of the year? What about birthdays or other milestones? What about doing something radical about poverty, hunger and need in our country to eradicate them entirely?

I have complex feelings about how we perpetuate a consumerist culture and society through the importance placed on gifts. I am also perplexed at having children from poverty-stricken families ask for video games—that are typically $60 each—when that clearly means the family not only has the $300+ gaming system, but also obviously a television and electricity. The ages of the children involved, and including parents is equally perplexing to me. I can see if someone would be without a winter jacket, yet cannot see the possible “benefit” of frivolous things like more-expensive-than-regular-soap bath products that seem to be popular requests.

It’s not that I believe people should “go without” or that we cannot feel “poor” by the standards of our specific community. For a good portion of my children’s lives, we rented a home in an affluent town in Massachusetts. An example of what I mean about feeling poor by community standards is this: one holiday season, my husband and I had saved enough money to purchase iPods for our children rather than having them share the Shuffle we won at a holiday party several years before. We got them a few other small gifts like books and some candy for their stockings. The iPods were their “big” gift and something they were definitely not expecting given our financial situation. They were both thrilled with their iPod Touches, which were the lower memory versions as they cost less. When my daughter went to school after the holidays, she found that most of her classmates and friends received iPod Touches as stocking stuffers and the first generation of iPad or a laptop or another extravagant gift as their “big” gifts. So, by community standards, our children were definitely “lacking.” At the same time, we by no means felt our lives were lacking.

I realize that living in a particular community one may feel less privileged or underprivileged by comparison. At the same time, I believe we must always keep this in perspective, and be aware of what true poverty means and how fortunate we are by worldwide standards of living. This year, with me enrolled in full time graduate school, thus working fewer hours at my three part-time jobs, and with one child in college, expenses have increased while income has decreased. We face a very limited budget this year for the holidays. In fact, we rely on the hope that my husband will receive a holiday bonus, and this is what will be used to purchase anything we decide we will do for the holidays. I know what our income level is in relation to the poverty level. We would likely “qualify” to participate in these gift programs ourselves this year. Yet, instead of asking for luxury items from others, we discussed with our children the riches we feel we do have: health, education, heat, housing, food and one another. We talked about not contributing to the debt cycle like those who charge gifts only to be burdened by bills long after the shine has worn off something new. We talked about how not opening a gift in December is not the end of the world, regardless of the Mayan calendar! (So, there was another thing we have that money cannot buy: a sense of humor and shared laughter.)

We also talked about other cultures and religions and how the gift drives, toy drives and adopt-a-family-once-a-year programs all negate anything outside of Christianity. There are no programs for Jewish families who may be struggling to provide eight nights of gifts. And, what of faiths and cultures in our country and our towns and cities that do not have a holiday in December? This, of course, brings us full circle to the needs of families and individuals the whole year round.

How is this rant part of feminist critique? Well, if feminism is really about equality for all, then we cannot look past and not consider the larger context for holiday gifting programs and how they promote consumerism or how they exclude everyone who is not of the Christian religion. We cannot, on a daily basis, look past the overstuffed vehicle in a parking lot that clearly houses at least one person, or the often invisible needs of families for food and heat. We must sustain presence of mind about issues of inequality and oppression in all arenas and refrain from making ourselves feel good about giving presents once a year.

"Cemetery Girl" Book Review and Reflection

“Cemetery Girl”

First published December 13, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/12/13/cemetary-girl/

CEMETERY GIRL by David Bell is about a twelve-year-old girl who goes missing and is returned to her family four years later, at sixteen. The story is told from the point of view of her father. His history is complicated, and has an impact on how he deals with his daughter’s disappearance, and her return. So as to not ruin the plot or suspense, I’ll suffice to say that our worst nightmare may not be the kidnapping of our child, but rather what we learn upon his or her return. While every parent of a kidnapped child wants nothing more than the return of that child, the fact remains that the experience renders every family member changed.

What stays with me as the result of reading this book are the questions that we ask ourselves as parents, as well as the questions we would like to avoid. We all consider when we might allow our children to walk to the park alone, or walk home from school or to a friend’s house. We check with friends, consider our own childhood experiences, and think about the safety of our current block, neighborhood, city or town. We track milestones, possibly mark a wall in a closet or the casing of a bedroom door with physical growth. We keep report cards to measure our children’s academic success and progress. We may cherish and simultaneously regret the first day of kindergarten, graduation from elementary school, the first day of high school and high school graduation. We worry and celebrate the first date, the first time they take the car out alone after getting a license, and freshman year of college.

Some of us talk about sex. We have the “birds and bees” talk, or leave a book on puberty on the night stand in our child’s room. A few of us address burgeoning sexuality, and attempt to normalize the feelings our children may have. How often do we talk about sexual development outside of the girls-develop-breasts-and-get-their-periods and boys-grow-hair-and-get-deeper-voices-and-may-experience-nocturnal-emissions? Yes, it is that awkward and silly, isn’t it? It is extremely challenging for parents to consider the sexual identity of their children. Especially in the United States at this point in our culture and society, our children are no longer children once we consider sex. Or, they remain children and are patronized, even when their burgeoning sexuality becomes obvious. There are the pregnancies and bladder infections that are also discovered to include chlamydia. Even then, most parents don’t address the sexuality of their children. It’s like the pregnancy is the thing we deal with, and we ignore the “how” of it. It’s that we address the antibiotics, and maybe even talk about the importance of condoms, without ever really talking about sex itself. We only talk about sex with our kids as part of reproduction, or when we’re warning them away from it.

What CEMETERY GIRL reminded me of is the fact that there are a lot of unhealthy views of sex and we pass these along to our children. It perpetuates generation after generation. We don’t want to consider that our eleven-year-old children, male or female, may be exploring their bodies, and discovering the pleasures that can be found within them. That’s “too early” for such talks in the minds of most parents. Or, we’re in denial. We say, “Well, other kids may be like that, but my daughter/son is so innocent!” In some instances, that is true. When my daughter took a class sponsored by the local Unitarian Universalist Church entitled “Our Whole Lives,” or “O.W.L.,” there was a girl from her class at school who cried every time the class was held. She was the same age as my daughter, yet was definitely not ready for the information presented.

The point of this article is to encourage us all to know our children. What I mean by that is actually “get to know” our children, rather than assuming that we do. We have to let our children know us, too. No, we don’t have to share details of our sexual lives. Rather, we need to be open, really open, to talking with our children, to figuring out the difference between kids who say, “Oh, no, not more sex talk,” and otherwise handle the information well when we have the talk after talk after talk, and the kids who really aren’t ready for the conversation—truly, and that it’s not us who isn’t ready. We have to make ourselves ready for conversation, too. We have to be honest with our kids. When a friend said she was envious of my ability to talk openly with my own children about sex and sexuality, I told her it was perfectly okay that she wasn’t comfortable, actually. All she had to do was be honest about this with her kids. She didn’t know how to react when her daughter asked questions that she was not sure how to answer. I told her it was okay to let her daughter know that she had no idea how to respond. And, it is. It’s okay to tell our kids that we’re not sure how to answer their questions, or that we may not have the answers, but also that we’ll get them. It’s okay to let our kids know that we want to talk with them, but that while we want a relationship that is more open than that which we had with our own parents, we, too, sometimes may be embarrassed or unsure as to how to talk about topics we find difficult. We must promise them that we’ll work on our own issues with open sex talk as we work on the topics they bring to us. And, we have to uphold that promise.

For a suspenseful read, that will leave you thinking long and hard about what you know about your children, what you may or may not want to know, and how important it might be to have the hard talks, check out CEMETERY GIRL. It’s left me thinking about what I even consider “my worst nightmare” and how having our dearest wish fulfilled can sometimes leave us with more questions, with unanswerable questions, and questions that we don’t really want to have answered possibly. CEMETERY GIRL is suspenseful and compellingly told, from an interesting viewpoint with a very different outcome than the typical thriller in this genre. It will also leave you thinking about your own children, or nieces and nephews, and asking important questions.

Are We Brave Enough?

First published Dec. 4, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/12/04/are-we-brave-enough/

The allure of princesses for little girls cannot be denied. And neither can the ambivalence or straight-out abhorrence some mothers feel towards those same princesses. The focus on some prescribed external beauty and a delicate femininity is difficult for many women to swallow as their little girls prance past in frilly gowns, plastic high-heeled shoes and glittery accoutrement. Some assert the princess-ing of our daughters is not harmful in the least while others believe thinking it harmless is dangerous to those little girls’ developing ideas of what it means to be a woman today. And maybe the clothes and accessories in and of themselves are not particularly harmful. Perhaps the dress-up is a simple exploration in normal childhood imaginative play and role-playing. It can be argued, however, that the danger arrives with the contextualization of the ideas of princess through literature and especially the Disney depiction of princesses in their movies. The Disney Princesses have become pervasive in our culture—from the repetitive watching of the movies and spin-off television shows to all the accompanying merchandise, the Princesses have been difficult to avoid for watchful mothers for the past generation.

The Princesses have not done much to assert themselves as strong female role models. Their passive roles in their own stories, their need to be rescued by the Prince, their primary self-actualization ascertained through attaining that same Prince in marriage. In many of the stories, the Princesses neither fight nor work for what they glean in the end. They represent stereotypical gender roles, stereotypical ideals of femininity, a singular kind of girliness which polarizes gender in a world that ultimately encourages women to seek equal ground with our male counterparts in our personal and professional relationships with them. Additionally, the gender polarization effectually marginalizes any child (regardless of gender) who does not fit the mold.

BRAVE, the latest Disney/Pixar release, might be a film in which the contemporary paradigm of princess is challenged. While BRAVE, does begin with a terrifying scenes of a bear attack and then follows the Disney tradition of establishing a horrible mother figure, the film does contain redeeming qualities. Near the beginning of the film, Merida, the princess, is shown riding off on her horse for a day wherein “she can change her fate.” Merida is entering her teen years, when she is to be betrothed. She does not wish to have marriage foisted upon her, and she also wants to make her own way in the world.

In some respects, the old “women-are-the-weaker, yet-more-intelligent” sex stereotypes are at play. At the same time, Elinor, the queen, is not portrayed as overly voluptuous, and when she makes order of the brawling clans in the throne room, she does so with her commanding presence. Both her strength of character and her demand for respect come through. Late in the film, Elinor in a guise as a bear, attempts to sneak through the throne room to her chambers where she and Merida will “mend the bond that pride has broken.” This will be achieved by Merida sewing back together the tapestry she destroyed in a fit of rage at her mother and Merida herself commands the presence of the men in the room. Again, here, there is a reverence for Merida’s presence, and there is not a hint or whiff of the male gaze as being commanded by her female form. For these instances of women commanding attention, and not with their corporeal forms, but rather from a position of respect, the film deserves kudos.

In the end, Merida says, “Our fate lies within us. You only need to be brave enough to see it.” She might seem to be talking to herself, and to other young women who might break with whatever traditions that do not serve them. However, mothers might be remiss if they do not also hear Merida’s reminder. Our fate does lie within us, and our daughters’ fates lie within them. We must be brave to raise our daughters and to support our sisters and friends to find their own ways within themselves. We must also not allow our own worries and fears to cloud the vision of our daughters’ fates when they bravely attempt to reveal them to us.

At the same time, our daughters might realize that as mothers we can turn into metaphorical bears as Elinor’s actual form does in the film. We are brave enough to raise our claws and risk our own lives for our daughters. We will protect our daughters fiercely, like nature demonstrates with a mother bear and her cubs. We try to differentiate when to resort to “tooth and claw” and when maintaining decorum is required.

For many reasons, BRAVE might not be the “feminist film” we might have hoped for when we saw the previews of the brazen young woman riding bareback, shooting arrows directly to the bulls-eye with every pull on the bow. But it contains more depth of character in the female characters than that of Disney Princesses past. Feminism wears many faces and is not just about girls taking on what are considered traditionally boyish feats. Feminism can also be the strength of women like Elinor, who command respect for their intellect, and maybe even sew tapestries in their spare time. Being feminist is about what Merida says at the end of the film—it is being brave enough to see the greatness inside ourselves and to manifest it in the world. It is about being brave enough to support our sisters, friends and daughters as they, too, look bravely within, draw upon the strength of mother bears they find inside themselves, and manifest that strength in the world.

Melissa Corliss Delorenzo contributed to this article. 

Emma Darwin, a Life Imagined

November 29, 2012 by Kate Robinson

REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION FROM JOHN VAN WYHE ED. 2002-. THE COMPLETE WORK OF CHARLES DARWIN ONLINE. (HTTP://DARWIN-ONLINE.ORG.UK/)

As we examine women’s contributions to history, we must be careful not to overstate or inflate their true involvement. With November marking the anniversary of Darwin’s publication of ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, I wrote an article about Emma Darwin after reading that she was the deciding factor in Charles’ Darwin’s publication of the book. I was amazed that Darwin placed the manuscript for his monumental work into Emma’s hands, and more or less told her that he’d destroy the pages if she thought it heresy, since evolution flew in the face of their strong and shared religious beliefs. Thus, while Emma is known to have said that she felt what Charles was publishing would condemn them both to hell, she is claimed to have approved it regardless. Not only did she approve it, she made margin notes and asked questions or pointed out places that needed clarification.

It seems that some authors have taken what was essentially an editorial role, one played out by spouses throughout history, and claimed it for much more than it was. When I requested permission to use the image of Emma Darwin included herein, I mentioned my astonishment at the story, and received a reply from a Darwin scholar who was just as astonished. Dr. John van Wyhe, who is the director of The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online, wrote asking for my reference source. I sent him back the author’s name of a book about the Darwins. His reply confirmed that Emma’s influence and contributions have been overblown, and are a myth perpetuated like others about Darwin. He confirms that such rumors have been republished in a great many sources, and thus seem valid for their repeated publication. However, says Dr. van Wyhe, that does not make them true. (For a graduate student, this warning is apropos, and reminds me to seek a more reliable or first-hand source for information, rather than trust paraphrasing on behalf of another researcher.) And, in my own defense, since I had never heard this story before, and assumed it was another case of women being belittled in historical accounts, I sought the author’s source, which I could not find. Thus, I feel especially glad that I was prescient enough to mention the purpose and subject matter of the proposed article when I requested permission to use the image.

I know that I asked back in September that we demand from historians and academic publishers the whole story of history. I asked that marginal peoples be included, whether those were women involved in early union formation, stories from the black perspective in the civil rights movement, or various other minorities whose names are not famous and whose contributions are all but forgotten. However, I also do not want mountains made of proverbial molehills. We don’t need to imagine influence. Rather, I ask that the everyday experience of individuals who lived in particular times be considered. This makes me think of the DIARY OF ANNE FRANK. Her diary is not remarkable for any reason other than that she lived in an extraordinary time and recorded in her diary her lived experience as a Jewish person, and that the journal survived and made it to print. These are the stories of history that we need so that we understand the past in a way that helps us imagine and bring forth a better future. We don’t need fake, embellished or exalted stories. As with the relationship between Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson, we may never know the reality of it or any of its truths. We may never know whether Emma Darwin had much influence over Charles’s publication of ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES like we know that Tabitha King weighs in on Stephen King’s stories before they reach the eye of a professional editor. As we seek to increase our knowledge not just of dates, places and famous male names, we should not make more of women’s contributions for the sake of imagining greatness. The plain story, like Anne Frank’s, is just as significant when viewed as a part of the overall history of a time and place.

Joy Harjo’s Poetry—Something for Which to be Thankful

First published November 22, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/11/22/joy-harjos-poetry-something-for-which-to-be-thankful/

KATE’S KITCHEN TABLE, IN DETAIL

There are so many things for which I feel thankful. The poetry of amazingly talented women writers is one of these. It was over eight years ago that I first read Joy Harjo’s PERHAPS THE WORLD ENDS HERE in a book about Thanksgiving and creating family rituals to celebrate. To me, Thanksgiving is about gathering people together, sustaining one another with love and sharing the good fortune we have of plentiful food, and a home open to family, friends and strangers alike in which we may share such bounty.

Another other thing for which I’m thankful is the kitchen table. Joy Harjo captures the essence of the table in her poem, PERHAPS THE WORLD ENDS HERE, which she has graciously allowed me to reprint herein. My kitchen table (pictured in detail) with the paint, glue, marker and indentations from my children growing, creating, learning and discovering at it fills me with gratitude. At one time, my husband and I considered refinishing the table once the children were grown. Now, we cherish the marks. They remind us of the stages of our children’s lives. We revere the table itself, and give thanks for its solid-footed presence, its offering as a place and space where we are nourished, fight, make memories, dream and…oh, let the poem say it much more eloquently:

Perhaps the World Ends Here
By Joy Harjo

THE WORLD BEGINS AT A KITCHEN TABLE. NO MATTER WHAT, WE MUST EAT TO LIVE.

THE GIFTS OF THE EARTH ARE BROUGHT AND PREPARED, SET ON THE TABLE. SO IT HAS BEEN SINCE CREATION, AND IT WILL GO ON.

WE CHASE CHICKENS OR DOGS AWAY FROM IT. BABIES TEETHE AT THE CORNERS. THEY SCRAPE THEIR KNEES UNDER IT.

IT IS HERE THAT CHILDREN ARE GIVEN INSTRUCTION ON WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN. WE MAKE MEN AT IT, WE MAKE WOMEN.

AT THIS TABLE WE GOSSIP, RECALL ENEMIES AND THE GHOSTS OF LOVERS.

OUR DREAMS DRINK COFFEE WITH US AS THEY PUT THEIR ARMS AROUND OUR CHILDREN. THEY LAUGH WITH US AT OUR POOR FALLING-DOWN SELVES AND AS WE PUT OURSELVES BACK TOGETHER AGAIN AT THE TABLE.

THIS TABLE HAS BEEN A HOUSE IN THE RAIN, AN UMBRELLA IN THE SUN.

WARS HAVE BEGUN AND ENDED AT THIS TABLE. IT IS A PLACE TO HIDE IN THE SHADOW OF TERROR. A PLACE TO CELEBRATE THE TERRIBLE VICTORY.

WE HAVE GIVEN BIRTH ON THIS TABLE, AND HAVE PREPARED OUR PARENTS FOR BURIAL HERE.

AT THIS TABLE WE SING WITH JOY, WITH SORROW. WE PRAY OF SUFFERING AND REMORSE. WE GIVE THANKS.

PERHAPS THE WORLD WILL END AT THE KITCHEN TABLE, WHILE WE ARE LAUGHING AND CRYING, EATING OF THE LAST SWEET BITE.

I want to specifically recognize Native Americans who do not necessarily view Thanksgiving in the same way as those whose ancestors were immigrants to this country. I do not wish to appropriate Joy Harjo’s poem and use it to gloss over the genocide of Native Americans and celebrate what many consider a specifically American holiday. Rather, outside of the historical context, may this day be one on which we feel sincere gratitude, especially for Native Americans who welcomed many of our ancestors, even though those ancestors eventually betrayed the generosity extended to them.

On this Thanksgiving of 2012, I wish you joy to sing at your own table, and hope your suffering and sorrows are few.

PERHAPS THE WORLD ENDS HERE was originally published in THE WOMAN WHO FELL FROM THE SKY, W.W. Norton, 1994.