Modestly Yours

Is This What "Pro-Choice" Means?

I just read this CNN article about Suzanne Gonzales, may she rest in peace. In the photo that accompanies the article, Suzanne looks kooky, fun, and mischievous, as if she knows that with a little lateral thinking she can have a really good time on this earth of ours. In that photo, she reminds me of the Thora Birch character in “Ghostworld,” but without that morose angst and counter-culture insolence. She doesn’t look unhappy--in fact, she looks like the kind of girl who has a bunch of friends who appreciate the way she makes them laugh. And she was, according to the article, “A bubbly 19-year-old with loving parents and good friends…a strong student [who] earned a science scholarship for college.”

But everything I postulated about the photo was wrong. Suzanne wasn’t happy or bubbly at all. Rather, she was a very sad, and very disturbed young woman.

Two years ago Suzanne sent her parents an email explaining that by the time they read it, she would be dead. And indeed, she killed herself in a motel room.

What makes this suicide different and perhaps more tragic than others is that Suzanne was helped by an online group that assists people in committing suicide. The group had its own vernacular of death which its members would converse in. They would also post messages about the best and worst ways for people kill themselves. And perhaps, most insidiously, through their various chat rooms and message boards, they would actually encourage people to end their own lives.

Of course, members of the group denied that they had anything to do with Suzanne’s death. The group was “pro-choice” said one member, and “therapeutic” said another- meaning that they couldn’t force anyone to commit suicide, and it was ultimately the person’s own decision, and a healing one at that.

It’s funny how “choice” these days is so often associated with decisions that, in some way or another, mean death.

I am not sure why the story was published now, two years after the fact of Suzanne’s suicide (it sounds like there may be a lawsuit pending). But the story is still troubling for several reasons. While most of us can look at the story of Suzanne Gonzales and shudder at the thought of this evil chatroom and the sinister, murderous tentacles of its messages, there is still much of society today that fetishizes suicide in a way that is ultimately destructive. Think of the movie “Million Dollar Baby”- which was the favorite at the Oscars last year, or “The Hours” which won an academy award or two a few years ago. In both those movies, suicide was seen to be the only way out of a frustrating life. It was rid of its malignant associations, and instead transmuted into a more benign panacea that could bestow the ultimate healing.

Think also, of the way that the media twists themselves into pretzels trying to understand the motives of Middle-Eastern suicide bombers. So often, every story of innocent people being blown up in a café or on a bus, is accompanied by another tear-jerking story of the wretched life of the bomber himself. It is as if we can’t accept self-murder unless we pretend that there was something ‘good’ about it, instead of acknowledging the horror of it. 

I think that the chatroom Suzanne frequented was simply a very extreme version of our tacit “appreciation” of suicide.

On a very basic level, I think that the story demonstrates, very strongly, the need for household internet access to be closely supervised. Yes Suzanne was 19 and away from home, but about 4,000 people between the ages of 15 and 24 end their lives each year. The younger ones are living at home, and the older ones--how much depressing stuff was a part of their daily internet diet before they left home? 

At a very religious Jewish school I am familiar with in Los Angeles, the administration advises parents to keep their computers in a highly-trafficked area of the house, so that the fear of embarrassment will prevent family members from looking at porn sites or, in this case, evil suicide-baiting websites. For many people, the internet is simply too much temptation. Yes, if they are so inclined, and they didn’t have the internet, they could find the information elsewhere. But the internet makes it so easy for people to indulge in pathological behaviors.

Would Suzanne Gonzales have committed suicide without access to this terrible internet group? We can never know. But I’d like to see the person who started this horrible website come forward publicly, if he is so proud of his “pro-choice” resource.

Now all Suzanne’s parents are left with is an email, where their daughter wrote her final thoughts in thirty words or less.

Dealing With Criticism

I am deeply honored to be a part of this online community.

Having recently been attacked personally--I'm sure everyone here at ModestyZone has experienced this at one time or other--I just wanted to drop some encouragement to our youth to go after their dreams.

One of the greatest feelings is doing something you love to do. Use discouragement as motivation, turn all negatives into positives, and just go for it!!!

Update from U.Texas

Howdy, Y'all!  Taking E 340 ("American Novel Before 1920") with none other than Dr. Kevorkian. Really. But not THE Dr. Kevorkian. He's just an excellent English professor who's last name is Kevorkian, and he has a PhD - making him "Dr. Kevorkian." :o)

Decided to join Torchlight Society for this semester. The girls are super nice! It's virtually the opposite of a sorority.

TX Crew practice has been great. Rowing? At 5:20 am? Everyday? No prob.

My job (recording grad textbooks on audio for blind students) is super sweet.

Fraternities in West Campus are soooo loud!

I’m having major body-image issues lately. Ugh! Thought I'd gotten over them, but just when I start feeling relatively secure, the thing coils around me like a python, crushing the spine that took me months to renourish.

I spout strong, proud ideas of self-love, -confidence, -appreciation and -esteem to my girlfriends. I encourage, assure, and remind them how all-encompassingly beautiful they are. (And foreseeing accusations of my being sexist, I maintain that I would do the same for any of my guy-friends if one put himself down in my presence.) Yet like many young women, I still grapple with accepting myself.

My parents are so supportive in building me back up, and I thank heaven for that. Still, I feel a responsibility to myself to deal with these insecurities independently, of course. I think, God, I'm 20 years old, a capable, well-educated, level-headed female.  At this age, I should first of all be beyond a stage typical of pre-, mid-, and post-pubescent teens and, second, able to battle it solo, with grace and ease. Right?

I went to a bookstore and browsed the women's studies section, I suppose for a little confidence boost from a fellow struggling sister.  In perusing the shelves, I found this:
The Body Project: An Intimate History of American Girls, by Joan Jacobs Brumberg, published 1997.

I LOVE it! I highly recommend Project to daughters, mothers, and anyone remotely interested in the cultural and sociological exploration of female adolescence (which ideally would be everyone).

I’ll pontificate, though not in this entry. For the moment, I’ll quote the most thought-provoking excerpts so as not to misrepresent the author or not do justice to some brilliant writing:

"The traditional emphasis on ‘good works’ as opposed to ‘good looks’ meant that the lives of young women in the nineteenth century had a very different orientation from those of girls today. This difference is reflected in the tone of their personal diaries, a source I use extensively to tell the story of how the American girl’s relationship to her body has changed over the past century. Before WW I, girls rarely mentioned their bodies in terms of strategies for self-improvement or struggles for personal identity. Becoming a better person meant paying less attention to the self, giving more assistance to others, and putting more effort into instructive reading or lessons at school…" (Italicization my own doing, not in Brumberg's original text.)

"In 1892, the personal agenda of an adolescent diarist read: ‘Resolved, not to talk about myself or feelings. To think before speaking. To work seriously. To be self restrained in conversation and actions. Not to let my thoughts wander. To be dignified. Interest myself more in others...’ A century later, in the 1990s, American girls think very differently. In a New Year’s resolution written in 1982, a girl wrote: ‘I will try to make myself better in any way I possibly can with the help of my budget and baby-sitting money. I will lose weight, get new lenses, already got new haircut, good makeup, new clothes and accessories.’"

"Like many adults in American society, girls today are concerned with the shape and appearance of their bodies as a primary expression of their individual identity… "

"Life in the world of the micro-bikini [that, to many women, necessitates hair removal] is obviously different from life in the world of the corset… but there are still constraints and difficulties, perhaps even greater ones… Although elevated body angst is a great boost to corporate profits, it saps the creativity of girls and threatens their mental and physical health. Progress for women is obviously filled with ambiguities."

"Shouldn’t today’s sexually liberated girls feel better about themselves than their corseted sisters of a century ago? Although young women today enjoy greater freedom and more opportunities than their counterparts of a century ago, they are also under more pressure, and at a greater risk, because of a unique combination of biological and cultural forces that have made the adolescent female body into a template for much of the social change of the twentieth century."

More on this subject soon...

Entirely Yours,
Lily Lou

Fellow Students: Don't Fall for "Sexual Jeopardy"

It was brought to my attention recently that the freshmen here at Princeton were told to come to a mandatory study break sponsored by the Sexual Health Advisors (SHA) where they would play “Sex Jeopardy.”  On the SHA section of the University Health Services website, it describes sex jeopardy as a game where participants will learn about:

• Gynecological health
• Safer sex, STIs, and pregnancy
• Sexual assault, sexual harassment, harassment based on sexual orientation, and relationship violence.
• Campus resources

I wonder first, why is it mandatory?  And second, how do they expect to properly teach about sex using a “fun and games” format?  It sounds like a friendly form of indoctrination but indoctrination nonetheless. 

I want to talk about a word college students never hear about: modesty. What does it mean to be modest today? For a lot of people, modesty is an antiquated word best left for those who long for the “good ol’” days. Supposedly, we are liberated women; we don’t have to hide under the “oppression” of modesty. Or so most of society tells us.

I argue that modesty and freedom are not mutually exclusive. A modest woman is in fact more free than a woman who expresses herself in whatever way she likes (sometimes to the point of degradation). Think about it for a moment. Modesty is recognizing your potential as a talented, elegant, and virtuous woman and living your life according to that truth. A modest woman, for example, would not engage in the random hook-up culture that we see today. Why? Because her modesty gives her the freedom to know who she is and how valuable she is. Hooking up does not tend to make a woman realize her potential but in fact it objectifies her as a sexual thing only and not a woman with likes, dislikes, an intellect, etc.

It is said that freedom is not doing what you want but doing what you ought. Unfortunately, our society has lost a sense of the “ought” due to an impressive primacy on moral relativism and radical individualism. However, without that “ought,” there can be no concept of modesty. Modesty frees us to treasure our potential as women. It frees us to do what we ought to do in accordance with our worth as women.  So, you may ask, what exactly does a modest woman do? How does she live? Well, most importantly, she lives her life in freedom from objectification because she knows herself. She knows herself very well, how she views the world, her limitations, her strengths, etc. All of her actions follow from this strong knowledge of herself. So how she studies, how she relates to people, her morality all depend on this knowledge. One of the saddest things about the state of women today is that many women don’t know who they are. Because of that, they let everything else define them; magazines, films, other people, etc. This is most unfortunate.

Many people associate modesty with a religious background for good reason. Religion can be a way to better know yourself. Many people find their identities in a particular religion which gives life a purpose and also directs them to what they ought to do. Modesty as a philosophical concept is independent from religion, but I think that religion can be an appropriate foundation for building modesty.

So back to my original question. What does it mean to be modest today? It means being the woman that you ought to be. It means recognizing your worth even though many around you do not recognize theirs. It means conducting yourself in a respectable and graceful manner despite criticisms of being too “prudish” or old-fashioned. Perhaps by your example, others will come to know the value of modesty and indeed, their own value.

Easy Come - Easy Go

A big wow and thanks to Wendy Shalit for starting up ModestyZone.

In the past month, I’ve learned a few things about male immodesty.  Take “The Cuddle Party”–-ever hear of it? One day at work, a former co-worker tells me he has a couple events he’d like to invite me to. Mind you, I think maybe he’s in a band since he has some musical talent. It even would be better, however “inappropriate” nowadays, to get asked out on a date. Nope. He invites me to a “cuddle party.” I almost laugh in his face. I naively ask what it is, hoping against hope, it isn’t what I think it is. Not only does he tell me exactly what it is but apparently I need to bring my pajamas and $15 with me. No, I’m sorry, that’s the student rate.

I did not invite this encounter. I was so caught off-guard and embarrassed, that in the moment, all I could think was “escape.” I mumbled something about being Catholic and conservative, but later got angry. I was assertive with him the next day, but ladies, I guess my point here is to let you know these things exist so steer clear and speak up!

Trees vs. Leaves

Surely you’ve noticed the beautiful fallen leaves of Thanksgiving time.  But have you noticed the trees that have shed them?

Sometimes I just can’t help myself from noticing the often-unnoticeable objects in everyday life, and when I do, I usually find myself wondering how the nature and characteristics of that object’s life could relate to mine.  Strange, I know, but then again--I live in New York, and--when there are so many other things around me screaming for my attention, I’m apt to give mine to those that aren’t.  And so I noticed a tree today…

It seemed to be quite a tall, strong and well-structured tree, flourishing with beautiful, big colorful leaves.  From the base of the trunk it was obvious that the tree was very well rooted, and even when a relatively strong wind blew its way only a few of the outer branches and leaves softly swayed with it.  I was quite sure that, short of a severe hurricane, nothing could uproot that tree.  In fact, for a minute I felt I could really relate to that tree.  I really do find that the more rooted we are in ourselves, and in whichever value system we adhere to, the less likely we are to be shaken by challenging events occurring in our lives.  (The gales, hurricanes, and tornadoes which try to set us off our course.)

Having a value system would probably equal the tree’s strong roots, but even that alone would not be enough.  The tall, strong trunk could be paralleled with the need for self–confidence, for without it, what good is a value system (roots) if you don’t have the strength to stand up for it – for that which you base yourself upon?  Both the trunk and the roots of the tree are mutually beneficial to each other’s survival, just as our self-confidence and value systems are.

And then I thought, what if a really strong wind or storm did actually uproot that strong tree, what then?  Could that same tree find life again?  Certainly not if it were left astray after being uprooted, but (assuming the damage was not terminal,) that same tree could regain its vitality after being replanted and reconnected with its source, where it would once again be able to live, flourish, and grow. In short, it is the roots that matter most as they allow you not merely to stand for something, but to stand, period.

In life, many people, circumstances, and challenges will come and try to sway you in a direction other than the one you feel most comfortable taking.  Who you are, what you base yourself upon, and how you hold yourself will all determine how you react…  Do you want to be a leaf that will likely be swept up and carried off with whichever way the wind decides to carry it, always being unsure of your destination – not to mention most likely forgetting where you’ve come from?  Or, would you rather be a strong, sturdy tree, proudly rising tall and knowing where you stand?  When the wind blows, you acknowledge its breeze with a gentle sway of your branches but continue to stand your ground;  when the sun shines, you welcome the warmth and respite it provides; and when the rain begins to patter on your leaves, you accept the soak and, through the temporary discomfort, still recognize the blessing that it brings.

Believe in something,
Hold your ground,
Flourish,
Grow,
Astound.

Give thanks.

bE a TrEe

"What's Wrong with this Outfit, Mom?"

Spot on op-ed piece in last Sunday's Washington Times written by Patricia Dalton, a clinical psychologist in Washington.  Dalton examines how young women today are dressing like porn stars, why their parents are afraid to draw the line, and how this is harmful to girls and young women. 

"Women once complained about being reduced to sex objects. Now, their daughters are volunteering to be sex objects. And while parents register disapproval, they often fail to take action."

"What we're witnessing now is the fallout from the ... sexual revolution.  Gone was the fear of unwanted pregnancy. Along came the assumption that sexual problems were the result of hang-ups, and that relaxing the strictures and structure would free everyone to live in a kind of sexual utopia. Well, the so-called utopia is here, and older women have reason to be alarmed at the dangers young women are bringing upon themselves. These girls are treated as objects just as surely as in any earlier generation. It's pre-liberation treatment in post-liberation disguise."

Glad to see this in a major newspaper.

The Big Debate on Pornography

Halloween may be over, but the memory still lingers.

Especially since there are college coeds who still seem to feel compelled to dress up in catsuits in order to go out. Then there are those who look like bunnies whether it's Halloween or not. The normalization of pornography is clearly influencing how your average young woman presents herself.

If you haven't seen it already, check out Wendy Shalit's review of Ariel Levy's book and this Slate debate on pornography. I've been wanting to weigh in on this for a long time.

Now, I'm not one who has time anymore for all academic/intellectual banter (I thankfully left it behind at Cambridge).  But I would simply take this approach:  what is "sex"?  if it's something  that ranks on your list of delicacies--good wine, a nice movie, a chunk of cheese, designer clothes, a means of pleasure alone--then there's nothing to talk about.  I like this kind of pasta and you don't.   If it's going to be relegated to such, then the damage is already done.  You might as well pass the baton to the most experienced and have them print a Zagat's of role-playing masochistic expression.  In which case, pornography can run the gamut of Denny's 24hr take out or Chili's (nothing more upscale, I'm afraid).

But if it's something more--a means by which two people, in search of ultimate commitment, strive to successfully survive life's challenges and grow into an entity greater than the sum total of its parts (and this does not infringe on the quality, if anything it enhances it)-- then pornography is thoroughly an abomination and an utter distraction.  On this plane, it is tantamount to a real  adulterous relationship.  That's why in Jewish sources, even thoughts of another woman while physically  involved with one's wife is considered adultery.  If you're not contributing to the bonds of love and heights of giving, then swing from chandeliers if that's what you need, but don't talk to me about anything  meaningful.

I wish they'd give it a different name altogether.

Clearly, society at large has lost all recognition of what real intimacy could be, let alone even spot it  somewhere on the radar of life's goals.   Could you imagine seeing your spouse as the last tennis partner you'll ever have?  I mean, there's only so far you can go with playing the same opponent over and over again. If you want to see it that way, you're bound to get bored. I teach on a Ivy League campus with my husband and talk to scores of young women about their personal lives, and I would beg any "academic feminist" to do the same. When you get under the skin (yes, intended) of the challenges to coeds' wounded dignity, you'll stop playing laboratory sociologist and cry your eyes out just long enough to empower these girls to reinstate the chastity belt!  Each of the dozens of girls that I've known deeply would, by their own volition, relish the opportunity to invest in their sense of self worth by raising the stakes of their sexuality.  None of them think the answer is a power struggle.  They just want to be women.  But they don't know how.

I think being a bunny or a cat year-round is poor consolation.

Trump Fires Suspected Virgin

Without getting into the sloppy, soap-operaesque details of it all, let's just say that on this particular episode of "The Apprentice," when it came time to do the firing, there was a brief exchange of words in Donald Trump's (fake) board room that was so egregious, it could be the subject of a hefty dissertation.

In this particular episode, Adam, 22, a young man who happens to be conservative and Jewish, has his leadership abilities called into question because of his questionable sexual experience.

Throughout the show, people hinted that Adam might be a virgin but it was never explicitly stated. The task this round involved teaching a workshop called, "Sex in the Workplace," which was intended to focus on how to deal with workplace romance. Adam's team lost the task and when facing Trump in the boardroom, the following discourse took place:

TRUMP: Adam, let me ask you this question.

ADAM: Yes sir.

TRUMP: Have you ever had sex before?

ADAM: Honestly Sir, I don't feel comfortable answering that question.

TRUMP: Because don't you think that you sort of put yourself in a very bad position talking about sex and something that you're just not very familiar with?

ADAM: I think that I put myself in a difficult situation in the beginning, but I was able to take that difficult situation and make it into an even more productive class and more interesting.

TRUMP: How can you be afraid to talk about sex? I mean, sex is like not a big deal. How can you be afraid?

ADAM: And I've come a long way throughout this process. In the very beginning I was extremely uncomfortable with the whole idea of it. But by the end, I bought into it and realized how important of a subject this [Sex in the Workplace] is and I embraced it.
...................
TRUMP: Listen, Adam isn't good with sex. You might be in ten years, but right now, you don't feel comfortable with sex. Do you agree with that?

ADAM: I agree with you sir.

TRUMP: You will. Someday, you will. It's gotten me into a lot of trouble, Adam. It's cost me a lot of money. You understand that? You'll probably be there. In many respects, I hope you are. Because there's nothing else like it.

Adam: Thank you very much.
.....................
Aye.

In watching the entire scene again, there is so much gone wrong, but let's just state the obvious: gross. I cannot tell you how many other mental images I'd rather have in my head right now besides Donald Trump's sex life. Thanks for that, NBC. The viewers' emotional scarring aside, in that brief and somewhat staged exchange we learn some very important lessons:

1. Apparently, abstaining from something is a sign of weakness.
2. Sex is no big deal. In fact, it's just sex.
3. You have to have experienced something to be able to form an intelligent opinion on the matter. (Starting today, let's all go out and break the law so we can speak intelligently on it at the Sunday night dinner table.)
4. Maturity is determined by age divided by number of sexual escapades.
5. Due to nominal financial success (we'll turn a blind eye to the multiple bankruptcies) Donald Trump's life and reputation is a stellar example of how to carry on as a man.

And to think, that was only 7 minutes worth of television damage. I often hear people question just what the "big deal" is. When we talk about the culture war, is it just some figure of speech derived from vain imaginations? Absolutely not; the culture war is real and takes place right before our eyes. We find that more and more, our belief system is being formed by what we see and not what we know. This scene on "The Apprentice" is a minor example of how "relative" truths creep into every orifice, presenting themselves in ways that leave little room for disagreement. Human nature tends not to question the damaging realities presented before us. Changing the face of the status quo--that's what the culture war is about.

Please, No More Grandma-Sausages

Madonna recently talked about how she's changed, but has she?  I'd like to see more singers and actresses speak out about the entertainment industry standard of dressing women like prostitutes.  The men get to cover up and wear normal clothes, but the women have to be almost naked.  How about some variety in dress?  How about singers and actresses wearing knock-out elegant clothing that doesn't show everything?   Think Jackie O or Audrey Hepburn.  We don't have elegant role models anymore, instead we have women in their 60's (Dyan Cannon and Goldie Hawn) squashing themselves into tight dresses like sausages, trying desperately to "look young."  Yuckkk!!!!