How do you finish this sentence - "I am ..." ... I am what? I am who? How do you describe yourself? What label do you attach to yourself? Is there only one, or are there many? And what about others? do you see them through the eyes of a label you give to them? Are all Republicans one way? Are all Jewish people another?
There was a time in my life when I saw myself only as one thing. And a failed thing at that. I was ... a teacher. Beyond that, I couldn't comprehend. It took many years and a few paths into strange places to realize I was so much more than one thing! That 'teacher' doesn't even begin to describe who I am! And now, I'm not even sure if 'teacher' is something I am ... or ever was... and that's ok. I was once paid for a job title of 'teacher,' but I know now that perhaps parts of that I rose to. And there are also a multitude of other things that I did that many other teachers don't do ... and that I am so much more than 'a teacher'.
We live in a time where there are more labels than I care to count. And we are so very quick to attach labels - not only to ourselves but to others as well. We are ... empaths, POCs, we are white, they are supremacists, we are allies, we are gay - lesbian - transwomen - we are Christians, we are Republicans or Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives; I am fat, I am obese, I am anorexic, I am a she/her ... a they/them ... a he/they ... and now even bio-men are women and bio-women are men ... and no one wants to be CIS, and there are over a hundred pronouns we can choose from to label ourselves with ... not to mention, the ones we can create for ourselves. They are trans-phobes and colonizers and racists ... and then take all of these labels and put 'anti-' in front of them and you get a whole new list to use and attach to people ... I am .... they are ... and on and on and on the 'name-calling' goes. To what purpose? What good does it do to select a label and slap it on a person? Is this leading us to a solution? What solution is that? Division? Hatred? Me vs them? I'm right, and they're wrong? I am good, and they are evil? Somewhere, I once read - our bias makes us either the hero or the victim in the story, but we are never the villain. No one ever thinks that they are wrong. Always someone else, never me. No one can tell me I'm wrong.
I went to see a movie this past weekend. The movie The Woman King. As far as movies go, entertainment-wise, it was good. I enjoyed it. It had an engaging plot, good acting, and great fight scenes. It was nice to have a predominantly female-cast, strong and kicking ass. But ... we now live in a world where one can see a movie, and all sorts of questions are raised ... how much of this was rewritten for a message? (a fair amount) If anyone can identify as a woman, I wonder how long before women-dominated films no longer have that distinction and anyone can be in those roles ... so struggles with 'moontime' no longer would be a thing, 'women's rights' that have been struggled with for so long no longer would hold that same message or need ... or solidarity. Could a transwoman play Emmeline Pankhurst with truth and honesty? How long before roles for biological women are bumped out and biological men as transwomen take those roles? Biological men as transwomen are already taking places of sports accolades in women's sports, as representatives for women in national assemblies, and many other places where biological women have fought for their rights for recognition for decades. I watched the film and wondered ... what about the transwomen? Are they offended that they were not represented in this movie? because it WAS a 'woman-power' film. And then .. another angle, from a different label ... I heard that those who were white and went to see this movie in the beginning days were labeled as racist because only BLACK people should see it when it first opened. Pardon me? So ... labeling is now the new form of segregation? Have we now created a new world of segregation? - not unity, not solidarity, but hatred and exclusion and reason for removal. To be 'cancelled'. I have heard people who are not-white speak on how much they hate white people. For all the horrible things they did. ... I remember when there was another label put there instead ... and how people spoke on their hatred for another group of people and their label and the horrible things these people did ... Jews. (And all the disgusting labels that went with that.) We now have disgusting labels that go with 'white' people, too. The hatred for Jews led down a path to annihilation, and it took a long time for people to realize how this hatred led to millions being killed without human consciousness ... how long before we begin down that path for white people? or another group of people that are deemed 'privileged'? We already have the disgusting labels ...
Is that where we are going again? Is this the direction we are headed? Have we not learned from our past mistakes that we need to repeat them again? Are we so fractured and angry and hurt and wanting to lash out that we don't care where that will take us collectively so long as I, individually, get my time to rail against the system? or the person? spew my vitriol to you because YOU caused this? You (whatever label you want to insert here) are the reason I am like this and you (label) have to pay my anger with my hatred?
Denzel Washington, an excellent actor and director, was asked a question about a film he directed - could not a white director have done this film? To which he replied: "It's not colour, it's culture. Stephen Spielberg did Schindler's List, Martin Scorcese did Goodfellas. Stephen Spielberg could direct Goodfellas, Scorcese probably could have done a good job with Schindler's List. But there are cultural differences. I know, you know, we all know (speaking to the blacks in the room) what it feels like when a hot comb hits our hair on a Sunday morning, what it smells like; that's a cultural difference, not just a colour difference." And that's the same with the culture of women. It's not just the makeup we put on or the heels we wear. It's who we are inside our skin and the history we share.
Then ... there is the whole idea of 'construct' - What is a construct, you might ask? According to a few places on the internet: In philosophy, a construct is an object which is ideal, that is - an object of the mind or thoughts meaning that its existence may be said to depend on the subject's mind ... or an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence. Or maybe another way - an idea created in man's mind for their purpose. It is not 'fact' but more 'opinion'. It is created for whatever they want to create it for ... and they put it forth as 'fact' and everyone must believe and agree. Many things in our world are actually constructs, concepts created by man - time, intelligence, fear, power ... and every one of those labels is a construct. Every. One. Of. Them. They are concepts we have made up to mean something ... and who knows, they might mean something else tomorrow. Race is a construct, once created to separate those who were 'superior' from those who were 'inferior'. Thank goodness, science no longer subscribes to that ... but you can bet your bottom dollar people still do!!
Gender is another - what is gender? It is founded on "characteristics of men, women, girls, and boys that are socially constructed." But here's the thing - what is a man or a woman differs from culture to culture, from time to time? ... and to randomly think (in your mind) that you are now a 'woman'? ... well, isn't that just another construct YOU have created now? And the more these terms become fluid and no longer hold a common 'unpacking' (if you will), then communication and comprehension get hijacked. The thing about 'man' and 'woman' is either it is biology or it's not. It's either an adult XX or an adult XY. Yes, there are variations on that, but they are anomalies, not the norm. And the % they are in our society is minuscule. Yes, some frogs are 2-headed, but that is not the norm. And, if I'm not mistaken (and I might be), anomalies cannot reproduce their kind. In all species (I think there is an exception or two, but this is NOT the norm!), to propagate the species, you need two parts. One part is supplied by the male of the species, and one is supplied by the female. In every species, there is a name for the male and female of the species. For example, in the pig species, the male is the boar, and the female is the sow. In the horse species, the male is the stud, and the female is the mare. And on and on ... In the human species, what is the name for the male human? the female human? You got it - man and woman.
But if you want to ignore science, then what is our constant? or standard? Because if it's not the biology as much as it is the traits that we associate with each, anything can change and we truly are a balloon in a tornado. For example, a 'man' is said to be strong and the leader ... the 'woman' is said to be nurturing and the home-maker. These are constructs we, in our Western society, have established. For good or bad. Other cultures and other times, the biological woman and man have different attributes associated with them. However ... (and here's where I wrestle) ... we now have made the terms 'man' and 'woman' fluid, that anyone can 'identify' with either/or ... neither or both. But what does 'identify' mean? That an XX is now a leader and strong? But can't you be that if you are XY? That's where I'm confused. In part because the definition of them is no longer common among everyone. At least here, in the Western culture and current time (both of which are constructs in themselves!).
I live with a tomcat. My tomcat (term for a male cat) sometimes behaves as if he were a lapdog. Sometimes, he identifies as a complaining, crotchety old person. Sometimes, he prances as if he's the queen of the castle. But, in the end, he is still a tomcat. He "identifies" as all sorts of things, but he never changes being a tomcat.
In a way, it seems, we have regressed and 'identification' is now completely based on stereotypes. Not on anything else ... if one 'identifies' as one label, it's because they have taken the stereotype that they perceive and said 'this is me'. But ... doesn't biology go deeper? history go deeper? I don't "identify" as a woman; I am a woman. Pick any stereotype, and I'll vomit on it. Stereotypes are not a path to humanity and life. They are boxes and labels, and assuming things about that person because of a label that isn't constant anyway ... and each person is so much more than any box or label you can slap on them. Play with various ways of dressing if you want; change how you engage with the world. But stereotypes change and I, for one, want who I am to be anchored to something that not only has substance but also has longevity.
Which brings me to this thought: the thing is ... there IS something that goes beyond construct, that those who were born and lived the experience of other women throughout time hold in common. There is a solidarity that we hold that ... though there might be women with masculine qualities, women who are old or young, women who wear make-up and those that don't, traits generally attributed to men in this current society or past, but those of us XX still have a common lived experience. If a woman sits with another woman from the 1200s and one from the 1800s and another from the 2000s, we have common experiences and struggles. And it's not about makeup or clothes or heels. It's not about crying or buying more than we have space for on our credit card. It's not about sleepovers or cosmetic parties. I would think that there would be something similar with XY - that in their lived experience, there is something beyond the label construct that draws them together, too. Looking back over history, over those cultures that were communally built and those that thrived, the community's strength came from cooperative roles. They knew their place in their society, and it was good. (I would be interested in seeking out those societies in history that were strong and bold and solid ... and what their characteristics were.) Their strength came from their society and what everyone contributed to the whole.
But now ... now, all the balls are up in the air and ... dare I said it? ... there is a feeling of a breakdown of our society, a simmering implosion. Nothing is certain anymore. That which gave us 'strength' in the community - family, church, the home, the gatherings, and traditions - they are all being 'deconstructed', and not replaced with anything stronger or more beneficial to the whole. At least, not at this time. But, isn't that part of The Fourth Turning? That we are in a time of destabilization and chaos? That we will be torn down before we are re-built? And ... what if this has to do with a psychological problem? We have recently realized the effect of trauma on our psyche and mental wellness, from both our own experiences as well as those of our forefathers - there might be a chance, in the future, we will realize that this, too, is something from a mental psychological situation and not something to be accepted as 'normal', but something to be managed from a psychological standpoint. However, it is my guess that it will be after it has swathed a path of destruction through our culture and time. We are too far deep into it being before. And, if we are all part of the problem, no one has the strength to point the finger at themselves - remember: we are all either victims or heroes ... no one is the villain. So, we continue to create stories (constructs) in which we are innocent, we are not ill, we are all fine, and it is because of that *** (what label do you want to put here?) that there are problems. We will make sure we remain righteous and virtuous because the alternative is something that also has horrible labels for it. And that is surely not us.
I am going to try to see what my life is like if I do my best to remove labels ... at least, in the sense of refusing to give labels to others and refusing to identify by one label or another. There are good things in some aspects of being labeled - when I go to the doctor, I want her to know that I am a woman and that, therefore, I am susceptible to 'women' illnesses so that I can be checked for those. If the label is grounded in science and for science, then it is better to use it than not. But if the label only serves to separate and isolate - either myself or others - then I choose not to use it. I choose to see all people as the human race. We each are unique in our own ways; no two people are the same ... even those who have the same skin colour have many differences between them. I want to respect those differences while loving them as fellow human beings.
Like Shylock says in Merchant of Venice: "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?" Yes, I know the quote goes on from there and makes a serious point to Antonio about what we teach to others, they learn and give back to us more than what they were taught ... which actually might also fit here. What we teach to others, by our behaviour .. is not lost in the abyss. It is learned and returned to us ... a hundred-fold. So, I wish to teach love for no other reason than because we share the same air; I wish to teach compassion for no other reason than because in caring for others, I care for myself; I wish to teach that each is more than any label or construct we can tag on someone. And if that is learned and returned to me a hundred-fold, then maybe others will learn it, too. And if not ... at least I've done what I think I can do to be part of the solution and not contribute to the problem. At least, as I see it.
I am not a label - I do not fit in any one container. I am not the fulfillment of any one construct ... that you think you know and can nail to me. I desire to break from every one of them and become my own person, a mixture of many and not any one alone. Label if you will ... but that says more about YOU than it does about me. It's more about YOUR need to control than it is about who you think I am. So be it. If that is your choice, that is your choice. It is not mine.
What am I? I am a human being; I live and laugh and cry. Cut me, and I bleed, too. I am a dreamer - of a world better than this one; I am a wisher - for people to seek solutions instead of contributing to problems. I am an adventurer - searching for ways to not only push personal boundaries but also to challenge myself and others, to see things through a different lens. I am a learner and an inquirer - I ask questions and then try to seek the answers. I am a reader and a creator - of words and thoughts and ideas. That is what I am. I am all of these at the same time, and sometimes more of some than the other. As I grow and become more, I also will be more. Life only stops when one has all the answers or gives up searching. Let that never be me!
I'm sure I'll revisit this in time, as so much of it is swirling around in my head, and I desire to make sense of it, at least for me. (Not of which least is also the declining age-gap and eventual looming endangered species of humanity ... but for another time.) And how it fits in to what I claim to believe and the hills I would die on. It's about those values - what are they and how are they seen in how I live my life. More to come ...
Until then ... Shalom.