Organization is key

and all that jazz. 

It's been a hot minute since I published a blog post. Slacker. I've been trying to get on top of stuff - mostly medical and financial, real cheery stuff. Blogging has taken a back seat to some of my other priorities but hopefully as things straighten out I can get going again. Not going to stress about it. 

As I'm trying to change things and get on a routine, I've tried to pay attention to the little things too. I've noticed that things as small as keeping my drawers organized or my bed made etc etc add to my happiness and totally, totally, totally help with stress. So in that spirit... I finally got myself a hanging jewelry organizer. It's not too fancy but it's cute and it does the job and I've quite enjoyed it. Let me tell you - searching through a bin filled with jewelry for a tiny earring was not ideal. I'd end up dumping the entire bin out on to my bed.. and it'd stay there all day because I'd be rushing out of the door without time to clean up my mess. I try not to do that anymore. I procrastinate less and organize more and the little things add up to smoother days. 

And so! Behold:

I cannot put into words how much I love this thing. It's so practical. Practical is good. And! Freeing up that bin which had been holding my jewelry meant I finally found a home for all my nail polish. I threw that along with a few other bins into one big basket with all my self care stuff: 

I know this is incredibly minor/non-blog-worthy, but you know, it's the little things. Also, as anyone who reads this blog (hey Liz) knows, I have depression. Staying very organized is one of the ways I stay on top of it. Maybe I'll write about the other things (reading, routine, exercise, etc) soon. That way everyone who stumbles upon my blog can enjoy similarly short and meaningless posts. :) 

Until then

Charlotte

PS check out this incredibly gaudy ring I found at a garage sale. I normally hate stuff like this but for some reason, I LOVE it. 

Steinem and Albright on Young Women for Bernie: White Feminism in America

Many people, young women especially, are upset with Gloria Steinem. Rightfully so.

In an interview with Bill Maher, Steinem was asked why younger women favor Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. She responded, "When you're young you're thinking, 'Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.' "

To which I say:

Steinem is not the first white feminist icon to shame young women for supporting Bernie Sanders. Madeleine Albright has chimed in as well, suggesting that young women are misguided. Steinem and Albright are part of a growing group of older women invoking the idea of completion, of victory, of an end to the feminist revolution. As Alan Rappeport notes in the New York Times, Clinton herself has started "reminding voters that her election would signal the end of a long road for women." 

If you listen carefully, you can hear the echos of people in the days following Michael Brown's death: We have a black president, racism is over! 

Rather than flocking to Clinton, young women are rooting for Sanders not because we want to "find boys," but because we're not foolish or privileged enough to believe that a woman in the white house will finally mean equality. 

The problem is an old one: mainstream feminism in America is, like all things, whitewashed. In fact, it's not just "colorblind," but impervious to class struggle as well. It's easy to think that a woman in the white house would be the End. The end to a long and difficult struggle, the end to women being deemed less than. I wish it were the case. But's it's not. A black president didn't end racism in America and a female one won't end sexism and misogyny. 

I support Sanders for a multitude of reasons. And I believe that his policies will help more kinds of women. If capitalism falls, I have no doubt that we'll see every other racist and sexist institution in this country start to crumble.

Capitalism is a massive evil that thrives off of human suffering. When a country's economic system is focused entirely on making as much profit as possible, the following things are necessary:

a low minimum wage
few regulations (workplace and environmental)
a strong, large military
militarized police

All of those things lead to these things:

mass poverty
poor schools
dangerous workplaces
environmental disasters
environmental degradation
war
dead teenagers
high prison population
unfair imprisonment

...and much more. One of the questions I ask myself when deciding who to vote for (or whether or not I should vote) is, "What does this person's policies mean for women?" It's not my only concern, but it's a big one. To be honest, Bernie Sanders isn't radical enough. But he's a vocal critic of capitalism. And an end to capitalism would have an incredible impact on the lives of women everywhere:

More choice when it comes to education and work (because right now, a lot of us have to really wonder if it's worth it to get in debt knowing we might spend months or years out of work - less college debt would make that choice easier)

Ability to work (higher wages mean better ability to afford daycare)

Ability to stay at home (higher wages mean a family can survive on one income)

Better healthcare

Less violence (violence against women is a problem in every class and race, but I can't help but wonder if less dire economic struggle will lead to less violent crime in areas that are currently riddled with it)

Less grieving -

Women lose their kids every day under capitalism. Capitalism doesn't see war as a last resort, it sees it as a way to make money via weapons manufacturing and exploitation of weaker countries. If we no longer see through the lens of capitalism, I think we'll see less war. For women that means a. less dead or injured female soldiers and b. less grieving mothers and wives. I am not a pacifist; I believe war is necessary in some cases. However, America starts wars left and right for economic reasons and every time we do that we make more mothers of dead children. We make more widows. Sanders isn't going to magically end all wars, but a challenge to capitalism might strike a blow to the military industrial complex and I am all for that.

War isn't the only way capitalism robs mothers of their children. Our police force has been militarized and our prisons are made to create profit. Both of these issues are problems for all of us, but especially for people of color. I've listened to black women say they're scared to have children. They're scared to have children that will be shot by police. They're scared to have children that will be shipped off to jail for smoking pot - the same offense that leaves many white children with probation. When we cease to have a system that operates with the primary purpose of making money, maybe some of the problems with our justice system will end. I don't imagine for an instant that the election of Bernie Sanders - or even a complete end to capitalism - will make racism disappear. But I do think radical economic changes would eliminate some of the more egregious symptoms of racism in our country. Maybe there will be less dead black boys. If there's even the tiniest hope of that, then you're damn straight I'm going to vote for the person I think can make it happen.

Of course, there are a million more ways that all women can benefit from the changes Bernie Sanders hopes to make. These are just the ones that weigh most heavily on my heart.

And in case you don't ask yourself how a candidate's policies will help women, there are other reasons to vote for Sanders too:

he's better on the environment
his foreign policy (or what it could be if he articulated it better) is more in line with my beliefs
he's better on immigration
he's better on racial issues

My point is that there are a thousand valid reasons any young woman might be supporting Bernie Sanders. Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright are betraying the very people they've claimed to fight for all these years. No, we won't go to hell for not supporting Hillary Clinton. No, we're not voting for Bernie Sanders in the hope to find our husbands. To suggest that young women are naive or that we're making decisions haphazardly is ageist and hypocritical. Bill Maher was right - if he had suggested women are voting for Sanders simply because "that's where the boys are," there'd be hell to pay. I wonder if it's almost worse, though, that women who are known the world over as feminist icons have made these comments. Don't patronize me, Gloria Steinem. I'm not supporting Sanders to impress my man crush; I'm supporting Bernie Sanders because he is, by far, the best candidate for the job.
__
Charlotte

Sex With Just One Person... For the Rest of Your Life

Sometimes I'll read a blog post that's really open and honest and that addresses a topic that's awkward or uncomfortable that I'd be too timid to write about, and I'll think, "I wish I wasn't too timid to be that open and honest and address topics that are awkward or uncomfortable." 

And recently I decided that, uh, nothing is stopping me from doing that. Besides, Liz is basically my whole readership and there's very little I could write about that she doesn't already know.

One such "awkward and uncomfortable" topic that's been swirling around my head for a hot minute? Sex. The reason? I follow a lot of pages aimed at millennials; sex-positive article appears in my newsfeed at least once a day. I also follow a lot of Catholic pages; an article about abstaining until marriage appears in my newsfeed at least once a day. I usually find something misguiding or problematic in both kinds of posts. Two days ago, and this was really the driving factor in deciding to write this post, I read an article that said, "You have to have sex with a lot of people while you're young. You'll get invaluable experience and really learn about your body."

Let me tell you what. You have to have sex with exactly as many or as few people as you want. You do not have to have sex with a lot of people to learn about your body. (Conversely, you do not have to have sex with no people to stay a good and responsible person.)

The article I mentioned probably contained the most straightforward language, but the sentiment it expressed is often found in sex positive articles, and I think it's problematic. And those Catholic articles I've read? They've got good stuff in them just like the sex-positive posts. ...But often, they're aimed at women and only women. Why are only female bodies temples that ought to be protected? Why is virginity a gift to give to your husband? WHY CAN'T WIVES BE GIFTED VIRGINITY, HUH? In all fairness, there are quite a few Catholic bloggers I follow who aren't sexist - self described "hipster Catholics" who dole out Christian sex ethics to both men and women, and who aren't all about that shaming game. I can dig that. 

Now obviously, one person can only have one perspective, and sex is a personal matter. I can only offer my thoughts on this (though if you want to write a post about your thoughts and experiences, do let me know - I'm all for guest posts [subtle hints to Dana and Liz re: Books to Read With Friends posts] and I'd be happy to share it here). 

Personally, I am in the latter camp - sex with one person and just one person is where it's at. I have nothing against people who have had multiple partners or who don't wait for marriage. I'm saying it's what I want. I remember my friend and I sitting at a red light while we were in high school. We were talking about sex and I believe it was our senior year, so we were both about to go to college, which obviously - hotbed of immorality. ;) Somehow our conversation turned to numbers. How many people will you let yourself sleep with? (Yes, I know it's an arbitrary bs thing, but we were 17 so whatever.) I said something along the lines of, "I really only want to sleep with my husband, but I usually fall short of my goals, so I'll give myself 3." And my friend said, "30." Approximately twenty seconds later she sighed and let out, "Dammit, I've limited myself to so few!" And we laughed and moved on to better conversation.   

Funnily enough, my reasoning has nothing to do with religion. I've always been Catholic but I didn't start practicing until I was around 22 (I still am a total novice, too). Before religion was an active part of my life, I decided I didn't want to have many sexual partners. Now that I actually know the Church's teaching on sex, yes, I mostly agree with it. But my original thought process has nothing to do with God or creation, it just has to do with... romance. 

I know, I know. 

But here's the thing. I really, really like the idea of my husband being the closest person to me. There's an emotional closeness between life partners that is different from the closeness between friends. I imagine my husband will be the person I am emotionally closest to throughout my life. I'd like it if he were the person I am physically closest to as well. For me, the idea of one person - the person who I'll build a life with - being the only person I've ever reached maximum emotional and physical closeness with is perfect. I know the phrase "making love" solicits eye rolls and fake gagging, but having sex is being physically closest to the person I'm emotionally closest to, and I think that's terribly romantic.

Of course, there's no guarantee I'll get married, in which case I will have wasted a perfectly good vagina. But let's not think of such calamitous things.

I know sex with one person FOREVA is not for everyone. I get that. But people make it as though it's insane or oppressive to only have sex with one person. That's your choice. There are as many ways to be sex-positive as there are people, and this is just my way. I have friends who have had multiple partners - some have loved it, some have regretted it. I have friends who waited until they were a certain age or until they thought they were in love - some loved it, some regretted it. It's different for everyone.

My personal experience of waiting? Eh. 

For one, my friends. They're simultaneously the most supportive and the most annoying about my decision. They all tell me it's great that I know what I want, yada yada, but.. they can unknowingly be patronizing as well. I've been told I'm adorable for waiting. I don't get mad at reactions like that, but I do get a little internal eye rolling going on. Many have also suggested that I'll change my mind once I'm in a relationship. Maybe, but maybe not. Probably not, actually. I haven't been in any serious relationships, but that doesn't mean I haven't been in situations where I've wanted to have sex. Hello, college. I've come close to having sex. I think there's an assumption among my sexually active friends that if you haven't had sex, you don't get tempted. It can be frustrating when my friends act as though I'm just totally oblivious to sexual desire. It is not easy waiting to have sex. I imagine it'll be ten times more difficult when I'm in a serious relationship. 

Probably the most anxiety-inducing part about having sex with only one person is the thought of how guys will respond to that. I know that it's possible I'll really like a guy, maybe even see a future with him, but that things won't work out because he wants to have sex. I have two guy friends that know I don't have sex (and, um, I guess more now that I've posted this) and they don't think it's bad or weird, but they're also not romantically interested in me, so.. it's different. I'd be lying if I said I don't sometimes wonder if I'm getting to a point where the men my age are not going to be interested in waiting until marriage. We'll see, I guess. 

Another really crappy thing is that society at large acts as though not having sex means you're not an adult. I had a friend literally tell me I wasn't really an adult because I haven't had sex. Mother effer, I've been through more in my life than most 40 year olds I know. I am definitely an adult. I am mature, I am responsible (mostly), I am 24 years old, and I certainly have adult bills. I'd like it if this friend tried telling some 60 year old nun or priest s/he wasn't an adult.

I do get a lot of questions from my sexually active friends. Probably the most frequently asked question is if I'm going to teach my kids that they should only have sex within marriage. Which... I'm like years and years away from dealing with that, but can I give it a tentative yes? I haven't planned it out, and obviously my future hypothetical kids will also have a father and this would fall under the umbrella of things parents decide together. I guess my best answer is that I'd teach my kids that I believe sex is best when it's with someone you love (which happens to be what most of my friends have told me). I'd want them to be sex-positive and to know that I'm going to love them whether they wait for marriage or not. I don't know! I get that my friends are curios, but this is a weird question to think about since it's not even close to being a real situation for me yet. 

The second thing almost all of my friends have asked is if I'd marry someone who has had sex. While of course I've already laid out my feelings on the romance of one person, the answer is yes, I would marry someone who has had sex. I don't think I'd be comfortable dating someone who has a completely opposite idea of sex from my own idea, though. I have friends who think sex is just some great fun thing to do for pleasure, and nothing more. That's fine! But I'm not going to marry or build a life with my friends, so there are certain differences that truly don't matter. It's a little different, I think, with a husband (or serious boyfriend). I don't need him to have never had sex, but I would prefer that we value sex similarly - both seeing it as something that's important. Does that make sense? 

As not fun as it is to try and wait, there are a few "add on bonuses" as I call them. Little advantages to only ever having sex within marriage. None of these things would make me decide to wait, but they're silver linings, I guess. Like, I don't have to worry about antibiotics screwing up my birth control! Also, unless future husband has something, I don't have to worry about catching things. I also have horrible luck - so you know how bc is deemed 99.9% effective? I wouldn't put it past myself to be the .1% that gets pregnant. I'm glad I don't have to worry about that (not that I don't want kids, but you know, I wouldn't be able to handle a baby right now). I have endometriosis so my period is irregular. If I was having sex I would always think I might be pregnant. It would be scare after scare and it wouldn't be good for my blood pressure. 

It aggravates me that society simultaneously acts as though people who wait to have sex until marriage are the pinnacle of morality (we're not, and I'm perfectly capable of being an asshole sometimes) while also mocking us for waiting. Neither of those things are right. When it comes down to it, people should do what they think is best for them. This is best for me. Even if I have to endure the occasional friend balking at me when I say a guy is sexy or, God forbid, I say I want to look sexy. Even with that. 

__

Charlotte