OK, I've finally figured out how to embed my video from the "Modest Proposals" panel. (Enjoy hearing highlights from the rest of the panelists by searching for "modest proposals" on YouTube.)
After D.C. I appeared on a very interesting TV show in Toronto called "Uncommon Ground."
I was quite impressed with the host, Dr. Rachael Turkienicz, who is a very deep person and explores questions pertaining to women and spirituality with one guest each week. By way of introduction to my book, she served up a rather troubling story from her own life. When Rachael's daughter was in kindergarten, she came home one day and looking crestfallen, asked her mother: "Am I hot?" Dr. Turkienicz asked for clarification.
"Well my friend said she's hot, but I'm not hot. Mommy, am I? Am I hot?"
Dr. Turkienicz then suggested that if her friend was hot, perhaps she should have a drink of water or remove a layer of clothing.
Now, I'm sure there are people out there who will disagree with that response, but I think it was pitch-perfect. Not everything has to be explained when you're six!
I thought about innocence again on Wednesday night, when I met a bunch of students at Fordham University. After my talk, one young woman confessed that recently, holding a guy's hand in a movie theater had felt like a big deal to her. Without giving out too much information, suffice it to say that she was a very attractive and outgoing coed. Yet her friends had all made fun of her and called her a prude.
Look, to each his own. But if you start with the pressure to look hot at age six, probably you're on a track to thinking holding hands is nothing special by age 18. And so the irony is, when we are deprived of the concept of innocence, later on we often miss out on the passion.
Due to the ideological response to these issues--all the false dichotomies such as "anti-sex vs. pro-sex"-- we don't often hear it, but the jadedness contest doesn't make room for much fireworks.
On a practical note, a big thank you to Jenna Felz for making the Fordham event such a success. Thanks to her organizational efforts we had a turnout of around 200 students! Some really terrific questions emerged from the audience--but I think I'll save those for another blog.
TO make a not-particularly-deep comment: Wendy, you are so adorable. Just had to say it. :)
It's hard going to college and eventually realizing that the professors, who are supposed to be these sources of wisdom, can have some really bizarre ideas. It kind of throws you off balance for a while.
Posted by: Marauder | November 30, 2007 at 05:43 PM
As always you did a wonderful job Wendy and I am sure that your "true-self" really helped you out. :) It is sad that so many young girls feel the need to be perceived as "hot." I guess the question is where is this coming from? The media? Society? Our fashion trends? Perhaps it is a combination of everything. I think that is why it is so important for parents to stress to their children the importance of their value and that their internal selves are the parts that matter the most. However, I recently read a statistic that stated that "good-looking" people are more likely to be acquitted by a jury than unattractive people. Furthermore, people who are attractive are more likely to do better professionally. Without devulging too much information I once worked in a white collar environment where a male professional had two assistants. One was much older, more experienced and IMO did her job better. The other assistant was younger and always dressed very "sexy." At a certain point the professional was notified that he could only keep one assistant. I thought that for certain he would keep his older, more experienced, knowledgable assistant but he did not! He chose the "sexier" one. I think society in general encourages girls and suggests to them that sexy is the way to go. Is it any surprise that we have six year olds thinking that they should be "hot?"
Posted by: Rachel D'Souza | November 30, 2007 at 06:00 PM
I don't recommend having a false self either...be yourself!!!
Be true to yourself, follow your heart.
From your true self, never depart.
Help those around you-you know you should.
Don't be suckered into a state of falsehood.
Don't look to fashion moguls to be trendy.
Just follow the lead of fashionista Wendy!
Posted by: Rachel D'Souza | November 30, 2007 at 06:13 PM
I agree that there is no room for passion if we are supposed to be sex-positive, it actually cancels out being positive towards a certain person because we are supposed to open to sex without linking it to a specific then what makes that other person special? It's actually a very self centered way to be.
I like that response you quoted, it makes alot of sense - there is so much stuff floating about these days it makes you wonder how to even start protecting your children.
Posted by: Priya | November 30, 2007 at 09:42 PM
I have just thought of a comic strip called Love Positive:
sans graphics...
Boy: I Love You
Girl: Wow, I Love You too
Boy: Great
Girl: What do you love most about me ?
Boy: Well I am very Love Positive
Girl: Sorry ?
Boy: I like to love
Girl: Love me ?
Boy: No I am very Pro-Love
Girl: You mean in general or something ??? ( confusion)
Boy: Well I think loving is something that's positive and I see myself as a productive & adjusted person. I am truly on the cutting edge of society and am making that clear by doing something like loving you.
Girl: (walks away)
Posted by: Priya | December 01, 2007 at 05:17 PM
I think that comic book sketch was funnier in my mind, (that's what happens sometimes) but I've never heard about being "sex-positive"/"sex-negative" before a few weeks ago, it seems slightly absurd... I think that if we are working ourselves up to be open sexually ( in general ) without working on those other parts of ourselves we are bound to make errors in judgement, you have to be looking for the "right" thing in order to recognise that you have found it in the first place. The realm of intimacy just has to have a sense of exclusivity to be meaningful- and there are not many chances we have in this world to feel truly cherished, be "ourselves" and accepted it should at least remain in our relationships ( or at most....)
Posted by: Priya | December 02, 2007 at 05:13 AM
"I thought that for certain he would keep his older, more experienced, knowledgable assistant but he did not! He chose the "sexier" one."
Older, more knowledgeable people are often let go first because their pay is higher (so the company saves a lot more money by letting them go), they have more vacation time, and they are closer to collecting retirement benefits. This is illegal (age discrimination) and in my opinion immoral, but it often happens anyways. Your explanation may be the correct one, but just letting you know that there is another very possible alternative. Whichever it is, you should be glad you don't work at that company anymore :)
Posted by: Anon | December 02, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Dear Anon,
Thank you for your note. Actually the way my company was structured it was not that the older assistant was fired but rather that the professional I spoke of could only keep one assistant. The older assistant was transferred to another department and was not fired. Thus, the company did not save any money as they didn't let go of any one. The way my firm was structured was that a professional's allowed number of assistants was determined on how much they were billing annually. If the professional was billing less than(significantly) before they were not allowed to have two assistants but rather could keep only one. This is what happened. At that point the professional had the option to choose which assistant he wanted to keep and chose the "sexier" one.
Posted by: Rachel D'Souza | December 02, 2007 at 04:02 PM
Wendy, are you absolutely sure you're not joking about the Andrea Dworkin seder? :P Mwahahahaha...
Posted by: Anna S | December 03, 2007 at 11:53 AM
It was one of my first articles for Commentary, "A Feminist Seder"--you can look it up!
:-)
Posted by: wendy | December 03, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Rachel,
I see. Your original comment seemed to imply that the older woman lost her job. Upon hearing the full story, I definitely find it more likely that appearance could have been the deciding factor. If so that is a shame. Professional decisions should not be made for personal reasons. And I do agree that on average, there is far more emphasis on the appearance of working women than there is on that of men. For what it's worth though, overtly sexy clothing is generally discouraged in the higher-paying "professional" ranks. It often leads coworkers and bosses to underestimate a woman's competence and achievement.
Posted by: Anon | December 04, 2007 at 06:17 PM
Dear Anon,
While I agree with some of your sentiments I find that while overtly sexy outfits are discouraged amongst professional women (ie. lawyers)it is not necessarily discouraged amongst assistants. Having spent most of my working life in the legal sector I find this to be the case. I suppose if the assistant is in view of clients then that could be another story but if she is just working with a professional then not so much so. I am not sure about other sectors but I know that the legal sector is very hierarchy oriented. As a result, if the partners want something they usually get it. If the partners want a certain assistant-even if she is not the most suitable candidate, he (or she) will most likely get that person.
Posted by: Rachel D'Souza | December 07, 2007 at 05:41 AM
A large part of the personal integrity issue in our culture today does revolve around sex. We have always looked at a person's "attractiveness" as an identifier of their value to society. With the advent of advertising and media as arbitrator of "attractiveness", that standard has degraded to "what can push the most buttons the easiest" as opposed to what this person looks like they can accomplish. Our daughters (and sons) are forced, from birth, into that attitude by society at large. We need to look at who is responsible for public opinion, and who benefits the most from the chaos caused by this insane attitude, in order to eradicate it.
Posted by: Susan5 | December 11, 2007 at 02:52 PM
I agree with your sentiments Susan but the question is who is responsible?
Posted by: Rachel D'Souza | December 12, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Rachael Turkienicz says of scripture " Studying Torah is not about engaging with an ancient text. It's about engaging the world--it's about trying to enter the human heart and walk around."
What do you think she means by this?
Posted by: Connie Whitely | November 19, 2009 at 09:44 AM