Home

The Body Part I’m Not Steaming

Comments Off on The Body Part I’m Not Steaming

Department Of I Thought It First, But She Said It Out Loud

Writer and social critic Fran Lebowitz, responding to a question as to why she often gives the impression of being so angry, or why she is perceived to be so angry, either at an individual person’s behavior and/or situations around her:

“I have no power. But I am filled with opinions.”
( Fran Lebowitz, Pretend It’s a City )

Speaking of which (re having no power and being filled with opinions)….

Department Of I Usually Like Learning New Things

…but moiself  is confident that I could have gone to my grave/urn/ashes scattering ceremony/medical cadaver lab in peace without knowing that there is such a thing as a yoni steam.

There; I said it (okay; typed it).  Yoni steam.

Alas, there will be no such peace, for me.  While searching for yoga studios in my area which might offer a tai chi or other classes of interest, I found a new (to me) place which offers a variety of yoga classes, massage, and other “wellness” services.  In a website blurb the business briefly listed the services they offer, including, yoni steam. 

 

 

Yoni steam.  Um…say what?  That got my attention, as moiself  was fairly certain sure that yoni was the Sanskrit term for vagina.   Nah; it’s gotta be something else.  It’s something else, all righty, as judging from the service description I clicked on:     [1]

” Yoni steam, $50.00
Sit back and enjoy your time alone while sitting over a pot of warm herbs. Yoni steam has been shown to help balance your PH levels, improve odor, decrease dryness, improve menstral (sic) cycle, and increase libido.
Yoni steaming is the practice of allowing warm steam to permeate the exterior of the vagina. Use this time to allow connection with the body and plant medicine. Steaming is suggested just before and after your cycle to help with cramps, bloating and balancing your PH.”

 

 

No, Martha, it’s not, and you’d better stop smoking whatever Snoop Dogg is sharing with you if you’ve fallen down that rabbit hole.

If you think your yoni needs servicing you need to see a yoni specialist gynecologist, not a yoni steamer, FFS.  You do not need to shell out $50 to squat over a glorified potpourri prepared by someone who uses woo-woo language to refer to lady parts and who can’t even spell menstrual.  And what is this balancing your PH crap – how would a glorified spa employee accurately assess whether your PH is out of balance without sticking a litmus test strip up your (non-steamy)  yoni?

Here’s an internet search summary of the practice (my emphases):

“Yoni steaming, also known as vaginal steaming or V-steaming, is an alternative medicine   [2]   practice that involves sitting over a pot of hot, herb-infused water while unclothed from the waist down. The goal is to cleanse the vulva and absorb the herbal steam through the pores to enhance blood flow and promote healing.”

From what I gathered, some people say v-steaming can “…help with a variety of uterine issues, restore health and balance, and ease the transition through life phases.”  That latter phrase is code for a school of thought which defines a woman’s life as a series of “phases” – read: conditions or even diseases –  which need to be managed, and that everything revolves around the reproductive cycle ( “Are you pre/post/peri/quasi – /kinda/neo/retro/over/under/uber menopausal? We’ve got a pill/injection/cream/steam for you!” ). And those some people are those who will financially benefit from selling a product/treatment (“service”) to women whom they’ve convinced will benefit from it.

Other folks – e.g., moiself  and every medical professional I worked with in my former life as a reproductive health educator/medical assistant   [3] –   would say the y-steaming practice is yet another gimmick which reflects Western societies’ traditional (read: repressive and shame-based) values of women and the lifelong critiquing and managing of their bodies, specifically their sexual and reproductive parts, which are presented as needing constant…”attention.”

In that former life, my colleagues and I spent a lot of time educating women about why they should *not* use the so-called “feminine hygiene/cleansing” products that had been ferociously marketed to them since adolescence.  The vagina is self-cleansing; women are not “dirty’ after menstruation or intercourse; douching has been sold as a remedy for problems that mostly do not exist (and also mistakenly sold as a form of birth control, as in, wash that icky sperm right outta there…when actually, what post coital-douching does is give those swimmers a speedboat push up toward the cervix).   We were happy to note that fewer women were falling for that woman-shaming practice, and that our patients knew that douching is “…harmful and should be discouraged because of its association with pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, and other conditions….”     [4]

 

 

Most women nowadays seem to understand that a woman should never douche or otherwise “clean” her vaginal canal, except for those rare times (as in, for post-surgical care for certain, rare procedures) when one is instructed to do so by their medical professional (the doctor or nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant, not the receptionist or office manager).  When I left that world, I was confident that douching, a medically needless and even harmful practice rooted in ignorance and shame, was dying out.  Then a few days ago moiself  finds out that yoni steaming is a thing.

Why should this surprise me?  Ain’t never been a shortage of folks – both on “the other side” and those disguising (deluding) themselves as being  pro-woman – who exploit to turn a woman’s body and natural cycles into conditions that need to be managed and “balanced.”  The yoni steam is just a douche-wolf wrapped in sheep’s clothing.

 

Step 1. Keep it away from your yoni.

 

*   *   *

Department Of Memory Sparked By A Notable Figure’s Death

That notable figure would be the writer, producer, and activist most known for hosting his eponymous, innovative daytime talk show, Phil Donahue

Moiself’s  relation with The Donahue Show was sporadic; I watched it occasionally during the nursing-my-offspring years, and sometimes during my exercise sessions.  I’d never been a daytime talk show fan, but I appreciated Donahue’s groundbreaking approach and willingness to feature guests who ruffled the feathers of the social, cultural religious, political and entertainment establishments. He had a few missteps over the years; e.g., he was somewhat patronizing to the Freedom From Religion Foundation‘s co-president, minister-turned-atheist Dan Barker, and editor and author and FFRF cofounder Annie Laurie Gaylor (ala “oh my gosh, scary atheists, you’re taking it too far…“)  [5]   when they were guests on his show in 1998.  But Donahue was the first – and for a time he was the only – talk show host to realize that the women watching his show and those in the audience had opinions and solutions and were interested in politics and world affairs, and not just fashion and meringue recipes.  And he gave them a voice by giving them his microphone, to both question his guests and voice their opinions and feedback.

 

 

Two of Donahue’s show’s guests are the subject of this memory I will share.  Dateline: 30+ years ago; early in my marriage to MH; working at two Bay Area Planned Parenthood clinics.  One Friday afternoon MH had some kind of work conference that was fairly local but far away enough that he was given a hotel room for an overnight stay, and since I had that day off he asked me to join him.  It was a smoggy day; while MH was at a meeting I attempted to go for a walk, then decided to protect my lungs and return to the hotel room and get in some exercise before meeting MH for dinner.  When I turned on our hotel room’s TV, there was the Donahue Show. To my proverbial jaw-dropping surprise, among a group/panel of Donahue’s guests who were “promoting alternative sexualities” (I did not see the show from the start, so I’m not exactly sure what that day’s theme was) were two people I recognized: a young woman, Caryn, and her “boyfriend,” Richie.  [6]   

Caryn was a new clinic assistant in the Planned Parenthood clinic where I worked. Richie came to work with Caryn, almost every day. He didn’t just drop her off and leave ( I’m not sure if he drove her there or if she drove the two of them); he would find an excuse to hang around in the waiting room and/or return when her shift ended. I’m not sure of Richie’s employment status; frankly, I tried to show as little interest in them as possible in order not to encourage their mutual, “It’s all about us, PAY ATTENTION  AND  NOTE  HOW  SPECIAL  WE  ARE !!!” obsession.  But whether or not her coworkers showed any interest,    [7]   Caryn and Richie made sure that their personal business was everyone’s business.

Y’all know or have known such people – you may have even worked with them.  Remember how tiresome it can get, sharing work space and responsibilities with fanatical attention whores seekers?

 

 

None of Caryn’s coworkers ever asked about her personal life; nevertheless, we were treated to her frequent recitations of her and Richie’s relationship.  Which seemed to be the point of her existence: she was on a not-so-subtle mission to have her and Richie be considered the most unique (“freaky!”) couple you’d ever met.  Your not being shocked by (or interested in) their lifestyle was of obvious disappointment to them.

The reason I qualified Richie’s “boyfriend” status was because that’s how he was introduced to me:

Caryn (amid much giggling by her and Richie):
“And this is Richie, my (air quotes) boyfriend.  BOY friend…for now….”

Moiself:
“Nice to meet you Richie.
Did Caryn mention that you are not allowed back in the clinic area?”

Caryn and Richie were proud of *not* being the typical young hetero couple, and they wanted, with a yearning approaching desperation, for everyone to know why.  Some context is in order:  This was the San Francisco Bay area in the late 80s, where, for example, the Exotic Erotic Ball , an annual costume party held on the night before Halloween from 1979 – 2009, was considered the epitome of the area’s anything-goes culture.  Now, let’s say you’re a puerile, histrionic, sexuality-focused attention-seeker living in an area where gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, multi-sexual, cross-dressing, up-and-down-dressing, not-dressing, is considered old hat – or worst, for attention-seekers, even conventional.  How, then, do you stand out?  And those two really wanted to stand out.

It wasn’t their sexuality/gender-bending obsession that irritated me; rather, it was the attitudes they projected, which were befitting of insecure, self-absorbed ten-year-olds and not grown-ass adults:

“Look at me! Look at us! We are different; we’re special!
Please give us a just a whiff of disapproval
so that we can exult in lecture you on your judgmentalism.”

Every other shift I worked with Caryn she found a reason to mention, to either moiself  or another clininician, that she was gay and Richie was in the process of “transitioning,” but that Richie’s transitioning was different from the usual transition!   Her announcements would be met with tolerant silences, followed by relevant comments such as, “Uh huh.  Could you get the hematocrit readings from the lab log?” from her coworkers.  Caryn was not good at hiding her dismay at the lack of follow-up questions, and she would find some excuse reason to elaborate on the topic of Richie’s transition and her and Richie’s relationship.

I was a couple of steps above Caryn in the clinic assistant hierarchy, and had briefly helped with her initial training.  During those trying days she found ways/excuses to mention that she was gay/lesbian (her terms varied) and was concerned about receiving equal treatment.  I began to wish for the opportunity (which never arose) wherein she would whine about me being rude by not showing interest in her personal life and thus I must be LGBTQ-phobic, so that I could tell her,

Congratulations, you have achieved the equality you say you seek.  I am treating you as I would any other narcissistic bore, and couldn’t care less about how you LGBTQ-BFD spin it.  You’re acting like an immature ass; thus, I ‘ll give you the same respect I would give an immature ass in a three piece Brooks Brothers suit.  So please, STFU and do your job.     [8]

 

 

Caryn’s You-have-anything-better-to-do-than-to-hang-out-here? boyfriend Richie was actually quite a looker.  He had a chiseled/angular facial bone structure and piercing dark eyes which were sometimes obscured by his shoulder-length, curly, brownish-red hair.  Overall, his features were classically masculine; he was lean and tall, and his muscular physique included ample body hair (particularly on the legs), which Caryn’s coworkers were privy to because Richie’s typical attire was a short sleeved, v-neck  tee or polo shirt tucked into a kilt-type man/skirt garment. And the reason for Ritchie’s transitioning (at least, the reason both Caryn and Richie found excuses to share with Caryn’s coworkers) was that although they were– of course! and enthusiastically! – having sex, Richie wanted to be with Caryn, sexually, as a female, and not as a male.  You see, Richie had the soul of a lesbian trapped inside the body of a male model man. Or, to use Caryn’s favorite, oh-so-overused catchphrase description, Richie was “a dyke with a dick.

 

 

Caryn and Richie were really proud of Richie’s dick – and so very fond it that Richie’s transition to being a woman was going to be different from your run-of-the-mill, man-to-trans woman, because Richie was transitioning not to be a heterosexual woman who has sex with men, but to be a lesbian in order to have lesbian sex with his lesbian girlfriend, only with his dick still…hanging around.

Got that?  Neither did most of Caryn’s coworkers…

 

 

…which was the point of Caryn’s convoluted narratives.  Because any trace of a “Uh, how’s that work?” expression   [9]   that flitted across a coworker’s face was an excuse for Caryn to go through the whole speil, again.

So, from context to content: there I am, in the hotel room.  I turn on the TV, start doing reverse pushups on a chair, and I see Caryn and Richie on Donahue’s guest panel.  The host is going from panelist to panelist (there are about a dozen), making introductions, and is asking Caryn about her and Richie’s relationship.  I am gobsmacked; this is Caryn’s supreme fantasy.  She is getting what she’s dreamed of: a national audience (this was way before cell phones and social media).  Sure enough, Caryn manages to get in her tagline, which I’d bet she and Richie were hoping wouuld be their ticket to tagline immortality (or at least 15 minutes of fame), ala SNL catchphrases:

* You look mahvelous!
* I’ve got a fever… and the only prescription… is more cowbell!
* We are two wild and crazy guys!
* Well isn’t that special/Could it be… Satan?

When Donohue notes that Caryn’s and Richie’s relationship may be confusing to some people, he sets them up to deliver the phrase they intended and hoped would be a shocker.  Caryn mentions how she is attracted to Richie because he’s a lesbian in the body of a man: “I like to think of him as a dyke with a dick.”

Finally, Caryn and Richie get the response they’ve been hoping from: audible gasps from the audience.  And there I am, in a hotel room, face palming my forehead and saying to myself, “Please please please do NOT say where you work.”  [10]

 

 

My concern was for the financial stability of my PP clinic.  I’d wager that very few people, including most of the clinic workers, knew the history of how the PP clinics of San Mateo County were funded, and that they were established by both Republicans and conservatives as well as liberals and Democrats.  Many Republicans back then (including my in-laws) would tell you that “true” conservatives supported PP’s mission – after all, what could be more anti-big-government than supporting the right of people to be free from government interference when it came down to determining the size of their families and managing their own health care?

Hanging in the halls of the PP clinic’s administration wing were a series of framed pictures of older men and women.  Every day when I arrived for a shift I walked down the hall which led from the back entrance to the clinic, and I’d never paid attention to those pictures.  Then, one morning I passed the PP second-in-command in that hallway, and she took note of the button I’d clipped to the strap of my purse:

 

 

She pointed at the button and said, “I’m a Republican. Do you think I should have a lobotomy?”  Gulp.   I removed the button from my purse strap. stammeringly assuring her that I never wore political “statements” of any kind when I was on duty.  She proceeded to give me a tour of that wall of faces – faces of the old, conservative, Republican men and women whose initial and ongoing financial contributions ensured that the clinic stayed open and that services were available to all, regardless of ability to pay.

 

 

And there is always another thing, isn’t there?  Caryn came to work dressed rather rattily, in the hobo chic style that was popular with the financially secure miscreants   [11]    of the day.  She looked as if she’d paid good money for clothing that had been torn and stained to give the impression that the person attired in such outfits was above the judgements of mainstream society.  She also wore an excess of jewelry that was not appropriate for work ( one doctor mentioned to me privately, that he thought her spiky rings and piercings were a hygienic hazard in the clinic    [12]   )   and several times she came to work wearing t-shirts with provocative and ribald political and sexual slogans printed on the front, slogans which were just barely/inconsistently hidden by the lab coat she had to don in the clinic.  That was a  dress code no-no, but no clinic manager ever mentioned it to Caryn (that I knew of), and I sure wasn’t going to open that particular gender-inclusive can of worms.

That is, until one afternoon when the clinic lead tapped me on the shoulder and asked to speak with me privately for just a moment.  We stepped into the lab; she said that this was difficult/awkward for her to bring up, but that my habit of wearing brightly-colored clothing – she pointed past the hem of my lab coat to the teal green mid-calf-length skirt and multi-colored geometric patterned ankle socks I wore – had caught the eye of someone in the administration, who found my attire “unprofessional.”

 

 

I told her she might remember that I did not dress that way when I started at the clinic, but began doing so more regularly after I’d worn a colorful shirt/skirt/socks combination one day and several of my patients told me how nice it was to see “joy and color” in a clinical setting – a setting they’d really rather not be in.    [13]

The clinic lead smiledn nodded, then averted her eyes when I asked her if anyone was speaking to Caryn about her coming to work in a dirt-smudged t-shirt which displayed an obscene slogan about the hetero patriarchy?  When she replied no, not to her knowledge, I wondered aloud as to why that was.  I gave her an out; I told her she need not answer my question as there seemed to be an unspoken acknowledgement amongst clinic staff that if Caryn were reminded about the dress code, or even questioned about her attire, she would raise a fuss about some kind of phobia (homo/trans/attention-seeking juvenile )…and until I saw equal treatment re the “professional attire” issue I will keep wearing my vibrant socks, thank you very much and don’t let the centrifuge hit you in the ass on your way to another employee attire review.   [14]

 

 

And Phil Donahue: thanks for the memories, enlightenment, and entertainment.

*   *   *

Freethinkers’ Thought Of The Week     [15]

“Do you know what they call alternative medicine that works?
Medicine.”

( Australian actor/musician/composer/comedian Tim Minchin )

 

 

*   *   *

May you never have a reason to steam your (or anyone else’s)…parts;
May you have entertaining memories sparked by the death of a celebrity;
May you not be such people in someone else’s memories;
…and may the hijinks ensue.

Thanks for stopping by.  Au Vendredi!

*   *   *

 

[1] Yep, my curiosity got the better of me.

[2]  That should tip you off.  If something is legit you rarely need to call it alternative. See Freethinker’s quote at the end of this blog

[3] 5 ½ years in a private OB/GYN practice; four years in Planned Parenthood clinics.

[4]  NIH National Library of Medicine

[5] I do realize Donahue often played the devil’s advocate – no pun intended in this case – when it came to asking questions of his guests, questions and critiques that he knew their critics would sling.

[6] Not her (or his)  real name, which I have mercifully forgotten…although their presence is etched upon the folds of my cerebellum, for life.

[7] And the answer was most often a resounding, NOT.

[8] How and why she was hired was anyone’s guess (and I was far from being the only clinic aide who wondered).  My guess was that Caryn was a diversity hire – having worked with her in clinic I can attest that it certainly wasn’t because of her experience and/or work ethic – as in, up until then, there were no openly LGBTQ women on that particular PP’s clinic staff.

[9] Which was her interpretation, when we all were really trying to convey, “And we’re supposed to care about this, because….? – just being rhetorical –  PLEASE DON’T ANSWER.”

[10] And they didn’t – there was some brief identification along the lines of, “works in a health care clinic.”

[11] I’ve no idea about her family background-social class-financial status, but her casual attitude about work gave the impression that she didn’t have to worry about money.

[12] I encouraged him to bring his concerns to the clinic manager, but he told me that frankly/off the record he didn’t want to be accused of “discriminating” against her.

[13] This was the abortion clinic.

[14] Not verbatim.  I was very fond of that person, but I made sure that she knew that I knew that there was a double standard going on.

[15] “free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.   No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.”  Definition courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ffrf.org

The Songs I’m Not Censoring

1 Comment

Gung hay fat choi!

Happy Lunar New Year to my Chinese friends and family, and all who celebrate it.

 

 

*   *   *

Department Of At Least They Didn’t Start A Forest Fire

“A 26-year-old Michigan man died on Saturday after he was hit with shrapnel from ‘a small cannon type device’ that exploded when….”

This is how the news article began. What words, would you think, could possibly complete the article’s lead sentence?

“… it was fired in celebration at a baby shower….

 

 

Because celebrating babies and pregnancy and impending parenthood – one immediately thinks: Ah, yes: armaments!

“A cannon type device.” As in, a cannon? It was a friggin’ baby shower; it was not a Civil War reenactment, nor battle enactment of any kind…although – WARNING: BAD PREGNANCY PUN AHEAD – many a woman in her ninth month of gestation has felt like she is personally fighting the Battle of the Bulge.

 

The story continues:

“The man, Evan Thomas Silva, a guest at the party, was about 10 to 15 feet from the device when it blew up in the backyard of a home. Metal shrapnel hit Mr. Silva, three parked cars and the garage where the shower was being held, the police said…..
The night Mr. Silva died, he was among the guests…attending a baby shower — not a gender reveal party….”
( “Celebratory Cannon Salute at Baby Shower Ends in Death,” NY Times 2-7-21

Interesting that the article took pains to mention that this was *not* a gender reveal party, as per the idiotic trend in which celebratory pyrotechnics employed by excited parents-to-be inadvertently yet efficiently caused *more than one* wildfire in the past year (a trend which yours truly had mocked in a previous post).

Attention, expectant parents: stop this. Right now. Stop throwing such events for yourselves and stop attending them in your “honor.” Your friends and family will thank you:  no matter what they are saying to your face, under your nose and behind your back they are embarrassed and appalled that you apparently find the fact of *your* impending parenthood – an event so ordinary that it happens worldwide, 385,000 times PER DAY  – to be so special that it is the cause for the type of celebration usually reserved for a nation’s liberation from a dictator or the opening of yet another Disney theme park.

Have a party if you want to, of course!  Keep it simple – those kind of celebrations are remembered most fondly, and are less stressful to plan *and* attend. Do the potluck thing, play music and silly games.  [1]  But have some perspective, puuuuuhhhhllleeeaassee.  NO cannons, no fireworks – nothing which intentionally or otherwise explodes… with the exception of your Uncle Beauford’s mouth (and other orifices) after his third helping of your elderly neighbor’s double-chili-bean-cabbage-beer-garlic casserole.

 

“We’re so excited about baby’s first artillery!

*   *   *

Department Of What To Serve At Your Baby Shower
Sup-Department Of Maybe Reconsider The Chicken Wings

“Torture a single chicken in your backyard, and you risk arrest. Abuse tens of millions of them? Why, that’s agribusiness.”
( “The Ugly Secrets Behind the Costco Chicken,” NY Times, 2-6-21 )

 

 

Selective breeding by agricultural scientists for larger overall size and enormous breasts – the white meat consumers prefer – has produced  “exploding chickens” that put on weight at a monstrous clip….The journal Poultry Science once calculated that if humans grew at the same rate as these chickens, a 2-month-old baby would weigh 660 pounds…. The chickens’ legs, unable to support the weight of their out-of-proportion bodies, often splay or collapse, making some chickens topple onto their backs (and then they cannot right themselves) and others collapse onto their bellies, where they lie in mounds of feces and suffer bloody rashes called ammonia burns – the poultry version of bed sores.

*   *   *

 

 

*   *   *

Department Of Memory Sparking

The film class moiself  had in college: I hadn’t thought of it, nor of the class’s professor, in years.  Now, twice in the past two months both have come to mind (and thus, to this blog).

The first time was two months ago, during the brouhaha manufactured by a Wall Street Journal columnist who chided Jill Biden, who holds a Ph.D. in education, for using her professional credentials. I’d remembered how I’d gotten a kick out of how Robert Miller, my film class’s professor,  [2]  made his point as to how he wished to be addressed.  Miller, who had a Ph.D. in literature, introduced himself as “Professor Miller.” When a student speaking in class prefaced their remarks with, “Dr. Miller…” Miller would interrupt with, “Yes, nurse?”

The second time was last week, when I was listening to a recent Fresh Air interview with former writer  [3]  and current professional observationist  [4]   Fran Leibovitz.  Leibovitz was promoting a new Netflix docuseries, “Pretend It’s a City,”  in which the series’ director (Leibovitz’s longtime friend, Martin Scorsese) talks with Leibovitz about…well, about Leibovitz, and whatever Leibovitz thinks about any and every thing she thinks about.   [5]

In the Fresh Air interview Leibovitz talked about her “career” background. Before enjoying her fifteen minutes of fame as a writer in the 1970s  [6]  Leibovitz held a series of menial/odd jobs. She claims she took housecleaning jobs and drove a taxi because, “I don’t have any skills. I didn’t know how to do anything else.”

“I also didn’t want to do the job that most of my friends did, which was wait tables, because I didn’t want to have to be nice to men to get tips or to sleep with the manager of my shift, which was a common requirement then for being a waitress in New York.”

My film professor, who was a writer as well as a teacher, didn’t (to my knowledge) require any of his students to sleep with him – that’s not why this memory was sparked.  He *did* do something which I thought was an abuse of power, although at that time I hadn’t the emotional or intellectual context to frame it as such, given its complexity.

One afternoon in class the topic was screenplay adaptation.  As an example of how you would turn a literary story into a cinematic one, Professor Miller announced that our next assignment, due the following week, would be to write up a proposal for adapting a piece of short fiction he would give to us.  We’ll spend the rest of the class time discussing the assignment, Professor Miller said.  He began passing out photocopies of – I stifled a gasp when I read the byline – a short story *he* had written.

 

 

I remember thinking, “Uh, this a good idea?  HELL NO.”

Would any student dare say, “This story is not adaptable,” or, “There’s no way I would want to adapt this even if I thought I could because I just don’t like it.…” or express any other critique, from mild to scathing, knowing that it is the professor’s own work?

I tried to stifle my instinctive, lip-curling expression as I read the story, which was a Mailer-Hemingwayesque male fantasy, about a backpacking trip taken by an Older Man ® (an artist-teacher of some kind) and the Much Younger Woman ® he is mentoring and – surprise! – fucking dating.   Meanwhile, Professor Miller read aloud from the story’s campfire scene, a scene which, he told the class, would be particularly visually appealing for a screenwriter (the following is my summation of the scene):

OM and MYW are sitting around their campfire, their conversation terse and tense. There is a sense of growing strain between them for a variety of reasons, including the status of their relationship, and signs of bear activity in the vicinity. When MYW excuses herself  (presumably to go behind the tent to take a pee break),  OM ruminates about how their relationship will likely be coming to an end, as he is older, more educated and world-wise, and she is…well…she is what she is (young and beautiful).

MYW returns, tossing an item into the campfire as she sits down; OM sees a tampon briefly blaze before the flames incinerate it. He begins to panic…. 

Already feeling nauseated by the retch-worthy cliché of the older male teacher/younger female student predatory romantic relationship scenario, I had another thought that made me want to puke in class: he’s not going to incorporate the macho woodsy myth about bears being attracted to menstruating women in his story, is he?   [7] 

OM starts asking MYW about why she didn’t tell him she was having her menstrual period – they’re in bear country, FFS! That explains his feeling that a bear has been stalking them.  Now, they are in danger….

Several students (all male) took turns praising the scene and shared their ideas as to how they would script it.  I remember Professor Miller looking at me several times, as if he expected my feedback – me, who remained silent, despite usually speaking up in class discussions; me, the one student (or so the professor  told me a week earlier, when he’d returned an assignment of mine   [8]  ) whom he allowed to turn any assignment into a prose-writing opportunity.   [9]

I remember looking around at the class, paying particular attention to the expressions on the other female student’s faces, and having a click-worthy moment of realization:

Oh, so *this* is how women learn to fake orgasms.

 

“Do tell?”

 

Up until that moment, the class as a whole had had little problem tearing into films we had been told were “classics” but which one or more of us found poorly made, reductive, or just plain boring.  But for this assignment, what choice did we have, other than to act as if we liked the story?  He was our professor; it was his story. We had to pretend to like or at least approve of it in order for us to succeed in that situation.

Somewhere near the end of class time moiself  raised my hand and asked if we had other options for the assignment – for example, adapting works of…other authors.  I remember phrasing my question as delicately as I could, and squeezing in some (faux) compliments of his story, compliments which were bland enough that I didn’t hate myself for wimping out on what I wanted to do, which was to object to the inherent hubris of him assigning his own story.  Fortunately for me, several of the professor’s suck-ups acolytes weighed in on the subject, and my tacit criticism of his self-indulgent ego trip of an assignment didn’t seem to register (or at least not for long, as I got an A in the class).

*   *   *

Department Of Sometimes I Miss The Good Old Days Of Censorship

“When I’m good, I’m very good, but when I’m bad, I’m better. ”

“I’ll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure.”

― Mae West

 

The Good Old Days ® of any kind were usually not-that-good, just old.  I am not condoning censorship; continuing with this post’s cinematic theme, I am remember the day in my film class where we learned about the Hays Code, aka the Motion Picture Production Code.  The Hays Code was used, for almost four decades, by film studios to require that their pictures be “wholesome” and “moral” and free from a list of no-nos (e.g. nudity, overt violence, sexually suggestive dances, discussions of sexual perversity, characters which engendered sympathy for criminals, unnecessary use of liquor, making fun of religion, interracial relationships, “lustful kissing,” ridicule of law and order….)

A lively class discussion about the Hays Code ensued.  Several students, and the professor, gave reasons for favoring some kind of code or guidelines (although not outright censorship), due to the artistic ingenuity such guidelines inevitably inspired.

This idea that “guidelines up the game” is one which crosses artistic genres. I recall experiencing a joy I don’t think can be replicated today, when I realized that 13-year-old moiself  “got” The Kinks’ song, Lola, and my parents   [10]   and the radio censors didn’t.  Presently, pop vocalists can call for the execution of people they don’t like, can call each other obscene and racist epithets, can brag about the…uh, humidity level of their intimate parts….  There are few if any lines to subversively read between. 

 

A fun factoid about “Lola” is that the word “Coca-Cola” in the original recording had to be changed ( ♫ “I met her in a bar down in old Soho where you drink champagne and it takes just like Coca-Cola…” ♫ ).  Singer Ray Davies dubbed in “cherry cola” for the song’s release, due to the BBC Radio’s policy against product placement.

 

Son K and I had an interesting IM session about the subject of censorship when, apropos of what-I-cannot-now recall, K came across some info about the Parents Music Resource Center, asked me some questions, and began searching for and then watching videos of the PMRC’s congressional hearing.

[ The PMRC, as some of y’all may recall, was an American governmental “advisory committee” formed in the 1980s which sought to increase parental control over children’s access to music with violent, sexual, and drug-related themes. The PMRC lobbied the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America)  to develop a music labeling system, ala the MPAA’s film rating system.  Because the PMRC was founded by four women whose husbands had political connections (including Tipper Gore, married to Senator and later Vice President Al Gore) the group was sometimes derisively and dismissively referred to as “The Washington Wives.” ]

K: man so reading about the PMRC. what was tipper gore’s problem

Moiself What made you read about the PMRC?
Some say Tipper Gore was looking for a “cause,; others, including herself and her husband, say she was a concerned parent who became shocked when she listened to the lyrics of one of her daughter’s favorite songs…and then started acquainting herself with other lyrics to popular music.
I think it’s probably a combination of both motivations.  The PMRC was actually a milder version of other parental groups at the time which were calling for censorship – the PMRC wanted parental warning labels as to content….

I gave K a brief history lesson: at that time, many kids didn’t buy their own records – their parents or grandparents did.  As a parent and “consumer,” I wouldn’t want to spend my money on songs that used racial epithets or promoted homophobic or misogynistic viewpoints to my kids. And in the ’80s lyrics were getting really explicit, which made me actually wish for the days of radio content restrictions…because then singers and songwriters had to be clever.  It was so much fun when, ala my “Lola” reference, you knew something was slipped by the sensors – you caught a reference that even the supposedly hip radio programming directors, as well as your own parents, didn’t “get.”

K: just looking through it, (the PMRC hearings) all comes across to me as one of those bullshit moral crusades. a need to either feel self superior, or a need to control anything that doesn’t appeal to X person’s personal tastes, or both.
it just reminded me of a milder version of McCarthyist witch hunting.
demonizing something for political gain

Moiself: Yes, but the latter is a proven technique.

Later on, in an in-person dialogue, I shared with K my opinion that any form of guideline or structure-free art risks…well, think of the criticism of free verse poetry as playing tennis with the net down.  I’m not lauding censorship per se, but, to reiterate, IMHO guidelines can actually make people more creative – or sneaky, which has a strong element of creativity to it. Because when you can’t just come out and say Certain Things ® you have to be subtle and sly, employing cheeky imagery and evocative dialogue.  You have to be more poetic, in a way.

A movie critic once asked the late great writer/screenwriter/director Nora Ephron if Ephron agreed with the critic’s observation that there seemed to have been stronger roles for women actors, and better plots and dialog, in the earlier days of cinema. Ephron agreed, and lamented contemporary movies’ lack of witty dialogue and snappy repartee – and distinctive, self-assured female characters – which were found in the movies of the 30s and 40s and even 50s.  Beginning in the late 60s, along came the “New Cinema” movement, which emphasized so-called gritty realism. You no longer had to employ clever camera angles and witty, double-entendre laden repartee – now you can just show (instead of imply) a graphic murder, have the protagonists jump into bed together (which had the effect of valuing, defining – and casting – female actors as per their sexual appeal)…and then what?

In an atmosphere where nothing is considered to be off-limits, you will never have the delightful shock value of experiencing, say, the judicious use of “strong” language.  I fondly recall my mother telling me about her most memorable movie experience, when as a child she saw Gone With The Wind. She said she’d never forget how she was both scandalized and thrilled – and how “the entire theater gasped” –  when Rhett Butler delivered his infamous parting line:

 

 

 

*   *   *

Pun(z) For The Day

Moiself : Did you hear about that actress, Reese, who just stabbed a guy to death?
Innocent bystander: Witherspoon?
Moiself : No, she used her knife.

  1. Q.  How does award-winning actor Reese eat her Cheerios?
  2. A.  Witherspoon.

I suppose I have to be a good sport about this.

*   *   *

May you shun any event mixing pyrotechnics and babies;
May you neither actively nor passively contribute to “exploding chickens;”
May you challenge yourself to both follow and subvert the guidelines;
…and may the hijinks ensue.

Thanks for stopping by.  Au Vendredi!

*   *   *

 

[1] Of course, have these events safely, distanced/outdoors, and masked until this damn COVID-19 thing peters out …do I really need to say this? Apparently.

[2] A pseudonym.

[3] Leibovitz has famously suffered from writer’s block for years, and now seems to get by with having people pay to listen to her talk about the things she used to write about. Not a criticism – she has a keen, sardonic eye, and is quite witty.  I have enjoyed the series, so far (haven’t as of this writing finished listening to all episodes).

[4] I’m not sure if “observationist” is a thing, but Leibovitz seems to be making a living from it.

[5] Which centers around her technophobic life in New York city; specifically, Manhattan.

[6] Using her satirical, NYC-centered wit, she opined on American life in two best-selling collections of essays,   Metropolitan Life and Social Studies.

[7] After class I found a couple of Wildlife Fisheries Biology majors who confirmed that was a myth.  Even so, it was a myth that got a lot of traction, and it wasn’t until in the 1980s and ’90s that biologists did studies proving that bears – or sharks – are no more attracted to menstruating women than to any other kind of human.

[8] storyboarding a dada-esque, vignette-style commercial for the soft drink, 7-Up, which he graded A+.

[9] We’d had and would continue to have various projects over the quarter, from “making” a short films or advertisements or animation. I’d no interest in filming anything or doing animation, and always chose to interpret “making” as doing the screenplay, storyboarding and/or writing portion of the project.

[10] When my friend’s très conservative mother was singing along to “Lola” on the radio while was driving us to the beach, I somehow resisted the urge to ask if she knew she was enjoying an ode to a naïve young man’s romance with a transvestite.