Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides

In 2002, when Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides was published, I bought a copy. I was 35 years old. I knew it was a book about sexuality but I wasn't sure what about sexuality the story was EXACTLY about. I assumed it was about a homosexual person because back then, when sexuality was the word, that word had me leap to the letter L (as in Lesbian) or G (as in Gay) and maybe even B (as in Bisexual). Having lived my life as an H (as in Heterosexual, not Hermaphrodite) with a husband and two children to underscore my "normalness," it felt thrilling to occasionally enter portals of taboo through books, to explore stories about being with a man and also with a woman. For whatever reason, I never read Middlesex back then.

This year in 2023, I bought the book again and this time, I had a better idea about the portal I was entering. Sexuality in this story is less about L or G or B and more about I (as in Intersex) and T (as in Transgender but not the kind of T that is sweeping the current times with about 20 percent of the US youth population claiming T status through self-identification but rather, the 1.7 percent of the global population born as Intersex where sexual anatomy upon birth is neither male nor female because of the uncommon presence of an extra Y chromosome in the person's genes.) Once upon a time, Intersex used to be called H, as in Hermaphroditism. 

Calliope Stephanides is the protagonist of Middlesex where upon birth, she presents as female with sexual anatomy that is consistent with a girl. The beautiful and difficult story of Calliope and her Greek-American ancestry is one where she doesn't develop like other girls mainly because of the extra Y chromosome that her body has had at birth but doesn't get detected until much later. Through this discovery during her adolescence, Calliope decides to transition into Cal and exist more as male than female. Not all Intersex people transition to the gender that they were not assigned to at birth. Some decide to keep the original assignment. Cal represents the segment of Intersex people who do transition into the gender that they were not assigned to at birth because in hindsight and current sight and future sight, it feels more correct.

The first half of the book lays the fascinating historical context of Calliope's Greek ancestors who grew up in Mount Olympus in Asia Minor and immigrated to Detroit, Michigan and became the definition of American resilience. The incestuous intricacies of Calliope's ancestors help explain how chromosomes may have mutated to create Calliope. This aspect of the book could feel uneasy for those who don't like the word "mutation" or "aberration" or "abnormality" to describe any human, let alone one's child.

As a mom, I understand ferociously, that instinct.

I also understand that being born with an extra Y chromosome is different than an XY boy wanting to play with dolls or an XX girl wanting to dress like a boy. Or a 35 year old married woman wondering in the middle of the night what it would feel like to make love to a woman.

I've seen the best of America. I've lived it. The best of America protects the vulnerable. We protect the boy who plays with dolls, we protect the girl who dresses like a boy. The best of America also protects the 1.7 percent of the population like Calliope transitioning into Cal—who are at odds with chromosomes that make gender identity a true biological conundrum. 

I also think the best and level-headed segment of America protects parents who want to push the pause button for their kids and breathe a collective breath, especially when the extra Y chromosome isn't present, to help their children grapple with pink, blue, purple, dolls, balls, L, G, and B ... until they are fully mature and ready to take adult medical steps for T, as in Transgender. 

Realizing & Revising

 

DAVE CHAPELLE
Once in a rare while, I find myself in the company of white people who use the N-word as if it's no big deal. They are also usually quick to reveal their love of people like Dave Chapelle to perhaps establish some kind of street cred—like they're using the word not because they're freaks but because they're cool, progressive, and free. And I say to them: "STFU. You're not Dave Chapelle. And you're the opposite of cool." 

Some might argue I am the unreasonable in such scenes, imposing restrictions on people's right to free speech. After all, even the couhl should be free to say whatever they want, whenever they want.

ON FREEDOM
In the first chapter of On Freedom by Maggie Nelson, I learn about a classroom scene with instructor Catherine Opie at UCLA where a student criticizes the work of another, accusing it of being colonialist. The criticized student: 

"appears dejected, and mumbles from the corner, 'Damned if I do, damned if I don't.' Opie then hectors him kindly: 'Stand up for your work! ... Open it up! Don't shut it down, man.' Opie is not counseling the student to become a rigid, narcissistic jerk unable to absorb any deconolonizing critique. She is just reminding him that if you truly think your art is worth it, you've got to be willing to stand beside it and up for it, rather than slink into the all-too-familiar postures of woundedness, defensiveness, paralysis, or retaliatory aggression."

LOUIS CK
I just bought tickets to go see Louis CK in a few weeks at Long Beach. Yes, he's touring again. And yes, I can't wait to hear what the first words out of his mouth will be, after this long stretch of silence. Not that he's been COMPLETELY silent. I've kept up with his occasional funny missives and endearing podcast with his French girlfriend that he released for people who have stayed on his mailing list (like me).

Some people express disdain for my continued interest in Louis. And the point I try to make is that maybe he has realized that in this day and age, taking his penis out in the company of others is not ok. And that we ought to allow one another the opportunity and space to realize things.

THE GOLDEN RULE
The other point I try to make is made by referencing The Art of Cruelty, also by Maggie Nelson, where she cites philosopher and composer John Cage who argues against The Golden Rule: "I think the Golden Rule, which is often thought of as the center, really, of Christianity, is a mistake: Do unto others as you would be done by. 'I think this is a mistaken thought. We should do unto others as THEY would be done by."

In other words, who is anybody to say that everybody should be treated or behave a certain way based on anybody's preferences? At the grocery store, the office, the theater, and of course in bed. What is the Golden Rule in bed? Slow and gentle? Or rough and tumble?

PROFESSOR OPIE
I think what Professor Opie is saying to the criticized is to not cower away from robust debate. Take the criticism and potentially revise OR push back with intellectual honesty as you influence a critical mass to see the genius in your masterpiece.  

Like Sarah Silverman, I wouldn't have been upset if I had been in that room with Louis. But because some did get upset, it means that it's upsetting to some. And if Professor Opie would have been in that room, she might have told Louis to fight for his right to do whatever he wants with his penis OR she might have counseled him to make realizations about the times and The Golden Rule. And then to revise. 

THE FUTURE IS.

 

I support equality for women. It's in college when I opened my eyes to how deep-rooted and structural sex-based oppression is. It is when I became a radical, structural feminist.

However.

I'm not comfortable wearing a t-shirt that says "feminist." Or other variations like "the sisterhood" or "love your tribe" or "the force is female" or "the future is female." No thanks.

I'm uncomfortable with the notion that there is some sort of genuine sisterhood among ALL individual women. Some of the most egregious acts of cruelty I've experienced have been by individual women. Many women DON'T help women. Women shame. Women gossip. Women sabotage. Women envy. Women take down. So do men. Not all, but many. That's because women and men are human. And many humans (not all) don't help humans (including myself at times). 

I'm also uncomfortable with "the sisterhood" because as Roxane Gay points out in her book BAD FEMINIST, race remains a big problem within some feminist circles.

Because there are those very special individual women who go out of their way to support misogyny, white supremacy, nationalism and ickiness in general to pursue relevance and celebrity ... like Kellyanne, Sarah, Dana, Ann, Tomi ... and quite frankly the 53% of educated white women who helped put disgraceful Trump in office. And in the deep reaches of my radical feminist heart, I say that there are individual men who are more my sisters than these individual women.

When I (mainly through art) criticize/satirize individual women like Kellyanne, there are some voices who tell me that if I am a TRUE feminist, I shouldn't criticize any individual woman including Kellyanne. And further, that I should (hashtag) believe-all-women. 

To which I say: bull fucking shit.

If I believed all women, I would have believed Carolyn Bryant, whose testimony in 1955 led to the lynching of Emmett Till and who 50 years later recanted her testimony.

I support equality for women. Therefore, I support structures that compensate Kellyanne with the same pay that say a Sean Spicer is compensated. That I support structures to not favor Sean over Kellyanne for the same work does not mean that I condone what Kellyanne says or does. Nor that she has immunity from criticism/satirization because she is biologically female. 

The future isn't female.

The future is.

###

[This essay is a slightly expanded version from an earlier draft published on Instagram in August 22, 2016.]

FACE IT by Debbie Harry

Reading Debbie Harry's memoir FACE IT didn't make me feel like I was reading. It felt like I was listening to her talking, rambling, and meandering through the memories from her life. The book is definitely not a piece of literary elegance but still, it's endearing and filled with details of her journey for anyone who is a super fan of her work, which I am.

Harry loved experimenting musically, socially, and sexually; as well as being open to satirizing the status quo. And I think that's what makes her downright punk. When she saw that irreverent artistic essence in others, she admired it and became influenced by it. Like with Janis Joplin: "I loved the physicality and the sensuality of her performance-how her whole body was in the song" (page 46). 

Method acting is another thing Harry admired: where actors would deliver performances with a true emotional and intellectual connection rather than mere technical recitations. She applied that concept of method acting into her work as a musician and performer. To move beyond technical and into the emotional. True freedom.  

"I would be onstage and there'd be five thousand people pulsing their desire at me. You could feel the heat of it. The raw, animal physicality. Feel them transmitting this strong sexuality. Picking up on it, then working to turn them on even more. And the frenzied feedback cycle would keep building and building ... This was real. Very real" (page 190).

I think this method of interacting with the audience is also available for painters and poets. Provided that as we invest time in developing technical skills, we eventually find the nerve to exchange those skills for freedom (emotional, political, sexual and intellectual) that comes from the kind of underground sensibility of punk that IS Debbie Harry.

NINTH STREET WOMEN: ELAINE'S GAZE

I'm about a third of the way through reading Ninth Street Women by Mary Gabriel. I find the parts about Elaine de Kooning's (1918-1989) irreverence for convention exhilarating. In particular, I like learning about how Elaine sought to turn upside down, the power structure related to sex in art: "Men always painted the opposite sex," she said, "and I wanted to paint men as sex objects." 

The author points out, however, that Elaine's paintings of men were hardly depictions of sex objects. When I survey her body of work and view her male subjects, I agree. They aren't necessarily depicted as sex objects.

But the point I think Elaine was getting at is that she didn't want to paint subjects traditionally associated with what women painters painted. Like flowers, faces of pretty/proper white women, and other don't-rock-the-boat, keep-politics-out-of-it, subjects. 

Prior to Laura Mulvey's coining the phrase "The Male Gaze" in her 1975 essay within the genre of film, the concept of power's embeddedness within the act of gazing was discussed by Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), who posited that when a human gazes at another human, the dynamic automatically creates a hierarchy of power because THE GAZER (aka power) creates the frame and the filter upon the one who is being gazed at, with THE GAZED-AT becoming the power's object to objectify.

But what if the GAZED-AT enjoys being gazed at? Isn't that the million dollar question today, where a strand of digital feminism manufactures a disdain for the gaze while we clamor for apps and filters that can attract the gaze?

Perhaps Elaine wanted to be in the driver's seat and exert power to freely paint what she wanted. But I think she wanted to not only freely paint, but to also freely live:

"... people unacquainted with Elaine didn't know what to make of her eagerness and accessibility, her open sexual charm. Once, during a dinner party Elaine attended, the hostess on leaving the room invited the women to join her so the men could stay behind at the table and talk. Elaine remained seated, engaged in conversation with the man next to her. The hostess came up behind her and said, 'Come join us, Elaine.'

     'Oh I'm perfectly happy here,' she replied.

     'You must come,' said the woman, shaking Elaine's chair. 'You can't stay, it just isn't done.'

     'Well, it is done,' Elaine said. 'I'm doing it.'"

Digital feminism has a way of policing women in real life. It makes the "sisterhood" uncomfortable when a woman says no to a roomful of kitschy art and caddy conversation and instead practices open sexual charm in a roomful of male and female energy, not just to attract the gaze but to gaze. 

To grab power. 

To paint with power.

(NOTE: The term "digital feminism" is a term I use to describe a particular modern strand of feminism I observe within this digital age. I do not know if anyone else uses it.)

THE VEGETARIAN by Han Kang

There are three sections to this book, The Vegetarian, by Han Kang. (It was originally written in the Korean language and then translated into English by Deborah Smith.) I imagine that most readers can keep up with the first part, even though it is horrifying and mysterious. There is a particular scene where the father of the protagonist, Yeong-hye, responds with such cruelty and violence toward her decision to be a vegetarian that I doubt anyone will soon forget the horror. As awful as the scene is, there's something culturally accurate about how he responds. Something that feels familiarly Korean. 

As we start to better understand the violence that Yeoung-hye has experienced, we realize that she is trying to leave the earth by leaving her body and ironically return to the earth. And in fact, her body becomes increasingly void of life:

"This was the body of a beautiful young woman conventionally an object of desire, and yet it was a body from which all desire had been eliminated ... what she had renounced was the very life that her body represented" (page 92).

In parts two and three, the book becomes much more abstract, with echoes of Franz Kafka and Haruki Murakami, as the writing becomes laced with magical realism, and hard-to-grasp abstractions. 

The hard-to-grasp aspects have much to do with how we define reality. And what constitutes sanity versus insanity. It also ultimately questions what value there is to life when life becomes void of desire, and what reason exists for any human to not end it. 

In other words, why continue to live when your essence has already died?

Free Speech On Campus by Chemerinsky & Gillman

The fact that this book is compact and can be read quickly doesn't mean that its content is easy to digest. I think it is a must-read not only for students, staff, and faculty on college campuses but all humans engaged with the exchange of ideas.

Catharine MacKinnon, one of my favorite feminist legal scholars and thinkers, is cited two times in the book. The first citation (page 85) is about her argument to prohibit pornography because of the harm the industry commits against women. In my reading of MacKinnon's work, the harm is not only in the products that the industry produces, but also the process of the industry, where women are typically treated as subordinates to men. 

Chemerinsky & Gillman recognize that concepts of removing harm and building protections are high priorities in the minds of modern college students. These students' relationship with the First Amendment isn't necessarily informed by lived historical moments of how and why free speech has protected vulnerable communities. Rather, it's informed by seeing that under the guise of free speech, hate speech and bullying can run rampant, thereby upsetting, triggering, and as Mackinnon would argue, harming them. Which is why it's becoming a popular tendency for students to cancel, cleanse, and silence those who they deem as upsetting.

In the second citation of MacKinnon (page 118), there is an important distinction made between speech and sexual harassment. We learn that under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, harassment is not protected speech. Chemerinsky and Gillman assert that the first type of harassment as defined by quid pro quo is a no-brainer and should not be protected. However, the second type as defined by a "hostile work environment" is less clear cut.

I believe the reason it's less clear cut is because people receive words, glances, hugs, and all other forms of communication differently. In the art world, a nude painting of a woman can be viewed by some feminists as propagating the male gaze; a term (coined by Laura Mulvey) that argues that women are frequently depicted as passive objects in order to please the male active subjects. However, other feminists can view the same nude painting (and some types of pornography (both product and process)) as liberating and desirable.

The fact that MacKinnon is one of my favorite scholars AND that I don't agree with every single line of her legal arguments doesn't mean that I need to cancel or silence her. That her radical point of view has helped establish Title VII to push us into deeper thinking about what constitutes speech and what constitutes harassment is a good thing.

Chemerinsky & Gillman point out early in the book that to SPEAK freely, we need to be able to THINK freely. And as upsetting as it can be to be in the presence of speech that I disagree with, I know deep inside that a culture inclined to silence or cancel what I disagree with can eventually become inclined to silence and cancel me.

The Problem with Everything by Meghan Daum

One of the nuanced points that Meghan Daum makes early in her book, The Problem with Everything is when she points out that our nation's claim about our growing problem with child sex trafficking is often made by "those wanting to see punitive measures taken against adult sex workers" (page 44).

It reminds me of when I find myself in a conversation with someone who says something like "Pornography is bad." And I think to myself: Yeah some of it is bad but some of it isn't. Or when someone says "Fuck the male gaze." And I think to myself: Depends on the male.

But usually when I'm caught in a conversation with an overriding theme of virtue, it's hard to make nuanced delineations because doing so potentially places me into a category that I don't want to be placed in. What is that category? Overly erotic? Unwoke?

I wonder if my discomfort of being placed in such categories reflects on my own fixation about how I want to appear to others. Like that time when I announced that my new word of the year would be "garden" with lots of sentences about how I was going to grow a vegetable garden. The thing is that I never started a garden. Just announced that I would so that I would appear to be a person with a garden.

In terms of adult sex workers, I've almost never been able to have honest conversations about the fact that as long as the worker is not forced into it, it's a legitimate career. This last sentence of mine will likely raise eyebrows and create whispers like "How can she support sex for pay? That's immoral and an affront to God!" To which my thought bubble would say "Mind your own garden."

Throughout most of the book my angst and I enjoyed the sense of hopelessness that Daum paints ... about how our current political discourse has become a reduction sauce (e.g., "Porn is bad") with no room for notes of nuance that point to the complicated, conflicted, and paradoxical truths of the human condition. Surprisingly, Daum concludes the book with a kind of hope that my angst doesn't oppose. That hope is about how life is worth living not because it is perfect with everyone understanding everything but because it is flawed, with most everyone seeking to understand. Yes indeed, the problem is the gift.

Dignity of the Dress

There are certain garments, like this little white slip, that makes me feel tingly and beautiful and powerful whenever I put it on. 

In her book titled Trick Mirror, Jia Tolentino cites researcher Moira Weigel who describes a phenomenon called "enclothed cognition." Says Tolentino:

"In one experiment, test subjects were given white coats to wear. If they were told it was a lab coat, they became more attentive. If they were told it was a painter's coat, they became less attentive. They felt like the person their clothes said they were."

In other words, the participating subjects not only FELT but BEHAVED like people that the jackets told them they were. 

I would further argue that how a person dresses affects the way OTHERS behave toward them. In the movie Brittany Runs a Marathon, Brittany transforms her life by losing weight through diet and exercise. She points out in one scene that in her new body, men literally start to open doors for her. 

In my experience, not only do men open doors, they also bring you water that you want but don't ask for, and volunteer to walk you to the aisle that has the thing you're looking for at Home Depot. Of course that's the bright side of behavior influenced by external factors. There's a dark side where behavior crosses the line to include groping and assault.

In another book titled The Choice by Dr. Edith Eva Eger, we learn that at the age of 16, Eger and her sisters were sent to Auschwitz by the Nazis. Ever since they were little, Eger's sister Magda had loved dressing beautifully. Eger describes that in the winter, the soldiers issued old coats to the prisoners, just tossing them out without attention to size and fit. Says Eger:

"Magda was lucky. They threw her a thick warm coat, long and heavy, with buttons all the way up to the neck. It was so warm, so coveted. But she traded it instantly. The coat she chose in its place was a flimsy little thing, barely to the knees, showing off plenty of chest. For Magda, wearing something sexy was a better survival tool than staying warm. Feeling attractive gave her something inside, a sense of dignity, more valuable to her than physical comfort."

It's difficult to be honest about our desire for beautiful clothes and body. On the one hand it sounds like a no-brainer. On the other hand, it sounds potentially shallow and exclusionary. Roxane Gay points out in her book titled Hunger how ridiculous it was for her well-meaning friend to say to her "You're not fat" when she was weighing about 500 pounds. Gay's point challenges the popular body inclusivity movement to accept that it's ok for a fat person to try to become unfat. That that pursuit isn't in and of itself exclusionary or shallow.

Brittnay finishes the NYC marathon and ultimately realizes that the key to unlocking true happiness isn't about the weight and the clothes but it isn't NOT about the weight and clothes either. I think they are all inextricably tied. Self worth is tied to what we wear is tied to the body we keep is tied to the amount of debt we carry is tied to how we manage our time. 

In the scene where Brittnay starts the NYC marathon, we hear the emcee who welcomes all the runners, reminding everyone that the marathon is an experience that has no borders, only start lines.